Three Soviet stooges and why Ukraine may be better off without Crimea.

Anyone with a passing interest in the "the most seismic geopolitical event since 9/11", learned quite a bit about Ukraine, Crimea, and Russia over the weekend.  In particular we learned how three Soviet stooges have done enormous damage to the small semi-autonomous region of Crimea over the last 75 years. The most recent destabilizing damage was just inflicted on the region by Vladimir Putin (stooge "Larry"). Yeah, I know - The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) is long gone so, strictly speaking, Putin is not a "Soviet" stooge. He just plays one on the world stage.  Here is the stage where we find him performing his schtick today:

The important part of this map is that brown bit hanging out the back end of Ukraine. That is Crimea, the region of Ukraine recently annexed by Russia. You'll note it is the only part of Ukraine shaded brown - i.e. Crimea is the only region of Ukraine with a majority ethnic Russian population.  Among the Crimean population not ethnic Russian, are the original inhabitants of the region - the Crimean Tatars. The history of why this region has a majority ethnic Russian population and why it is (was?) part of Ukraine is an important story. To understand that story, we need to go back to our Soviet stooges.

Choosing Sides in the Immigration "GOP Civil War" (Spoiler Alert - I'm with Will)

Grandma and Grandpa Dividist

Apparently there is a "civil war" in the GOP over the issue of immigration reform. George Will has chosen sides. In a recent WaPo column, he carefully, deliberately, logically, demolishes GOP arguments against doing comprehensive immigration reform now:

Come back 4th Amendment. We miss you. Yes, we overreacted and hurt you. We're sorry. We didn't mean it. It won't happen again. Really.

The 4th Amendment is staging a comeback. It's been a long time coming.

Today Rand Paul launched a class action lawsuit against the NSA:

"In 2013, the revelation that the National Security Agency was collecting and storing the metadata from the phone calls and e-mails of millions of American citizens -- without any suspicion of criminal activity -- served as a striking wake-up call for the country. Americans do not like to think of their government as some Orwellian leviathan, engaging in surveillance tactics that we only expect to see in oppressive autocracies. That such surveillance could be going on in what is ostensibly the freest nation in the world is a chilling thought indeed... For all these reasons, we have elected to file a class action suit on behalf of all Americans whose rights have been violated by the NSA's unconstitutional spying programs. We are requesting a ruling confirming that the blanket collection of Americans' telephone metadata without reasonable cause violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and requiring that these programs be halted immediately and that all previously collected data be purged from government databases. It's time to hold government officials accountable for their habitual trampling on the Constitution and on our rights as individuals. Our case will be an important step down the road of restoring our Constitution and reining in our own overreaching federal government."

For anyone so inclined, the complaint is a long, legalistic, but interesting read:

The Dividist is IN. Not sure if signing the form makes us a party to Rand Paul's class action lawsuit or  a potential donor, or political spam fodder or all of the above. But we're in, nevertheless.

Yesterday saw "The Day We Fight Back Against Mass Surveillance" on-line protest.  We also signed up on that website. Clicked the banner, sent automatic e-mails and placed a call to my congresscritter in D.C. Posted the graphic here and linked to the site:

Dialogues on Divided Government - Gerrymandering & The Liberal Lament

Illinois Congressional District 4 - Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D)

Since the Dividist abandoned the periodic "carnival" compilation of divided government punditry,  we'll instead highlight any individual posts and articles we find that offers an interesting take on divided government. This may (or may not) become a regular feature. First up -  Larry Franz blogging at Wherof One Can Speak and his lament "We Should Expect Divided Government For a Long Time"

Among the annoyances confronting those subscribing to a left-of-center worldview is the fact that the American electorate inconveniently continues to elect republicans to majority control in the House of Representatives.  Liberals are fond of lecturing anyone who will listen that America is a center left country, that enlightened liberal democratic policies are better for all Americans, that republicans are on the wrong side of history, that shifting demographic favor a permanent democratic party majority, that republicans hate women, blacks, hispanics, gays, etc. etc. ad nauseum. And yet, despite the imparted wisdom, Americans continue to elect republicans into majority control of the House of Representative.

If you are true believer in progressive dogma you must come up with a reason why, in the face of the obviously superior liberal democratic policies, Americans continue to vote republicans into majorities in Congress. Many progressives resolve this conundrum by subscribing to one or more of these theories:

Live by the pen. Die by the pen.

Is the pen mightier than divided government? 

In the midst of the State Of The Union public relations blitz, President Obama promised to wield his mighty pen in the service of a legislative agenda stymied by our elected divided government. Unsurprisingly this stirred up the loyal opposition. Paul Ryan warned of "an increasingly lawless Presidency".  Karl Rove suggests "The president has to act within the statutory limits given to him by the United States Congress or... we are simply an authoritarian regime". Charles Grassley was "gravely concerned that the system of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution is threatened by the President’s determination to take unilateral action". Ted Cruz  described the Obama administration power grab as a “breathtaking... pattern of lawlessness”. The Christian Science Monitor asked "Is Barack Obama an imperial president?":

"Obama, a former constitutional law lecturer, was once skeptical of the aggressive use of presidential power. During the 2008 campaign, he accused President George W. Bush of regularly circumventing Congress. Yet as president, Obama has grown increasingly bold in his own use of executive action, at times to controversial effect. 

The president has unilaterally changed elements of the Affordable Care Act; declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional; lifted the threat of deportation for an entire class of undocumented immigrants; bypassed Senate confirmation of controversial nominees; waived compliance requirements in education law; and altered the work requirements under welfare reform.... 

Early in his presidency, Obama also expanded presidential warmaking powers, surveillance of the American public, and extrajudicial drone strikes on alleged terrorists outside the United States, including Americans – going beyond Mr. Bush's own global war on terror following 9/11... Obama's claims of executive authority have infuriated opponents, while emboldening supporters to demand more on a range of issues, from immigration and gay rights to the minimum wage and Guantánamo Bay prison camp."

The Dividist is not immune to this line of thought and recently blogged his concern about the administration's bellicose rhetoric:

"Elections have consequences The main message of the last two elections (or three - given the strong likelihood voters will keep the government divided in the 2014 midterms) is that the American electorate do not want President Obama to have the power to unilaterally impose his partisan agenda nor arbitrarily "tailor laws based on his judgment and discretion"

We have also been a frequent critic of President Obama standing on a platform of expansive powers claimed by the Bush/Cheney Unitary Executive legal construct only to champion claims of even broader executive power. To whit, the power to: indefinitely detain or kill citizens without judicial review; expand surveillance of Americans; and execute unilateral war actions without congressional approval. Compared to these examples of presidential overreach, a few executive orders seem like small potatoes.

Mighty Nancy has struck out.

"Maybe I should ask the House Minority Leader." 

Nancy Pelosi is my representative in Congress. Consistent with my divided government preference, I voted for her and supported other Democratic candidates nationally in the 2006 mid-terms. For the exact same reason (preference for divided government), I voted against her and supported Republican candidates nationally in 2010.  Over the years I've had some good things to say about her, and some bad things. Your mileage may vary.

Lately I've begun to wonder how much longer she'll be my representative in Congress. Despite her defiant pronouncement that her "work is not finished" the retirement of two of her long standing allies in the House have fueled speculation about her future.  

This the latest of several problems that dogged the ex-Speaker of the House last week:

State of the Union - The Musical! "How to Succeed as President Without Really Trying"

State Of The Union with phone and pen.  

Welcome to the Dividist's annual coverage of the Presidential Address to Congress - aka State of the Union - The Musical!

In 2007, as a blogging toddler, the Dividist despaired at finding a unique approach to the SOTU when so many other bloggers would be traversing the same ground. The answer came from Bob Woodward. In an on-line Washington Post forum the Dividist asked whether the SOTU had any real relevance. Woodward responded by saying it was "mostly theater." Genius. That was the answer. What better way to frame the SOTU, media and blog reactions than within the lyrics of a Broadway show tune?

The game is to start with a Broadway song then find blog posts, news stories, tweets, essays, and commentary that can be vaguely referenced in the song and link them to the lyrics. It keeps the Dividist awake and blogging throughout the speech and mandatory drinking game.

Good news! The Imperial Unitary Executive is going to "get things done".

It was a good week for presidential power grabs and executive branch assertions of fiat authority.  For our constitutional form of government, not so much. The administration started the week with a PR offensive to assure everyone that the President has a pen and a phone and for some reason this makes Congress irrelevant. Very reassuring.

Washington Times: Dan Pfeiffer: 'President Obama is ready to use every executive action available'

"White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer sent an e-mail early Tuesday to preview President Obama's plan to use his executive power in ways Americans have never seen before. "President Obama has a resolution for 2014: That this will be a year of action," Pfeiffer said in the e-mail, pointing out that Obama would no longer be waiting around for Congress to get things done.  "Instead, the president will use his executive authority, both his pen and his phone, to work with anyone to get things done..."

CBS: Obama On Executive Actions: ‘I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone’

"Calling for “all hands on deck” to assist the economy, President Barack Obama is urging his Cabinet to identify ways to keep his administration relevant ...“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Obama said Tuesday as he convened his first Cabinet meeting of the year.  Obama continued: ”And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward..."

The President summoned the Obamite Minions to rally around this initiative to bypass all that messy congressional legislative unpleasantness in the service of his agenda:

"2014 will be a year of action for the American people — and President Obama is ready to use every executive action available to him to make sure of it... Tell the President you're IN for 2014..." 

 The Dividist filled out the form and told the President he is IN, but he really isn't. The Dividist is actually much more IN with checks, balance and separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch as intended by the founders and codified in our Constitution.

Pining for earmarks, longing for graft, and fetishizing "getting things done"

Boehner and Pelosi at the feet of George Washington Plunkitt.
Tammany Hall got a lot done.

Last week, while commenting on a John Harwood column about Ronald Reagan's negotiating skills, the Dividist pointed to a missing political tool that makes it harder for our federal government to forge compromise:

"Harwood missed another factor that made it easier for both Reagan and Clinton to push a deal through a divided congress. In the Reagan and Clinton eras legislative ideological opposition could be softened through the widespread practice of sweetening deals with earmarks secretly carved out in committee. Lets' call it what it was - a form of legalized bribery to buy votes by throwing money to a district or big contributor. It was slimy. It was corrupt as hell. But it was sure effective in greasing the legislative skids and blunting ideological opposition. It still happens, but not to the degree that it did in the Reagan and Clinton years. The loss of that tool makes the job harder for Obama. Regardless, if the question is where does responsibility lie for getting deals done in a divided government? The answer is that the buck stops in the Oval Office. Full stop."

David Plotz at Salon used Chris Christie's modus operandi as a starting point and takes it to another level. Here he pines for earmarks and waxes nostalgic for just the right amount of corruption in "Politics Should Be Dirtier":

Clinton & Obama admit 2007 Iraq war policy positions were influenced by politics. So was President Bush 2004 Iraq war policy. One is worse.

"Politics has no place in war policy." That's a good one!

A war-time memoir from a former Secretary of Defense  is nothing new.  It is unusual, perhaps unique, for the number two man in the United States military chain of command to publish a memoir while his Commander in Chief is still in office and the war is still going on. I plan to read  Bob Gate's new book "Duty" when available to the general public later this week.  Part of my interest in the book stems from hearing Bob Gates speak at the MPSF Speaker Series last year.

Like most, I've had to be satisfied with observing other's observations of the memoir as excerpts are revealed in the press and political talk show circuit.   Rather than comment on the commentary (there are plenty of pundits filling that role), I'll wait until I've had a chance to read it myself.  However, there is one excerpt getting a lot of attention that deserves a second look.