Warranted Wiretaps

The scale of the problem

The BP Deepwater Horizon oil gusher is a huge problem -- yet it's only a fraction of the real oil pollution in the world's oceans. Compare these two factoids:

Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded April 20, the Macondo oil well has bled 21 million to 45 million gallons of oil, according to official estimates, eclipsing the Exxon Valdez disaster, which spilled 11 million gallons. (SFGate/SF Chronicle.)

Nearly 85 percent of the 29 million gallons of petroleum that enter North American ocean waters each year as a result of human activities comes from land-based runoff, polluted rivers, airplanes, and small boats and jet skis, while less than 8 percent comes from tanker or pipeline spills. (Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board of the National Academy of Sciences, via Oceanworld.tamu.edu.)

So by itself, the Deepwater Horizon disaster has at least doubled the amount of oil that will enter American ocean waters this year. But if this disaster hadn't happened, a roughly equivalent amount of oil -- 29 million gallons -- would STILL enter America's oceans from "normal" sources. And that's just U.S. oceans; many other countries have less stringent controls than we do, and pollute tremendously more.

Deepwater Horizon is an environmental catastrophe. But it's just a blip compared to the amount of oil that enters the world's oceans every single year with no media coverage or public concern at all.

White House Officials' Readout of Presidents' Bilateral Meetings at Nuke Summit

[UPDATED] On Sunday afternoon, senior White House officials held a conference call with U.S. and foreign reporters to debrief them on President Obama's separate meetings with other heads of state during the international summit on nuclear security. Warranted Wiretaps recorded the press conference call in full, including both the initial comments by administration officials and the Q&A session with reporters afterward. The press release containing details of the call is immediately below, followed by audio of the conference call:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_______________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 11, 2010

 

CONFERENCE CALL: Administration Officials to Read Out the President’s Bilateral Meetings

 

WASHINGTON – Today at 4:30pm ET, Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, Laura Holgate, Senior Director, WMD Terrorism and Threat Reduction and Mike McFaul, Senior Director for Russia and the Caucasus will hold a conference call with reporters to read out some of the President’s bilateral meetings today.

 

WHO:            Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting

Laura Holgate, Senior Director, WMD Terrorism and Threat Reduction

Mike McFaul, Senior Director for Russia and the Caucasus.

 

WHAT:          Conference call with reporters on some of today’s bilateral meetings

 

WHEN:          Sunday, April 11 at 4:30pm ET

*****************

UPDATE: Transcript of the call, issued by the White House later Sunday: 

THE WHITE HOUSE

 

Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                                                                       April 11, 2010

 

 

PRESS BRIEFING ON

THE PRESIDENT’S BILATERAL MEETINGS AND THE NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT

BY

BEN RHODES, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION,

MIKE MCFAUL, SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIA AND THE CAUCASUS,

LAURA HOLGATE, SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR WMD TERRORISM, AND THREAT REDUCTION

 

Via Conference Call

 

4:37 P.M. EDT

 

     MR. RHODES:  Thanks, everybody, for joining the call.  We just wanted to take this opportunity to update you on some developments as it relates to the schedule for the next couple of days, and also to give you some updates on the bilateral meetings that have already taken place today as well.

 

     I'm joined today by Laura Holgate, who is our Senior Director for WMD, Terrorism and Threat Reduction on the NSC and has been closely involved in planning this summit for some time; and Mike McFaul, our Senior Director for Russia and Eurasia, who can speak to the Kazakhstan bilateral meeting.

 

     Let me just begin by going through the schedule tomorrow, along with some updates that we’ve made.  Tomorrow the President will begin at the Convention Center with a bilateral meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan.  The President will then hold a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia.

 

Then we have added an additional meeting that we had not yet announced, which is the President will hold a bilateral meeting with President Yanukovich of Ukraine.  This will be the first opportunity for President Obama to meet with President Yanukovich in person since his election.  They spoke shortly after President Yanukovich’s election, but we’re looking forward to this opportunity to discuss a range of issues on which the United States and Ukraine cooperate.

 

Ukraine is obviously a very important country as it relates to non-proliferation and nuclear security.  And the United States and Ukraine have a partnership on a number of security and economic issues that the two Presidents will be able to discuss tomorrow.

    

     The President will then hold a bilateral meeting with President Sargsian of Armenia.  And then he will hold a bilateral meeting with President Hu Jintao of China at 2:30 p.m.  Each of these meetings will have pool sprays at the top of them.

 

Then at 5:00 p.m. the President will welcome the heads of the delegations to the summit.  There will be -- that will be an open press greeting for each of the heads of state and heads of delegation.  Then tomorrow evening the President will hold a working dinner with the heads of delegation.  This dinner will be dedicated to addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism.  We believe, of course, that this summit is necessary to galvanize the kind of collective action that's necessary to deal with what really would be the highest consequence threat to the American people and to global security as it relates to the ability of terrorists to acquire a nuclear weapon and use one in one of our cities or any city around the world.  This would obviously have devastating consequences both in terms of the immediate destruction and loss of life, but also implications for the global security environment after an active nuclear terrorism.

 

     So tomorrow night, to forge a consensus view about the nature of this threat, the President will be leading a discussion with the heads of the delegations about their perceptions of the threat and, of course, what needs to be done to confront it.

 

     We will also hold a briefing tomorrow.  Robert Gibbs will be doing his briefing, along with John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, tomorrow afternoon at the Convention Center, so that John Brennan can help walk you through the United States’ assessment of the threat of nuclear terrorism.

 

     Just two additional announcements as it relates to scheduling updates.  On Tuesday, in addition to the meetings which we’ve already briefed you on as it relates to the summit schedule, the President will meet on a bilateral basis on the margins of the summit with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, a NATO ally and a partner on a number of critical regional and global security issues.

 

And then the President, after the conclusion of the summit and his press conference, will host a bilateral meeting with Chancellor Merkel of Germany.  Obviously Germany is one of America’s closest allies.  And Chancellor Merkel has been one of the President’s closest partners on a number of security and economic issues.  And they are happy that they were able to find this time to meet on a bilateral basis after the summit’s conclusion.

 

     With that, I'll just turn to what’s taken place today before I turn it over to my colleagues.  The President held his first bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Singh of India.  This was Prime Minister Singh’s first visit to the United States since he was hosted here for an official visit and State Dinner in November.  The President believes that the strategic relationship and partnership that the United States has with India is one of extreme importance to the United States and to the world.  And the two leaders discussed the upcoming U.S.-India strategic dialogue as a next step and a process of deepening that partnership.

 

They discussed a range of issues on development, food security and poverty reduction.  They also discussed the situation in Afghanistan and their shared commitment to work for a strong, stable, and prosperous South Asia.  President Obama thanked Prime Minister Singh for India’s continued humanitarian and development assistance in Afghanistan.

 

     And of course, they discussed a range of issues related to nuclear security in advance of the summit, and India’s commitment to making the summit a success.  And I believe that those discussions will, of course, continue between the President and his counterparts as they head into the working meetings of the summit.

 

     Of course, India has a very strong appreciation for the importance of non-proliferation and nuclear security, and the threat posed by nuclear terrorism.

 

     The President then met with President Nazarbayev, and before I turn to Laura and Mike to speak to that meeting, I'll also just say that he’s currently meeting with President Zuma of South Africa, and this is the first opportunity that he’s had to host President Zuma here in Washington for a bilateral meeting.

 

     We, of course, in addition to the close partnership that the President has developed with South Africa on issues such as development and climate change, are also underscoring the example that South Africa has set to the world as it relates to non-proliferation.  South Africa gave up its nuclear weapons capability and chose to meet its international non-proliferation obligations in one of the most important and dramatic non-proliferation developments that we’ve seen take place.

 

     Of course, South Africa has found greater security and prosperity within the international community as a result of that decision.  And again, the President believes strongly that this speaks to the benefits that nations can find when they do choose to meet their non-proliferation obligations.  So he, in addition to having a bilateral discussion about a number of issues where we’re cooperating very closely with South Africa -- whether it’s on implementing the Copenhagen Accord on Climate Change, pursuing developments in the region, and addressing another range of security and economic issues that we can read out to you after that meeting in some more detail -- I just wanted to underscore the importance that the President places on South Africa’s example as it relates to non-proliferation.

 

     With that, I'll turn it over to Laura, who can speak to the nuclear aspect of the Kazakhstan bilateral meeting, and then Mike can speak to some of the other issues that came up at what was an important meeting for the President.

 

     So I'll turn it over to Laura Holgate right now.  Thanks.

 

     MS. HOLGATE:  Thanks, Ben.  The meeting with President Nazarbayev, in connection with the nuclear peace as it related to, obviously, Nazarbayev’s personal and Kazakhstan’s historical participation in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, his historic decisions in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union to close the test site, to remove all nuclear materials, all nuclear weapons from his territory, and to cooperate with the U.S. in destroying the residue that remains in Kazakhstan has really been historic and led to a number of important successes in the non-proliferation context.

 

     That cooperation has proceeded ever since then and we are working with them right now in the context of decommissioning a nuclear reactor, of managing the safe and secure disposal of the fuels associated with that reactor.  We’re also cooperating at a different smaller research reactor near the former capital of Almaty that uses highly enriched uranium; we’re working to convert that to use low-enriched uranium that is not weapons-useable, and to destroy the highly enriched uranium that remains.

 

     So this has really been a very warm and supportive and cooperative relationship with Kazakhstan on the non-proliferation front, right at the heart of the issues of the summit.

 

     MR. McFAUL:  Let me just -- I just came from a meeting, let me just echo a few of the things that Laura said and then talk about the many other pieces of this bilateral relationship that was discussed just now.

 

     First, to remind you, this is our first meeting.  The meeting lasted about an hour.  They had spoken when -- shortly after the election President-elect Obama called President Nazarbayev.  They remembered that call fondly and then were glad to finally have the chance to meet today.

 

     On non-proliferation and nuclear safety issues, President Obama praised Nazarbayev as really one of the model leaders in the world, and I think he said something to the effect we could not have the summit that we were having without his presence here.

 

In his own part, it was interesting that they had a discussion about how one can secure -- have greater security and economic prosperity, and it was noted that Kazakhstan is an excellent example of that, whereby giving up nuclear weapons they received security assurances from all the countries in the region, and that has helped to make Kazakhstan one of the most stable countries in the region.  And secondly, by giving up nuclear weapons they went from a country that might have been isolated had they kept those nuclear weapons, and in turn was open to the international economy and has managed to attract foreign investment.  And both Presidents noted that that's an important lesson for other countries in the world, and they particularly noted Iran when talking about a different path and a different way forward.

 

     Second, the Presidents talked about Afghanistan, which of course is a very important issue for the Kazakhs being in the region.  President Nazarbayev talked about their recent decision to start a program, a $50 million program to educate Afghans in Kazakh universities.  He sees this as a major contribution to our efforts there, not only on the military side but really emphasize the importance of building for a new future on the economic and non-military side.  And this will be an important part of what we are trying to do in Afghanistan as well.

 

     He also announced several -- talked about several ways that we can enhance the Northern Distribution Network, which as many of you, I'm sure, know, is one of the critical ways that we supply our troops and our support services in Afghanistan that now accounts for roughly 30 to 35 percent of all supplies that go to Afghanistan go through the NDN.  And today they talked about numerous ways to enhance that, including, as announced today, an agreement to have polar overflights permission for a transit agreement between Kazakhstan and the United States that will allow our planes to fly over the globe directly from the United States into the theater, rather than have to go through, as they now do, through Europe and then through various ways into Afghanistan.  This will save money, it will save time, in terms of moving our troops and the supplies needed into the theater, as President Obama has already announced.

 

     Third, they had a very long discussion about Kyrgyzstan and the very volatile situation there.  President Nazarbayev, of course, knows that situation well.  He knows all the players involved, on both the opposition and the President Bakiyev, the fallen former head of state there.  They talked about ways that we are reaching out to the new interim government; noted that Secretary of State Clinton has spoken to the new provisional head of government, Roza Otunbayeva, yesterday.  I myself have spoken to Ms. Otunbayeva as well, and many other members of her government, with the goal there to stabilize the situation and prevent any further -- any further violence in what has already been a very tragic situation.

 

     President Nazarbayev, being a very well-respected leader in that region, said that he will do all he can to defuse that situation.

 

     Fourth, they had a long discussion about the really excellent cooperation we’ve had on economic issues.  President Nazarbayev noted that the United States is a major investor in Kazakhstan, and he agreed that he would work with our companies to maintain the contracts, the integrity of the contracts that are already there.  There’s been some dispute in the press that they might try to rewrite those in terms of taxation.  I think we came out very assured that that will not happen.

 

     Also today, a major contract was announced between General Electric and the Kazakh rail officials.  They agreed to jointly develop 150 diesel electric locomotives for use both in Kazakhstan and in other countries in the region.

 

     We also discussed, and President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to push for Kazakh membership into the WTO, and also Jackson-Vanik was discussed as well.

 

     Fifth, the President -- President Obama recognized the historic occasion of President Nazarbayev and Kazakhstan’s chair of the OSCE, and we agreed to work together to try to develop a substantive agenda for a possible OSCE summit, although no decisions were made as to whether or not there would be a summit this year.

 

     And finally, in connection with OSCE, the Presidents had a very lengthy discussion of issues of democracy and human rights.  Both Presidents agreed that it’s never -- you don’t ever reach democracy, you always have to work at it.  And in particular, President Obama reminded his Kazakh counterpart that we, too, are working to improve our democracy.  We spent a particular discussion of Mr. Zhovtis, a human rights official, which was -- and the Presidents agreed that we need to try to find a creative solution to solve this very difficult issue.  Mr. Zhovtis, for those of you who don’t know, was involved in a traffic accident last summer where someone was killed, and many human rights organizations has raised this issue about the processes that were used to convict him.  Let’s just leave it at that, the fact that both Presidents had a very frank discussion about this case.

 

     And finally, once we get done with this call we’ll be releasing a joint statement on the summit -- we’ll probably hit the “send” button just as soon as we’re done here.

 

     MR. RHODES:  Thanks, Mike.  And with that we’ll just move to your questions.

 

     Q    Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us about this today.  My one question, the meeting with the Turkish President -- was it announced previously?  I'm wondering if you can talk about how that got scheduled, why that got scheduled and what you hope to accomplish at that meeting.  Thank you.

 

     MR. RHODES:  Sure.  Let me just begin, Josh, by marveling at your ability on these calls to get the first question in.  You've got a great run going.  (Laughter.)

 

     It’s a good question.  And really it was a matter of just finding a time.  There’s obviously a very busy schedule here, 47 leaders and a full schedule of meetings around the summit that the President has to preside over.  You know, at other gatherings where he is not in the chair, for instance, it’s possible for him to do more bilateral meetings.  But because of his role as the host of this summit it’s very important for him to lead the discussions throughout the two days.

 

     But we very much wanted to have this opportunity to consult with Prime Minister Erdogan.  There’s a range of pressing issues that the United States and Turkey are working together on, and I would anticipate that they discuss the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan; that they would discuss non-proliferation issues broadly, as well as the need for Iran to live up to its obligations.  And I would expect that they would discuss the ongoing effort to pursue normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, which the United States strongly supports.

 

     So in addition to wanting to take the opportunity to meet with this important NATO ally, there are a number of issues that I think they’ll have the opportunity to address specifically, including the ones that I just went over.

 

     Q    Yes, hello, thank you.  My only question would be about Azerbaijan.  Is there any specific reason why Azerbaijan was not invited to this summit, since there is a large quantity of nuclear waste in the country?  Thank you.

 

     MS. HOLGATE:  In determining the invitations for the summit we were intending to get a representative collection of countries.  We couldn't invite every single country that has any nuclear connectivity and so we were looking for countries that represented regional diversity where we had states that had weapons, states that don't have weapons, states with large nuclear programs, states with small nuclear programs.  And frankly, nuclear waste is not really part of the agenda of the summit itself.

 

     So there’s no magic to the process, but representative character was our highlight.

 

     Q    Thank you.  On the bilateral the President and King Abdullah of Jordan tomorrow, there have been many reports in Arab media that a big chunk of their meeting is going to be spent on the peace process in the Middle East.  Can you please shed some light on this?

 

     MR. RHODES:  Sure.  I’d just say a number of things about that.  First of all, the President has a very warm and close working relationship with King Abdullah.  It predates his presidency; he very much enjoyed being hosted by King Abdullah, for instance, in Amman the summer of 2008 when he was just a candidate and a senator.  They’ve continued to have a dialogue on a range of issues since the President came into office.

 

     Of course one of the most prominent issues that we work with our Jordanian friends on is the pursuit of a conference of peace between Israelis and Palestinians and between Israel and its broader Arab neighbors.  So the President sees King Abdullah as an important partner on a range of issues and an important partner in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East.  And we know that King Abdullah is very -- can play a constructive role in helping to move that effort forward and we expect that the peace process will be one of the prominent issues that the two leaders will discuss tomorrow.

 

     They’ll be able to discuss the current efforts to get moving with proximity talks between the United States, the Israelis and the Palestinians.  And I think they’ll be able to discuss the steps that can be taken by countries in the region, along with the international community, to support that effort and to strengthen Palestinian institutions and to support the Palestinian people.  For instance, Jordan has helped play an important role in that regard in the West Bank.

 

     So I do believe that issues of Middle East peace will be an important part of that bilateral meeting.

 

     Q    Yes, my question is to what can be done in your opinion to enforce any new measure this time around on nuclear material security, considering that there were two previous conventions that were never ratified by some governments or ignored in other cases -- and I think by that I mean the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material in 1980 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism adopted again I believe in 2005.  I guess my question is how different is this new effort?

 

     MR. RHODES:  I'll hand this over to Laura, who can speak to the specifics of the previous meetings you mentioned.  I’d just say to preface that, the reason that the President felt that this demanded really an unprecedented gathering of world leaders was to instill a greater sense of urgency about the need to take action.  The President believes, again, that the consequences of an act of nuclear terrorism are so significant that we cannot afford to delay action and that we need to be moving forward both collectively, as an international community, and individually to secure vulnerable nuclear materials that we do know exist around the world.

 

     So the first thing I’d say before I hand it over to Laura is simply that this is being done in many instances at the head of state/head of government level, and it’s being done with the clear leadership of the United States in trying to galvanize collective action along with our partners on this issue.

 

     So again, a key reason to hold the summit in its own right was to provide that sense of urgency and a high level attention to the issue of nuclear security and nuclear terrorism.

 

     And I'll pass it over to Laura now.

 

     MS. HOLGATE:  Thanks, Ben.  The two conventions that you mentioned are in fact at the heart of our discussions as we’ve been preparing for the summit.  We’re trying to use the summit to advance, accelerate and give higher profile to the wide range of existing commitments and instruments that already exist.  And so one of the key things we’re trying to do through the summit is to enlarge the number of countries who have, in fact, ratified and implemented those two agreements that you -- those two conventions that you mentioned.

 

     And in particular the amendment to the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials that requires a minimum number that's on the order of 90 countries in order to come into force.  So we’re trying to use this summit to press for those and, in fact, in our own case it’s been -- we have advanced our own efforts in the U.S. to complete our ratification process on those two conventions.  So I hope that we’ll be able to complete that soon ourselves.

 

     Q    I just wanted to know if the list of bilaterals is closed, or is there still a chance that you have some countries -- there have been some speculation that Argentina could have a bilateral?

 

     MR. RHODES:  Sure.  I’d just say that we do continue to look for opportunities for the President to engage on a bilateral basis with his colleagues throughout the course of the summit.  So we provided the additional updates of meetings that have been added today that are now locked on his schedule.  But, you know, we will continue to look for occasions for -- I know he will continue to look for occasions to engage on a bilateral basis with his colleagues.

 

     Of course that can be done in a range of ways.  They’ll have opportunities to speak on the margins of the meals and the summit activity.  But we will continue to provide you all with updates as things are scheduled and we’ll also, again, alert you to bilateral interactions that do take place throughout the course of the next two days.

 

     Q    Hi, there.  I've just got two very cheeky questions, one is a procedural one.  Can you confirm that it’s just going to be -- is it a phone call with Goodluck Jonathan or is it a face to face at Blair House with Goodluck Jonathan?  And also can you confirm with the President told Manmohan Singh that he would support India having access to David Headley when they met?  Thanks.

 

     MR. RHODES:  Sure, I can, on both those questions.  First, I should have mentioned that the President will be seeing Goodluck Jonathan at the Blair House, so we will have a readout of that meeting at well.  But he looks forward to this opportunity to welcome President Jonathan to Washington and to speak with him.  And so when that takes place later this afternoon -- it should be the last of the meetings that the President has today -- we’ll provide a readout on that.

 

     On the David Headley situation, that is currently -- I do believe -- well, I actually don’t -- I couldn’t tell you with specificity, I'd have to check with our team as to whether it came up in the meeting itself.  But I do know that this is a matter that our Justice Department is responsible for and that the Attorney General is responsible for.  So they would be -- they would have the best information as to what the current status is.  I will say that we cooperate very closely with our Indian friends on issues of counterterrorism.  So we addressed these kinds of issues in that spirit of cooperation.

 

     Q    Hi there, thank you.  There have been some reports in the British and Turkish press that the reason why Prime Minister Netanyahu is not attending this summit is within the margins of the summit there has been an expectation of a declaration with the leadership of Turkey and Egypt to invite Israel for nuclear transparency.  Does the White House have a position if something like that, a paper like that, comes up?

 

     MR. RHODES:  Sure, I'd just say a number of things.  First of all, Prime Minister Netanyahu, I think, and the Israeli government, have spoken to their decision related to his participation.  However, they are sending the Deputy Prime Minister, who is the figure within the Israeli government who has responsibility for these nuclear security issues.  So we believe that Israel will be well represented at this summit and will be part of the collective action that we are seeking as it relates to nuclear security and nuclear terrorism.

 

     I'd also say that, as it relates to this summit in particular, it is focused on the issue of nuclear security and nuclear terrorism.  There is obviously a broader non-proliferation agenda that the President, for instance, has been working on throughout the week, as you saw with the release of our Nuclear Posture Review and the signing of the New START treaty.  However, this summit is focused narrowly and specifically on nuclear security and nuclear terrorism because we believe that the threat is of such magnitude that it needs to be addressed on a focused basis.

 

On the issues of nuclear security and nuclear terrorism, we do both believe that there is a broad consensus among nations in the Middle East and around the world on the cooperative actions that need to be taken.  And that broad consensus will help enable the shared effort that we want to see coming out of this summit, and is separate and apart from other issues, including some of the non-proliferation issues that I think you’re speaking to.

 

     Q    Thank you.  Do you anticipate any binding communiqué out of this meeting?  How would you enforce it?  And will you talk about the issue of Iranian sanctions?

 

     MR. RHODES:  I'll say a few things, then I'll hand it over to Laura, I think, who can speak to the communiqué.

 

     Again, I think what we expect to see out of this summit are a number of things.  One is a communiqué addressing the pursuit of securing vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within the next four years, as well as a work plan for the international community to take steps in pursuit of that goal.

 

     I think we’ll also see, over the course of the next two days or so here, specific national actions that will be announced to advance the effort of nuclear security.  So I think we’ll see a number of concrete steps that will be announced in association with the summit and this broader effort.

 

     For instance, we’ve already seen Chile ship its high-enriched uranium out of the country.  We’ve already seen the United States and Russia are pursuing an agreement on plutonium disposition.

 

     So in addition to the communiqué and work plan, I think we’ll see some specific national actions that will be announced over the course of the next couple days we’ll let you know about.

 

     But I'll turn it over to Laura now to speak with greater specificity to the communiqué.

 

     MS. HOLGATE:  Well, to the basic question, the communiqué is not legally binding.  It’s a political document.  It does, however, make reference to a number of legally binding treaties and conventions and U.N. Security Council resolutions that apply to all nations.  And so what we’re trying to do is to raise the level of awareness and attention and participation in those international legal structures as key elements of our toolkit in addressing the danger -- the global danger of nuclear -- insecure nuclear materials and nuclear terrorism.

 

     As Ben mentioned, it will be underpinned by a work plan, which gives the specifics about how the broad goals and commitments of the communiqué are actually implemented and then, again, the various national activities that you’ll be hearing about over the next couple of days.

 

     Q    Hi, this is for Mike McFaul.  When you were discussing the discussion between President Nazarbayev and President Obama about human rights and democracy, you seemed to be suggesting there was some equivalence between their issues of democracy and the United States’ issues, when you said that President Obama assured him that we, too, are working on our democracy.  Is there equivalence between the problems that President Nazarbayev is confronting and the state of democracy in the United States?

 

     MR. McFAUL:  Absolutely not, Jonathan.  To be clear, what the President was saying is that all democracies need to work to improve their democracies.  And he’s taken, I think, rather historic steps to improve our own democracy since coming to office here in the United States.  There was no equivalence meant whatsoever.

 

     What was discussed was, you know, one needs to take concrete steps, and in the particular instance of Mr. Zhovtis they had a very frank discussion about why that is such an important issue to us here in the United States.  And I think that it’s important that they hear directly from the highest levels, not just from people like me, that we’re watching these issues of human rights and democracy very closely in countries like Kazakhstan.

 

     MR. RHODES:  Well, thanks, everybody.  I believe we’re going to be -- I just want to let you know we’ll be sending out paper readouts of all the bilats that are taking place today.  The South Africa one is completed, I think, and you heard the President make some comments at the top of that bilat about the focus of the summit and the goals that he has.

 

     The additional bilateral meetings that will be taking place today are with Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan and then the President will be seeing Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria.  So we will have paper readouts of those bilats coming to you this afternoon.  And then tomorrow, of course, we’ll be moving over to the Convention Center.

 

     So I thank everybody for getting on the call.  We just wanted to take the opportunity to keep you informed of developments, and we will continue to do so.

 

     The other thing that I just wanted to mention that we will be doing, obviously the United States and the entire world have been shocked and saddened by the tragedy that befell the Polish people with the loss of their President and such an extraordinary delegation of Polish civilians and military leaders.  Of course, the President spoke to Prime Minister Tusk to personally express his condolences yesterday and sent a wreath to the embassy here in Washington today from the President and First Lady as well.  And I believe that General Jones and Rahm Emanuel paid a call on the Polish embassy as well.

 

     To mark the solidarity between the international community and the people of Poland at this tragic time, we will have a moment of silence at the beginning of the first plenary session on Tuesday to honor those who were lost and to underscore the fact that the United States and the world stand with the people of Poland right now at this time of such great tragedy.

 

     So with that, again, I'll thank you for joining the call and look forward to keeping in touch with you over the course of the next two days.  Thank you.

 

                                                   END    

Placing a marker

I'm placing a marker, for the sake of posterity: at least four, and quite possibly the necessary five, Supreme Court justices will vote to strike down the individual mandate provision of healthcare reform. Bad law -- but then, it's a bad Court.

You read it here first.

Reconciliation is a Go: Reid Discloses Letter to Mitch McConnell on Health Reform

Issued via a Reid press release earlier today:

March 11, 2010

 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell

Republican Leader

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

 

Dear Leader McConnell:

 

Eleven months ago, I wrote you to share my expectations for the coming health reform debate.  At the time, I expressed Democrats’ intention to work in good faith with Republicans, and my desire that – while we would disagree at times – we could engage in an honest discussion grounded in facts rather than fear, and focused on producing results, not playing partisan politics.

 

Obviously, the opposite has happened, as many Republicans have spent the past year mischaracterizing the health reform bill and misleading the public.  Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies.  At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it.  After watching these tactics for nearly a year, there is only one conclusion an objective observer could make:  these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry.

 

In fact, the attacks on the health care bill are part of a broader pattern.  As has been well documented, your caucus conspicuously shattered the record for obstruction last Congress by demanding gratuitous procedural votes on even the most non-controversial matters, and by stalling the work of the Senate despite the urgency of the serious problems facing our country.  Senate Republicans are on pace to again break their own record this Congress, illustrated by Sen. Bunning’s effort to prevent the Senate from acting to extend families’ unemployment and health benefits even after those benefits had expired.

 

While Republicans were distorting the facts in the health care debate and inflicting delay after needless delay, millions of Americans have continued to suffer as they struggle to afford to stay healthy, stay out of bankruptcy and stay in their homes.  Thousands of Americans lose their health care every day, and tens of thousands of the uninsured have lost their lives since this debate began.   Meanwhile, rising health costs have contributed to a rising federal budget deficit. 

 

To address these problems, 60 Senators voted to pass historic reform that will make health insurance more affordable, make health insurance companies more accountable and reduce our deficit by roughly a trillion dollars.  The House passed a similar bill.  However, many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support.  We will not.  We will finish the job.  We will do so by revising individual elements of the bills both Houses of Congress passed last year, and we plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times.

 

I know that many Republicans have expressed concerns with our use of the existing Senate rules, but their argument is unjustified.  There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation.  As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, “Is there something wrong with majority rules?  I don’t think so.”  Similarly, as non-partisan congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein said in this Sunday’s New York Times, our proposal is “compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.”

 

Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications.  But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform – that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes.  Instead, reconciliation would be used to make a modest number of changes to the original legislation, all of which would be budget-related.  There is nothing inappropriate about this.  Reconciliation has been used many times for a variety of health-related matters, including the establishment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program and COBRA benefits, and many changes to Medicare and Medicaid.

 

As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires.  Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class.  Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority.  Either way, we disagree.

 

Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process.  You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation.  In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote.  If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so. 

 

Sincerely,

 

HARRY REID

United States Senator

Nevada

 

Audio: White House Threatens GOP With Reconciliation, But Won't Invest in Public Option

In an embargoed conference call with reporters early Monday morning, Obama Administration officials unveiled Obama's new healthcare reform proposal -- the first formal proposal offered by the White House after a year of Congressional wrangling failed to produce a deal -- and took reporters' questions.

The full audio of the call, including the complete Q&A with reporters from the New York Times, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and others, can be heard unedited here. Much will be written about the proposal, which one official described as an "opening bid" in advance of next Thursday's bipartisan meeting with both Democratic and Republican leaders -- but two political blockbusters were buried in the wonkish details: 1. Obama's formal healthcare proposal is based primarily on the Senate bill, and does NOT contain any public option (and is likely to smother the nascent Senate effort to push public option through using reconciliation); and

2. Obama's proposal contains a big stick: it was designed, from the outset, to survive scrutiny under the so-called Byrd Amendment and therefore be suitable for passage using the reconciliation process if Senate Republicans filibuster.

On the call were Linda Douglass, Director of Communications for the White House Office of Health Reform; Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director; Nancy-Ann DeParle, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform; and Jason Furman, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council (who was a policy advisor to Obama during the campaign).

Again, audio of the entire call can be heard here. The two key exchanges, however, are excerpted below, in audio:

In response to a great two-part question from Reuters, Dan Pfeiffer admitted that Obama's proposal does NOT contain the public option -- but he goes on to suggest that this proposal was designed to survive the reconciliation process intact, despite the so-called "Byrd Rule" limiting use of econciliation to specific subject matter affecting the budget. (Also note Pfeiffer's disingenuous statement that Obama still supports a public option, at the same time as he is finally offering a bill designed for passage through reconciliation if necessary, that does not contain it.):

Pfeiffer made the threat to ram health reform through Congress using reconciliation even clearer in response to a question from FDL News' David Dayen, saying that health reform deserves an "up or down vote" and saying that "this package is designed to provide us the flexibility to achieve that if the Republican Party decides to filibuster health reform":

So, straight from the donkey's mouth: public option is out, at least as far as the White House is concerned, but Republicans attending Thursday's bipartisan meeting now have a serious White House threat of reconciliation hanging over their heads if they continue to simply block healthcare reform instead of working cooperatively to pass it.

Insider Audio: WH Officials Unveil New Obama Health Plan to Press Before Public

Administration officials customarily release the contents of new proposals, speeches, etc. to the media shortly before releasing them to the public, to give reporters time to begin analyzing the news and writing their stories. Less commonly, but still frequently, Administration officials will hold conference calls with reporters to discuss the contents of major proposals and developments and to answer questions. Usually these press calls are on background, meaning that the identities of the officials involved -- sometimes as high as Cabinet members -- cannot be disclosed. Rarely, however, officials will go on record on a press conference call. In those cases, the quotes and insights you'll hear later on CNN or MSNBC often are redacted editions of the back-and-forth that took place on those (non-public) calls.

This blog began (initially on Huffington Post's "Off The Bus" project, and often cross-posted on HP) in order to begin airing those calls in their entirety -- not to violate any rules of confidentiality (I honor requests to keep information on background, embargoes, etc.), but to give the general public direct access to the raw information used by the press in crafting its reports of current events. If the press is the "first draft of history," then primary sources like this IS history, and in this technological age, there's no reason it has to pass through a gatekeeper or filter before being accessible to the public. 

____________________

Although President Obama initiated the past year's healthcare debate, the White House has never issues a formal healthcare proposal of its own. Instead, it has outlined general principles, but left the sausagemaking to Congress -- which, without strong leadership in the Senate and no more than backstage whispers from the White House, has worked itself into a near-stalemate.

On Monday, however, the White House is set to reveal a comprehensive health plan of its own. (Background stories on Reuters and BBC News.) Before the "reveal," Administration officials held an early morning press conference call to answer questions about the plan, with the call's details  embargoed until the written plan is published on the White House website at 10 am Eastern time. 

It's now 10, and the White House proposal can be read here. My analysis of the call, and the proposal, will be posted separately. Audio of the complete press conference call, with senior Administration officials discussing the proposal's policies and the politics behind them with the nation's political reporters, can be heard below:

22_Feb_2010_05_25_24.WH on Healthcare

Obama, Reid, & the Perils of Governing Without Conviction

Four years ago, I wrote a pair of meditations on my irascible old blog, VichyDems, warning of the harm that would occur if Democrats regained national power without first abandoning the incrementalist, centrist approach advocated so unsuccessfully by the Democratic Leadership Council and instead returning, consciously and assertively, to their traditional, liberal roots. On the one year anniversary of the inauguration of Barack Obama, and the day after Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat was lost to a conservative male pinup with a pickup truck, my fears about the dangers of trying to govern without referring to fundamental principles seem to be coming true.

In the first of those posts, dated March 17, 2006 and titled An Overlong Dissertation on Courage, Strategy, Populism, and Respecting the Base, I expressed my fear that governing without boldness and conviction would do more harm than good to Democrats' electoral longevity. I began by explaining why the conventional distinction between "pragmatism" and "purity" is misleading:

Some "liberal" bloggers and commenters (and many, many "concern trolls" who love to give bad advice to the enemy) express "concern" (it's almost always that word, "concern") that targeting and ousting "Vichy" Democrats will cost us seats we need to win back one or both houses of Congress.

My usual response is this: I don't believe that's the case, because [politicians like] Joe Lieberman ... are more trouble than their seats are worth and if we unseated them, the rest of the caucus would sit up, take notice, and start acting cohesively again, which ultimately will win us a lot more seats than we lose.

The Republicans won complete control of government not by running to the center, but by running to the right and persuading the media and the American public to shift right with them. They don't tolerate defections from the party line; they stick to centrally-distributed talking points and abide by rigid party discipline enforced by a man nicknamed "The Hammer." They don't fall silent when discourse turns discordant; they trot out the Big Lie and repeat it so often that it becomes Truth in the same way that big mountains create their own weather. They won by doing the exact opposite of what the DLC crowd preaches we need to do to win.

It's as if the Democratic leadership doesn't understand how mirrors work: the key to Republican success wasn't in the fact that they ran to the right (and that we similarly must shift right if we want to win); it's in the fact that they ran AWAY from the center -- became more extreme -- and in doing so earned both the support of their base and the trust of centrist voters, who respect people who can articulate and adhere to principles even if they don't agree with all of them.

Copying the Republican formula for success doesn't mean becoming more conservative.... [I]t means becoming more liberal and being proud of it. Articulating, and expecting some reasonable degree of adherence to, a unifying party platform is a good way to articulate principles and win elections, and if that means tossing one or two enablers like Lieberman overboard, good riddance; they're dead weight anyway.

Then I pointed out the danger of Democrats winning power without first reinventing their party along more principled, and more vigorous, lines:

But in addition to the above response, which I believe is true, I have a second reaction to the concern that attacking Vichy Democrats will cost us a potential majority: that until our "leaders" start listening to their constituents and acting like Democrats again, they (and we) don't deserve to be in power.

Until we have our act together and are prepared to govern in a coherent, articulate, unified way, we should stay the hell out of it. Our nation is facing tremendous problems; only a drastic change in course can possibly reverse them. If we Democrats are not prepared to change America's course, however, then it's better for the inexorable collapse to occur on the Republicans' watch than on ours.

My preferences, in this order, are: (1) a dialed-in, unified, energized, liberal Democratic Party in power, correcting American's course and restoring her fortunes; (2) a faltering, dissipating, weakening Republican Party in power, living or dying with the consequences of their past actions while real Democrats continue to rebuild our party in the wings; and (3) a faltering, dissipated, weak Democratic Party in power, demonstrating once again to voters that we aren't ready for prime time and possibly being blamed for a nationwide economic, military and social collapse created by the Republicans but foisted on us.

A lot of intelligent, energetic grassroots activists are working to make sure that (1) above comes true. Most of the Democrats in Congress are working hard to see that (3) above comes true, even though they're too struck with Beltway Blindness to realize that's what they're doing. If they don't catch a clue and start working with us, (2) above is going to occur again in November, and then either (2) or (3) will occur in 2008. And that's simply not good enough. Democrats deserve better. America deserves better.

The reckoning is coming in 2010, not 2008, but otherwise, the crumbling of the national party is occurring exactly as I feared -- and for exactly the reason I predicted. On healthcare, Afghanistan, Wall Street reforms, LGBT rights, and every other issue where they hold both the moral and the policy high ground, the White House and Senate have waffled and compromised.

Even worse, they not only have allowed Joe Lieberman to continue pretending that his interests and goals are even minimally aligned with theirs -- letting him caucus with them, retain his chairmanships, and counting him among the fetishistic "60 votes" Reid supposedly possessed until Tuesday -- but they also have allowed his rebellion to infect others in the caucus. (The reason you remove bad apples from the barrel is that they ruin the apples next to them; Ben Nelson would never have the courage to block healthcare reform by himself.)

By allowing Lieberman to block passage of an institutional public option instead of affirmatively blocking his games by using reconciliation or by mimicking the Republican threat to declare filibusters unconstitutional, as they arguably are; by increasing troop strength (twice) in Afghanistan instead of bringing our troops home; by deferring a decision on Don't Ask Don't Tell, and naming Wall Street insiders Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to oversight posts; by constantly courting the center, placing comity above principle, triangulating instead of leading, and seeking incremental advances instead of bold new deals -- by all these concessions, Obama and Senate leaders have forgotten that courage begets voter confidence and voter confidence begets electoral success. To the extent the debacle in Massachusetts is a referendum on anything besides Martha Coakley's execrable and lazy campaigning, it is a referendum on Democratic leaders' failure to hew to liberal principles.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who knows no legislative strategies besides "compromise", bears much of the blame, as do other senior Senate Democrats. (The House side's coffee is noticeably hotter than the Senate's these days.)

But the ultimate responsibility for the Democratic Party's tepidity, and its electoral setback Tuesday, rests with Barack Obama, who for one year now has governed with an unseemly timidity. In his first year, Obama did not issue an executive order eliminating discrimination against gays in the military, as the Commander-in-Chief unquestionably has the right to do (and as Democrat Harry Truman did to desegregate the military in 1948). He did not go to bat for the public health insurance option when it was on life support in the Senate Finance Committee and again on the Senate floor. He elected (twice) to increase troop strength in Afghanistan instead of acknowledging that Afghanistan is no longer Al Quaeda's base and bringing our troops home. Instead of appointing agents of real change, he named Wall Street insiders Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to key oversight positions and appointed a consummate triangulator and centrist, Rahm Emanuel, as his Chief of Staff.

The bragged-about fact that Obama passed 97% of his Congressional agenda this year demonstrates merely that he played it too safe. As Robert Browning wrote over a century ago: "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

There is a divide among Democratic activists today, between those who urge unity and support for Obama, and those who advocate dissenting at least enough to stop Obama from taking his base for granted and force him to shift left. What some people don't realize is that this divide, between progressive ideals and the pseudo-pragmatic impulse to compromise, is part of Obama's nature itself. The man himself doesn't seem to know which camp he belongs to.

In Joe Lieberman: Barack Obama's "Mentor In The Senate"?, which I wrote on April 3, 2006 in response to then-Senator Obama's embrace of Joe Lieberman over challenger Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary, I discussed the contrast between Obama's progressive potential and his predilection for overcautious triangulation. The questions I asked about Obama's political soul back in 2006 -- about whether Obama would choose the old-school Democratic path of triangulation and compromise, or would save the party by leading a resurgence of Progressive ideals and courage -- are even more pressing today:

I want to like Barack Obama. His riveting, energizing speech at the last Democratic National Convention converted him from an attractive Senate candidate into the leading Democratic candidate for first African-American Vice-President and, eventually, President. His statement that "we worship an awesome God in the blue states" not only articulated the beliefs of that misunderstood, underrepresented and vital majority of Democrats and Independents who possess some sort of religious faith, but his use of evangelical "code" language -- "awesome God" -- reclaimed territory we had ceded to the Republicans and showed that not all Democratic politicians are tone deaf to religious nuance. I really want to like Barack Obama.

But then I read things like the following, which comes from an otherwise-delightful New York Times article about Democrats ignoring and even booing Joe Lieberman at a recent event:

[H]owever, the audience was riveted as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the guest speaker at the $175-a-plate dinner, stood on the podium and began the customary round of recognition of candidates and incumbents in the room.

When he got to Mr. Lieberman, who is his mentor in the Senate and who helped recruit him to speak at the event, the applause again was muted. "I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America." 

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."

Joe Lieberman -- gutter of bankruptcy protection for working people facing disastrous health emergencies, supporter of an illegal war that's killed over 2,000 working-class Americans, apologist for hospitals that deny birth control to rape victims -- secretly has a "good heart" and "cares about working families"?

Yow.

Here's what's good about Barack Obama: despite his relative youth and political inexperience, he is in the first ranks when it comes to political astututeness. He understands the game, plays all the angles with a skill approaching genius. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be better than Bill Clinton.

Here's what's bad about Barack Obama: at an age and place in his career where he should still be known for idealism, he instead is known for political astuteness. He has mastered the game instead of the ideals, applies his genius to playing the angles instead of changing the world for the better. The last political operator we saw with Obama's skill was an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. Hell, Obama may even be worse than Bill Clinton.

NOT being a "Star Wars" geek in any way, I hate to say this, but some analogies just leap out at you: Barack Obama is the Anakin Skywalker of the Democratic Party. He's an incredibly gifted young man whose gifts who will do either incredible good or incredible harm to the Democratic Party and to the nation. *** 

This incident is not the only one; Obama also spoke out against the Alito filibuster, working against us behind the scenes by trying to persuade other senators not to rock the boat, and he likewise is lobbying others not to support Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Obama looks good on the outside, but in his short Senate career he has come down on the wrong side of nearly every issue this blog's readers care about.

Notwithstanding the above, I think Obama can be saved. What's needed is for [him to take] ... a nobler path than the one outlined by Bill, Hillary and Joementum. When we progressives recapture the soul of our party, the party may recapture the soul of Obama. Then Obama may be a tremendous force for good. But we need to show him that the path he's currently walking is a dead end.

Please understand: I'm not trying to undercut Obama. As regular readers know, I supported him vigorously in both the 2008 Democratic primary and in the general election, because I believed he was the best, and potentially the most progressive, candidate. I don't regret that choice. I want him to succeed. Hell, I cried when he won in November, and again when he was sworn into office one year ago.

But that doesn't mean I've smoked the hopium. Party unity is essential, but so is competent, courageous leadership. I want Obama to be the best leader he can be; at present, he's falling short. If, as Howard Zinn said, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, then dissent with one's own party's leaders is the highest form of loyalty to that party. (That's why, in my VichyDems days, I blogged under the pseudonym "Thersites"; in the Iliad, Thersites was the courageous soldier who dared to speak the truth about the failings of his own side's leader, Agammemnon.)

For exactly one year now, Obama has been keeping his powder dry, apparently without realizing that, in fact, he has almost no powder left. Political capital unused tends to dissipate like the dew; to be preserved, let alone compounded, political capital -- which Obama had a surplus of just one year ago -- must be invested if it is to be preserved. The fact that Obama's late effort to save Martha Coakley in Massachusetts failed, and that a state that overwhelmingly elected him in 2008 just handed Teddy's seat to a conservative Republican, demonstrates the truth of this assertion.There's a reason Teddy Kennedy held onto his seat for 46 years: he leavened his practicality with principle. If Obama and D.C.'s other Democrats want to retain their seats the way Kennedy did, they need to follow his example.

It's not too late yet for Obama to deliver the change he promised -- and to salvage as much as possible of Democrats' Congressional advantage next November. For example, he doesn't need Congress to eliminate DADT; he simply needs to act like the Commander-in-Chief, order an end to discrimination, and tell his soldiers (including the general staff) to follow his orders. 

Likewise, healthcare reform can be salvaged without any disrespect to Massachusetts voters by the simple expedient of pushing House progressives to pass the Senate bill as-is, with a promise to effect further reforms later this year (via reconciliation if necessary). If that fails, a bold, principled Obama could rock the GOP's world by immediately pushing a singlepayer plan through the budget reconciliation process -- which could be accomplished well before the November elections and re-establish Democrats as a party with the courage of its convictions -- after which Obama could negotiate with conservatives to replace that (to Republicans) intolerable law with a reasonable compromise, including a strong public option, that they would not dare to filibuster (because that would leave singlepayer in place) and that would not be subject to reconciliation's ten year sunset provision. (Mark Kleiman wrote brilliantly on that negotiating strategy here.)

Obama could even do what the GOP threatened to do three years ago by dispatching Joe Biden, as President of the Senate, to declare the filibuster unconstitutional and simply call a vote on any healthcare reform package that can win a simple 51 votes. That may seem crazy, and it may be overreaching, but as a lawyer who's examined both sides of the Constitutional argument, I've concluded that Kevin Drum arguably is right about this and that the "nuclear option" could be exercised -- or at least threatened -- in colorable good faith.

Most readers probably disagree with some or with all of these proposals. That's fine. The point is, bold options remain open to Obama. It's not too late.

But he's losing his window. His choice -- the direction his presidency, and his political soul, will take -- must be made soon. As he surveys the debacle his party has made of Teddy Kennedy's legacy in Massachusetts, and embarks on his sophomore year as President, it's past time for Barack Obama to finally decide what sort of leader, and what sort of man, he chooses to be.

Candidate Jeff Merkley, 2008: If the Rs filibuster, the Dems should seriously consider changing the rules

In preparing for an Oregon bloggers' "meet and greet" with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) this evening, I listened to the audio of an interview I did with then-candidate Merkley at the Democratic National Convention on August 28, 2008. His ideas on defeating Republican filibusters -- emphasizing the need to make filibusters more public, in part to enlist public support for the Democratic agenda, and in part to gain public support for changing Senate rules if obstructionism made it necessary -- were straightforward and potentially effective, but the Senate leadership certainly hasn't implemented them.

Merkley's most interesting line, given the recent effectiveness a unified Republican filibuster has had in weakening the progress of healthcare reform: "You've got to have the public behind you. If the public is behind you and the Rs persist [in filibustering], then the Democrats should very seriously consider changing the rules, because we can't allow our nation to be paralyzed by the irresponsibility of the Republican Party." 

My Q&A with Merkley about the filibuster:

  Merkley also said he was not alone in asking Senate leaders (ie, Reid and Schumer) to force Republican filibusters to be more public:

Of course, the Rs have "persisted" in efforts to filibuster the entire Democratic agenda. Although I expect tonight's get-together will be off the record, I'll still try to explore what Sen. Merkley thinks should be done, from the vantage point of a year in office.

Finally, for kicks, here's Candidate Merkley's judicious take on Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Vichy), who back then was supporting the Republican candidate, John McCain (and who now is responsible for killing the most progressive components of healthcare reform):

Harry Reid's Disingenuous Healthcare Game, Part 2

I'm scratching my head, trying to figure out what drives Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and whether he's being deceptive, or just inept. Walk with me through this chronology of his dealings with Joe Lieberman (V-CT) on healthcare:

 10/26:  Reid announces that his proposed Senate bill, combining three committee bills, will contain a public option.

 10/27:  Lieberman immediately announces he'll filibuster Reid's bill because it contains a public option.

 10/27-28:  I ask Reid's senior spokesman Jim Manley whether Lieberman misled Reid; Manley says no, on the contrary, Lieberman's filibuster threat was no surprise. Reid included the public option KNOWING Lieberman would at least threaten to filibuster it.

 11/2:   Alexander Bolton reports that "Reid staffers" say there's a secret Reid-Lieberman deal; Lieberman's office denies.

 11/3:  Manley confirms to me, again, that Reid/Lieberman have been talking, and that Lieberman's filibuster position still is no surprise. I ask whether Lieberman has hinted that anything besides public option may buy his vote; Manley says no.

 Early Dec.: Gang of 10 works on negotiating a compromise over public option; Medicare buy-in is floated as a possible alternative.

 12/9:   I ask Manley whether Reid and Lieberman have been talking about what compromise would/wouldn't draw a filibuster from Lieberman; Manley tells me "He has been talking to senator lieberman throughout this process."  

 12/11:  Lieberman publicly disses the Medicare buy-in. He also tells TPM's Brian Beutler that he'll filibuster a trigger -- and that he has been telling his colleagues that's his position all along.

 12/12:  Lieberman aide participates in Reid conference call with all senators who will be on 12/13 Sunday talk shows; Lieberman apparently is on board with the party's talking points.

 12/13:  Lieberman tells Face The Nation he'll filibuster the compromise, which should be no surprise given his earlier statements yet allegedly shocks Reid:

 "Lieberman’s announcement, which torpedoed a compromise that Reid helped to midwife, caught the Senate majority leader by surprise. Reid had spoken with Lieberman two days earlier, and one of Lieberman’s top aides participated in the Saturday-afternoon conference call that Reid orchestrates for Democratic senators who will be appearing on the Sunday talk shows. “He double-crossed me,” Reid said stiffly, associates later recounted.

 1/13: The NYT runs a story about Reid including the quote immediately above.

 1/14 (today): Reid tries to mend fences with Lieberman by issuing a press release saying Lieberman has always been "straight forward" with him.

     This is nagging at me. I've been wondering all along whether Lieberman double-crossed Reid, or whether Reid was using Lieberman as his beard to kill the progressive components of the bill in order to win the votes of conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu without Reid seeming like a wimp. I flat out asked Reid's chief spokesman whether Lieberman had double-crossed Reid, and he denied it. Yet now it seems that Reid himself believes (despite his later backpedaling) that Lieberman double-crossed him -- but even that is an unsatisfactory explanation, given that Lieberman's statement on 12/13's Face The Nation was consistent with his statements all along, and with the fact that, damn it, of COURSE Lieberman would screw Reid! That's what Lieberman does -- betray the Democrats, who always, pathologically, then make apologies and take him back into the caucus, like a beaten wife letting the alcoholic husband back into her bed.

So was Reid truly betrayed by Lieberman, and surprised by it -- in which case he's an inexcusable naif who doesn't belong in leadership? Or is this all Kabuki, and Reid and Lieberman were coordinating efforts to moderate the reform bill all along -- in which case Reid has lied to his caucus and failed to fight for the American people?

Serious question. I'd love people's thoughts and insights.

Audio & Document: Council of Economic Advisers' Christine Romer Discussed Jobs and Recovery Act

In a White House press conference call Tuesday evening (embargoed until midnight E.T.), Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer took reporters' questions about the CEA's new report to Congress on job creation through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (Report itself, also embargoed until now, is available here).

As a follow-on to an earlier question about whether any second stimulus would contain a targeted jobs program, I asked Dr. Romer whether any further stimulus might include a Works Progress Administration-style component (i.e., whether the government itself would employ people to work on projects that benefit the community; in the WPA's heyday during the Great Depression, this included everything from road and dam construction, to the building and decoration of Oregon's Timberline Lodge, to literacy and arts projects).

Dr. Romer's answer was expected but disappointing. In short: yes, the Administration wants to create jobs building and repairing the nation's infrastructure projects (which, I'll note, ignores the broad scope of important work the WPA did), but it's doing so solely by giving money to the private sector. My Q&A with Romer is immediately below:

The call also covered topics including the Administration's controversial "jobs lost or saved" measure and relative Q3 and Q4 performance. Economics wonks can hear the full conference call, including Q&A with reporters from the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, National Public Radio, etc., below. (One short section, provided "on background," has been omitted.)