Donald accepts reality: He was out Indians rookie sees on replay that ninth-inning call was wrong

DETROIT -- The first starting pitcher cut from Tigers camp this spring was a blown call away from the first perfect game in franchise history.

For Armando Galarraga, Wednesday's one-hit shutout that should've been far more was just the start of his mixed emotions. When asked after the gem for his reaction, he basically had to shrug.

He's well-known in the Tigers clubhouse for his card tricks. He had to feel like he got tricked out of history in a 3-0 win over the Indians.

"I don't know," Galarraga said. "I'm happy and sad. I don't know."

He didn't know how to react to the call, and neither did many people. Many watching from afar, though, didn't know how to react to Galarraga pitching this way in the first place.

The closest the Tigers have gotten to a perfect game was Kevin Costner. He played the fictional pitcher Billy Chapel in the 1999 movie "For Love of the Game," which revolves around Chapel tossing a perfect game in his final start. In reality, Wednesday could be the start that finally gets Galarraga's career rolling.

He led the Tigers in victories as a rookie in 2008 after coming over in a Minor League trade, but was out of the rotation by the stretch run of the American League Central race last fall. Galarraga had manager Jim Leyland raving about him over the winter, his hope renewed by a healthy arm and a brief winter ball stint, but his struggles to attack hitters made him the first starting candidate sent to the Minors in Spring Training.

The Tigers skipped him in the rotation last weekend for Max Scherzer, and team officials had to decide whether to keep him or Dontrelle Willis among the starting five. Galarraga's previous outing was a relief appearance last Saturday to help him get the feel for his slider.

Wednesday's outing raised a lot of questions around the game, but it answered a big one about Galarraga.

"I want to thank this whole organization for believing in me," he said.

By no means did the Tigers believe he could do something like this. If anyone had a chance to pitch a perfect game in Detroit, the first guess would be Justin Verlander, who threw a no-hitter in 2007. Scherzer might've entered the conversation after he struck out 14 batters over 5 2/3 innings Sunday.

By contrast, the Tigers were simply looking for quality outings from Galarraga. To get there, they were looking for strikes.

Galarraga's previous start was a May 22 loss at Dodger Stadium in which he paid for some hanging sliders that Leyland called "just spinning." He threw an extended side session in the bullpen a week ago at Seattle with a focus on improving his slider, his workhorse pitch, and his sinker.

Pitching coach Rick Knapp didn't know Galarraga had this good of stuff, but he knew he had something good going when he watched Galarraga warm up in the bullpen before Wednesday's game.

"He's the one who put the work in," Knapp said. "He's the one that did what was necessary. He took some small things that I told him and he worked them to the Nth degree."

Galarraga missed with his first two pitches of the night to rookie leadoff man Trevor Crowe. He didn't have another two-ball count until he had two outs in the fourth. He didn't face a three-ball count until Travis Hafner ran the count full leading off the fifth.

"He was just getting in a rhythm," rookie catcher Alex Avila said. "He was in a rhythm all game. You get that first-pitch strike and you can throw whatever you want up there. He did a great job today in that aspect."

Time and again, Galarraga had Indians hitters swinging at the pitches he wanted them to chase, and hitting them for outs. More often than not, they did it early in counts.

"My sinker and my fastball," Galarraga said. "I was just throwing fastball, fastball, fastball on the corners, corners, corners and it was moving really well."

Normally, that fastball hits 92-93 mph on the radar gun. Once Knapp saw 94 and 95 popping up on the Comerica Park scoreboard, he sensed something was special.

It caught the Indians completely by surprise.

"He established his fastball the first time through our order," Indians manager Manny Acta said. "After that, he started throwing that good slider that he has. I think our hitters were looking for that slider early in the game and never saw it until late. He did a good job keeping the ball down, every one of them, and made our guys pound the ball into the ground the whole night. He deserves a lot of credit."

The pitch counts were astounding -- nine in the opening inning, 10 each in the second, third and fifth, eight in the sixth and six in the seventh. Galarraga's high counts until the ninth were an 11-pitch fourth and eighth.

Face just 24 batters through eight innings, and the pitch count is going to be low. Still, Galarraga entered the ninth with just 75 pitches thrown.

By then, he was well aware of what was going on.

"Coming into the eighth, I got out of the inning really quick," Galararaga said. "I was like, 'You've got this.'"

He had plenty of time to himself to think about it in the dugout. He was at the far end; everybody else was closer to the stairs.

"Nobody talked to me," Galarraga said. "But you got the feeling everybody in the dugout was like, 'Leave him alone and let him do his thing he was doing every inning.'"

Galarraga went out for the ninth looking to do the same thing, get ahead in the count on Mark Grudzielanek. But the 38-year-old Grudzielanek surprised him by swinging at the first pitch and driving it to left-center field. What could've been a confidence-shatterer turned into a boost with Austin Jackson's over-the-shoulder catch.

"When Jackson made that play," Galarraga said, "I was like, 'Come on, Armando, finish what you start.' For myself, I know I finished."

Galarraga needed two outs for the first perfect game by a Tigers hurler, and the first for a Venezuelan-born player. Mike Redmond's grounder to short brought it down to one out.

Galarraga made a mad dash to first base to cover the bag when Miguel Cabrera ventured out to field Jason Donald's ground ball. When first-base umpire Jim Joyce ruled he didn't get to the bag in time, the emotion on Galarraga poured out.

"He was telling me that after the call he was so nervous over the last couple innings of the game that he didn't know how to react," Avila said.

Instead, he just smiled.

"I think it's a nervous thing," Galarraga said. "I'm so nervous, I smile. You see that play, I was nervous. I didn't know whether to smile or punch [Joyce]. It would be worse if I punched him, so I'm happy I smiled.

"I know nobody's perfect. What are you going to do? I was mad in the moment because I was nervous. I didn't know what to do. I was like celebrating. Then I looked at him."

Galarraga was emotionally numb, but he wasn't finished. He still had an out left to go, and he still had a shutout. Leyland had closer Jose Valverde warmed up, but he wouldn't have dared, not at that point.

Galarraga could've easily come apart after that. Instead, he threw five more pitches, got a groundout from Crowe, and got his win.

"I don't know what happened," Galarraga said. "I just threw one strike and a slider and something like that. I didn't even think. I just threw the ball and tried to get out of the game."

Jason Beck is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

Almost perfect night

Complete coverage
• Missed call ends bid
• Galarraga rewards faith 
• Pitcher perfect to Tigers 
• A-Jax grab one for ages
• Donald shows hustle 
• Call part of ump's legacy
• Instant call for replay
• Umps feel Joyce's pain
• Donald admits he was out
• Joyce touched by support
• Memorable loss for Tribe
• Indians tip caps
• Galarraga meets Joyce
• Gammons: Civility wins
• Galarraga shows class
• MLB to discuss saga
• Selig, league respond
• Media weighs in
• MLB statement

Sources: Commissioner Selig Reviews Galarraga Game

Major League Baseball sources with direct knowledge of the meeting confirm that key members of baseball's hierarchy were to convene this morning in New York to review the circumstances of Umpire Jim Joyce's erroneous "safe" call at first base in Detroit, which last night denied the Tigers' Armando Galarraga what would have been the 21st Perfect Game in baseball history and the third in just 25 days.

There was considerable doubt that Commissioner Bud Selig felt he could or should intervene in overturning the results of an umpire's on-the-field ruling. The Detroit News reported that the Tigers might be contacting MLB in hopes of remedying what umpire Joyce later admitted, clearly and emotionally, was a wildly incorrect call. The News quoted Tigers' General Manager Dave Dombrowski as saying "I wouldn't get into telling you what I would do. That's a private matter. He shouldn't have missed it. It's a shame for the kid..."

Baseball sources said that as of late morning, the Tigers' opponents, the Cleveland Indians, had not contacted the Commissioner's office. Their support of any change to last night's call might be a key factor.

"This isn't a call," Joyce said afterwards, "this is a history call. And I kicked the **** out of it, and nobody feels worse than I do...I took a perfect game away from that kid."

Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated and MLB Network tweeted that Commissioner Selig was "involved" and his office would have a statement at some point today.

Some in the Commissoner's office were to urge Selig to declare that with Joyce's admission, the 27th out of the game was recorded when Cleveland's Jason Donald grounded out, first baseman Miguel Cabrera to pitcher Galarraga, covering first. The base hit credited to Donald, and the following at bat, by Cleveland's Trevor Crowe, would be wiped off the books and thus Galarraga would be credited with a perfect game.

There is precedent for the Commissioner's Office to decide what is, and isn't, a perfect game. On September 4, 1991, a so-called "Statistical Accuracy Committee" ruled that the game would only official recognize as perfect games, ones in which pitchers retired 27 (or more) consecutive batters and completed the game without a batter reaching first base. The ruling wiped off the books the 1959 game in which Harvey Haddix of Pittsburgh pitched 12 perfect innings, only to lose the game to Milwaukee on a base hit. It also erased the 1917 game in which then-pitcher Babe Ruth of the Boston Red Sox had walked the lead off batter, then been ejected by the umpire for arguing the call. Reliever Ernie Shore entered the game with none out and that runner on first, who was promptly caught stealing. Shore then retired the 26 batters he faced, and had, at the time of the Commissioner's Office ruling, been credited with a perfect game for more than 74 years. 48 more no-hit games were also erased by the re-definition of the rules.

There are also countless instances of umpires' on-field decisions being reviewed and even overruled by the now dormant offices of the Presidents of the American and National League. One such review confirmed a controversial "out" ruling that ultimately decided the 1908 NL pennant. More recently, in 1983, after Kansas City's George Brett had hit a two-out, 9th inning home run to bring his team from behind to ahead in a game in New York, umpire Tim McClelland determined that Brett had broken the rules by having the gripping substance "pine tar" further up his bat than rules permitted. McClelland nullified Brett's home run and called him out for the final out of the game. Within days, American League President Lee MacPhail had overruled McClelland, declared the home run valid, and ordered the game replayed, more than a month later, from the point directly after Brett's home run.

The danger of a government with unlimited power

By George F. Will

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Today, as it has been for a century, American politics is an argument between two Princetonians -- James Madison, Class of 1771, and Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879. Madison was the most profound thinker among the Founders. Wilson, avatar of "progressivism," was the first president critical of the nation's founding. Barack Obama's Wilsonian agenda reflects its namesake's rejection of limited government.

Lack of "a limiting principle" is the essence of progressivism, according to William Voegeli, contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books, in his new book "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State." The Founders, he writes, believed that free government's purpose, and the threats to it, are found in nature. The threats are desires for untrammeled power, desires which, Madison said, are "sown in the nature of man." Government's limited purpose is to protect the exercise of natural rights that pre-exist government, rights that human reason can ascertain in unchanging principles of conduct and that are essential to the pursuit of happiness.

Wilsonian progressives believe that History is a proper noun, an autonomous thing. It, rather than nature, defines government's ever-evolving and unlimited purposes. Government exists to dispense an ever-expanding menu of rights -- entitlements that serve an open-ended understanding of material and even spiritual well-being.

The name "progressivism" implies criticism of the Founding, which we leave behind as we make progress. And the name is tautological: History is progressive because progress is defined as whatever History produces. History guarantees what the Supreme Court has called "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

The cheerful assumption is that "evolving" must mean "improving." Progressivism's promise is a program for every problem, and progressivism's premise is that every unfulfilled desire is a problem.

Franklin Roosevelt, an alumnus of Wilson's administration, resolved to "resume" Wilson's "march along the path of real progress" by giving government "the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity." He repudiated the Founders' idea that government is instituted to protect pre-existing and timeless natural rights, promising "the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order."

He promised "a right to make a comfortable living." Presumably, the judiciary would define and enforce the delivery of comfort. Specifically, there could be no right to "do anything which deprives others" of whatever "elemental rights" the government decides to dispense.

Today, government finds the limitless power of dispensing not in Madison's Constitution of limited government but in Wilson's theory that the Constitution actually frees government from limitations. The liberating -- for government -- idea is that the Constitution is a "living," evolving document. Wilson's Constitution is an emancipation proclamation for government, empowering it to regulate all human activities in order to treat all human desires as needs and hence as rights. Unlimited power is entailed by what Voegeli calls government's "right to discover new rights."

"Liberalism's protean understanding of rights," he says, "complicates and ultimately dooms the idea of a principled refusal to elevate any benefit that we would like people to enjoy to the status of an inviolable right." Needs breed rights to have the needs addressed, to the point that Lyndon Johnson, an FDR protege, promised that government would provide Americans with "purpose" and "meaning."

Although progressivism's ever-lengthening list of rights is as limitless as human needs/desires, one right that never makes the list is the right to keep some inviolable portion of one's private wealth or income, "regardless," Voegeli says, "of the lofty purposes social reformers wish to make of it."

Lacking a limiting principle, progressivism cannot say how big the welfare state should be but must always say that it should be bigger than it currently is. Furthermore, by making a welfare state a fountain of rights requisite for democracy, progressives in effect declare that democratic deliberation about the legitimacy of the welfare state is illegitimate.

"By blackening the skies with crisscrossing dollars," Voegeli says, the welfare state encourages people "to believe an impossibility: that every household can be a net importer of the wealth redistributed by the government." But the welfare state's problem, today becoming vivid, is socialism's problem, as Margaret Thatcher defined it: Socialist governments "always run out of other people's money."

Wilsonian government, meaning (in Wilson's words) government with "unstinted power," is hostile to Madison's Constitution, which, Madison said, obliges government "to control itself." Thus our choice is between government restraint rooted in respect for nature, or government free to follow History wherever government says History marches.

georgewill@washpost.com

Physician Warns That Arizona Immigration Law Could Turn Doctors Into Criminals

By Andrea Nill at 2:00 pm

Over the past few weeks, medical organizations and health care providers have come out againstArizona’s new immigration law, citing the likelihood that it will discourage a large segment of the population from seeking health care. Yesterday, however, Lucas Restrepo, M.D., published a piece in the New England Journal of Medicine that provided a whole new angle on the effect SB-1070 will have on the medical profession. Restrepo points out that, under the law, health care providers who treat undocumented immigrants could be considered criminals:

The new Arizona state immigration bill (SB-1070) signed into law on April 23 will seriously obstruct, if not undermine, the practice of medicine in the state of Arizona. It specifies that those who “conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor or shield” a foreign person who came to the United States illicitly “are guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor” punishable by a fine of at least $1,000 (Sec. 5, Section 13-2929). It can be argued that health care providers who neglect to report illegal immigrants under their care will violate the law and be considered criminals. [...]
Asking patients to produce immigration documents violates the trust that physicians, nurses, and other health care workers endeavor to earn from them. This bill threatens one of the oldest traditions of medicine: physicians shall protect patients regardless of nationality or race. This legislation, if unchallenged, will force health care providers to choose between the dignity of their profession and the indignity of violating the law.

In his column, Restrepo notes the bill provides physicians (and police for that matter) with no criteria when it comes to what constitutes “reasonable grounds” to suspect that someone is undocumented. As a result, he worries that “health care providers in Arizona will need to ask for a passport before seeing certain patients (and providers themselves will need to carry their own passports at all times, depending on their physical appearance or accent).”

Studies have shown that, on average, immigrants are healthier than US citizens, use less medical care, use less expensive care, and do not impose a disproportionate financial burden on the U.S. health care system. However, accidents can happen to anyone and everyone gets sick at some point. Discouraging or denying treatment of undocumented immigrants in such incidents doesn’t just hurt them, it puts everyone at risk. According to experts, health care access to any population could lead to a health crisis that affects everyone.

Wonk Room previously reported that Dr. Winston Wong — Medical Director of community benefit at Kaiser Permanente — has gone as far as to argue that doctors have a professional obligation to oppose any measure that endangers the care of their patients and the public’s general health, including SB-1070. Last month, medical organizations representing more than 156,000 health care providers released astatement blasting Arizona’s new immigration law, calling it “an affront to human rights and a devastating step backwards for the health and well being of the entire nation.”

Party switcher Parker Griffith, Rep. Artur Davis lose in Alabama primaries

Alabama Republican Rep. Parker Griffith was soundly defeated in a Republican primary tonight, the second party switcher to lose an intraparty fight in the past two weeks.
Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks had 51 percent of the vote to Griffith's 33 percent and 16 percent for Les Phillip with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Although the Associated Press had not called the race, local media reported that Griffith had conceded the contest to Brooks.
Griffith, who had been elected as a Democrat to the northern Alabama 5th district, switched parties last year with promises from House Republican leaders that they would back him to the hilt.
But, he struggled to convince Republican primary voters that he was one of them; he was battered over his vote for Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) as House Speaker at the start of the 111th Congress, for example.
Griffith's problems were a mirror image of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's (D) difficulties in his primary loss to Rep. Joe Sestak on May 18.
Griffith joins Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) as House members to lose their re-nomination bids. In the Senate, Specter as well as Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) have come up short in intraparty bids and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) faces a runoff race on June 8 against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.
Alabama Democrats showed a similar resistance to establishment favorites in the governor's race.
Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks crushed Rep. Artur Davis in the Democratic primary for governor, ending Davis' hopes of becoming the state's first black governor.
"We worked hard, we fussed hard, we cried hard," Sparks said. "Thank you for allowing me to be in the position I'm in."
The Associated Press called the race for Sparks shortly before 11 pm eastern time and Sparks holding a lead of nearly 30 points.
Davis had long been touted as a star on the national stage but his insistence on opposing President Barack Obama's agenda in a failed attempt to keep himself viable in a general election coupled with his long-running feud with the state's unelected black leaders combined to make his showing a major disappointment.
Rick Dent, campaign manager for Sparks, told the Fix that Davis' vote against President Obama's health care legislation "hurt him in the African-American community."
The Republican gubernatorial race is headed to a July 13 runoff. Former state Sen. Bradley Byrne secured one of the spots but businessman Tim James and state Rep. Robert Bentley were separated by less than 300 votes in the fight for the second slot.
Two hundred miles to the west, national Republicans got some good news as Mississippi state Sen. Alan Nunnelee won the GOP nomination in the 1st district without a runoff.
Nunnelee took 51 percent of the vote in the race against former Europa Mayor Henry Ross and Fox News Channel commentator Angela McGlowan. McGlowan placed a distant third despite a last-minute endorsement from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- via Twitter!
Nunnelee will face Rep. Travis Childers (D) in the fall in a district that gave Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) 62 percent of the vote in 2008 and that will be a major GOP pickup target this fall.
Across the country in New Mexico, Dona Ana District Attorney Susana Martinez cruised to a victory in the GOP primary for governor.
"Susana Martinez's historic nomination is great news for New Mexico," said Republican Governors Association spokesman Tim Murtaugh. "
Martinez will face Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, who was unopposed for the Democratic nomination, in the fall.
With Felicia Sonmez


By Chris Cillizza  |  June 2, 2010; 12:19 AM ET

A New Strategy For A New Era

SECURITY

May 28, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Max Bergmann, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Yesterday, the White House unveiled a new National Security Strategy that will serve to guide America's approach to the world. It signals a sharp break from the previous administration whose unilateral, reckless, and ideologically-driven policies left America isolated, overstretched, and weaker. This strategy outlines a clear vision that reflects the the last decade of progressive thought; it demonstrates a comprehension of the geopolitical landscape and of the challenges confronting the United States and the world; and it firmly states that America remains a country at war and determined to eliminate al Qaeda. But importantly, this strategy does not conflate or confuse these threats. Like the national security strategy produced by the Center for American Progress in 2009, "Integrating Security," the strategy recognizes the complex nature of the challenges and the need to use all elements of our power, not just our military, but diplomatic, economic, and cultural tools as well to combat them. Ultimately, this is a strategy about maintaining and enhancing American power and influence. But maintaining America's global strength and position as global leader does not mean working to weaken or aggressively confront other rising powers, such as China, India, and Brazil, because global order is not a "zero sum game." The strategy stipulates that the U.S. is undeniably the world's global leader, but as such its objective must be to work to build a stronger rule-based international order to address global challenges, to get others to do more, and to further global prosperity. The strategy also firmly recognizes America's global strength stems from its strength at home and that the U.S. must always strive to live up to the values and principles that has made America so admired around the world. Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott said it is "the most comprehensive National Security Strategy ever." Yet, while the strategy lays out the path, the challenge will be to follow it. 

REJECTING WHAT FAILED: The new strategy "aims to draw contrasts with President Bush's 2006 version" that adopted a unilateralist bent, advocated preventive war, poorly defined or understood the America's terrorist enemies, and furthered a foreign policy approach that was overly reliant on the American military. The Bush administration's approach left America's military forces stretched, alliances frayed, and image tarnished around the world. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice noted that the new strategy "is a rather dramatic departure from the most recent prior national security strategy." On the use of military force, the strategy rejects the reckless approach of preventive war: "while the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction." And when it is necessary, the U.S. "will seek broad international support." While President Bush overstretched our armed forces and American tax payers, this new strategy as the New York Times notes, "describes a coming era in which the United States will have to learn to live within its limits -- a world in which two wars cannot be sustained for much longer and the rising powers inevitably begin to erode some elements of American influence around the globe." The new strategy also demonstrates a much clearer comprehension of the nature of 21st century threats, as Matt Duss explains, "[O]ne of the starkest differences between the Obama administration's new National Security Strategy and the Bush administration's is its tighter focus on Al Qaeda and affiliated extremists, and its recognition that responding to Al Qaeda with fear and overreaction is playing right into Al Qaeda's hands."

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: The strategy laid out by the Obama administration firmly recognizes that the United States is without a doubt the world's most powerful and influential country, but to maintain America's exceptional status, the U.S. needs a strategy designed to maintain and enhance America's power and influence. the Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman assesses that "every single focus outlined in the National Security Strategy is about the maintenance of American power on the international stage" in an era of rising powers and transnational threats. In this new more multipolar world, the United States must work to build "a rules-based international system that can advance our own interests by serving mutual interests. International institutions must be more effective and representative of the diffusion of influence in the 21st century. Nations must have incentives to behave responsibly, or be isolated when they do not." As Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund notes, this approach on strengthening the international system and isolating outliers "offers a better chance of containing the Iranian nuclear program than the more unilateralist pursuits of the George W. Bush administration." One of the principle differences in the new strategy is the understanding that one of the central goals of U.S. foreign policy must be to shape "an international order capable of overcoming the challenges of the 21st century." Addressing transnational threats like terrorism, climate change, and nuclear proliferation require gaining the support and buy-in of others, as these challenges cannot be unilaterally solved. This approach clearly understands that the United States cannot do everything, making it critical to get others to do more to share the burden of maintaining the global order. As CAP's Brian Katulis and Nina Hachigian argue, "Today, conservatives talk about an outdated conception of power -- saying that to be safe, the United States must dominate the world. Stuck in a 19th-century mind-set, many conservatives view international rules and institutions as an entangling web of interdependence designed to constrain U.S. freedom of action. ... From this perspective, Washington must alone assume responsibility for global security. ... The new national security strategy will emphasize the importance of getting other countries -- especially emerging powers -- to pull their weight when it comes to these shared problems."

FOLLOW THROUGH: While the strategy lays out a decidedly progressive approach to national security, the real test will come in the months and years ahead. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the new strategy argues the U.S. cannot engage in these wars indefinitely, the administration will have to stick to its strategy to transfer authority to local forces and withdraw American troops. The strategy says that America will increasingly have to live within its means, but that will also mean more seriously confronting bloated defense spending at the Pentagon and rebalancing national security spending. In order to stay true to American values and the rule of law, as the strategy insists is vital for maintaining America's moral authority, the administration will have to actually close Guantanamo. On terrorism, the administration must take continue to take vigorous action to prevent global and homegrown terrorist threat, while at the same time pushing back against those calling for discrimination and racial-profiling. It must also resist approaches that enhance state power at the expense civil liberties. To confront the growing threat of climate change, the administration must continuously push for far reaching action. On Middle East peace, the administration must remain engaged, even-handedly pushing both sides toward a two-state solution. While progress has been achieved to eliminate the danger from nuclear weapons, the harder steps are yet to come. Finally, the administration must be ready to work multilaterally to solve global challenges even when it's difficult. As Obama said, "We will promote these values above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; and through our commitment to forever pursue a more perfect union."

Gulf Kill

OIL SPILL

May 27, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Brad Johnson, Zaid Jilani, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Thirty-eight days after BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and killed eleven workers, fifteen to 40 million gallons of toxic crude have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico. Oil from the slick now equals the size of South Carolina and has soiled more than 100 miles of Louisiana's coastline. Fishermen working on the cleanup have "become ill after working long hours near waters fouled with oil and dispersant," reporting "nausea, dizziness, headaches and chest pains." The federal government is "going to bring every resource necessary to put a stop" to the catastrophe, President Obama said yesterday during a visit to a solar panel manufacturing facility in Fremont, CA. "We will not rest until this well is shut, the environment is repaired, and the cleanup is complete." There may be reason for hope on the first element. U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the top federal official overseeing the response, said this morning he is optimistic that the "top kill" -- the latest effort to shut down BP's blown out well -- is working.  Unfortunately, the toxic sludge in Louisiana's fragile wetlands, the slick on the open ocean, and the toxic plumes of dispersed oil underwater are continuing to kill marine wildlife and birds at a terrifying clip. The ongoing investigations into the causes of the disaster are revealing new evidence of decisions to ignore on-site workers and instead take safety risks in order to save costs, and a top BP worker who was aboard the Deepwater Horizon has invoked the Fifth Amendment. Recognizing the national importance of forestalling yet more disasters, Obama today will ban new deepwater wells for six months, cancel exploratory drilling in Alaska, and cancel a "proposed lease sale off the Virginia coast."

IS BP TOO BIG TO CARE?: BP's attitude toward the Gulf catastrophe resembles the shrugs of Wall Street firms who caused the near collapse of the global economy. BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles has expressed his optimism that both his company and the Gulf will "will fully recover," even though Prince William Sound has yet to "fully recover" 21 years after the Exxon Valdez spill. Likewise, BP CEO Tony Hayward -- who received a 40 percent pay raise last year to about $5.8 million -- said he believes the "environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest" because the Gulf of Mexico is a "very big ocean." BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said his company is a "big and important company for the US" and expects that BP will be able to "move on," although its "reputation will be tarnished." Financial analyst Tom Nelson believes BP's stock drop "is a fantastic opportunity to buy a very high quality long-term business on a very cheap rating." Center for American Progress senior fellow Joseph Romm called BP "the Goldman Sachs of big oil" because of its spotty safety record, insistence on voluntary "trust me" self-regulation, and willingness to cut corners to "save a few bucks." The moral hazard created by privatized profit and socialized risk has allowed bankers to cripple our economy and energy companies to destroy our planet. Ten days ago, MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews lashed out at the consequences of "unbridled free enterprise," wondering why the President doesn't "nationalize that industry and get the job done."

RE-EMPOWERING GOVERNMENT:  "[T]he truth is that we have disempowered government and handed vast responsibilities over to a private sector that will never see protecting the public interest as its primary task," Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne worries. In addition to the efforts to stop the leaks, BP controls claims processing, environmental contractors on land and sea, volunteer assistance, access to the disaster site, and data collection. Over the past month, the federal government has let BP block attempts to monitor the gusher, study the undersea plumes, or learn about the dispersants being used. Democratic strategist and Louisiana resident James Carville told CNN on Wednesday that Obama "needs to tell BP 'I'm your daddy, I'm in charge, you're going to do what we say.'" Obama should make it clear that BP is no longer the final decision maker -- about anything," Huffington Post columnist Dan Froomkin writes. "He should also establish that nobody in government is taking anything BP says on face value anymore." The Center for American Progress' Tom Kenworthy and Brad Johnson recommend that the federal government explicitly take command authority away from BP and mobilize the full resources of the government. The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to bar BP from new federal contracts -- including drilling in federally controlled oil fields -- because of its repeated environmental crimes. The federal government should require BP to use its first quarter 2010 profits -- $5 billion -- to establish the escrow account to pay for the disaster response.

FREEDOM FROM BIG OIL: "Even if you hadn't seen the catastrophe down in the Gulf, the reason that folks are now having to go down a mile deep into the ocean, and then another mile drilling into the ground below, that is because the easy oil fields and oil wells are gone, or they're starting to diminish," Obama said Tuesday. "That tells us we've got to have a long-term energy strategy in this country." Congress and the administration must take further steps to end our dependence on big oil. The administration should beef up federal research and development efforts into how to prevent oil spills and better contain them if they occur. The federal government should establish additional protection for continental shelf areas beyond just the three miles states can control. CAP and environmental organizations advocate establishing a significant oil savings reduction goal and empowering the president to achieve it. Obama and Congress should also adopt measures for cleaner vehicles and fuels, and more investment in transit -- as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce oil use. Congress should cut tax loopholes and other handouts to big oil companies, which would save $45 billion over 10 years -- money that can be spent on investing in a clean energy economy instead. And clean energy legislation that caps the oil and coal pollution that is destroying our atmosphere and oceans is long overdue. "We all know the price we pay as a country," Obama said. "With the increased risks and increased costs, it gives you a sense of where we're going. We're not going got be able to sustain this kind of fossil fuel use. This planet can't sustain it."

A DADT Repeal Compromise

JUSTICE

May 26, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald

On Monday, advocates of ending the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy -- which prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military -- held two separate meetings (which the Center for American Progress attended) with congressional leaders and White House officials to find a way to meet President Obama's pledge of eliminating the ban before the end of the year. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen both endorsed the President's pledge in February, but remained cool to Democratic efforts to attach repeal legislation as an amendment to this year's defense authorization bill. Gates insisted that a Defense Department review of the policy should precede any Congressional efforts to repeal the ban. "I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change," Gates wrote in a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) late last month. "I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), along with chief repeal sponsor Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) -- an Iraq war veteran -- believed they could muster enough votes to pass repeal in the House, but the real challenge lies in the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) will need to sway enough  lawmakers to successfully attach repeal as an amendment. Advocacy groups like Servicemembers United, Human Rights Campaign, and CAP have been lobbying moderate members and the White House to support a strategy that would repeal the ban this year but delay implementation until after the Defense Department's review. The White House remained mum on the proposal until earlier this week. As the Advocate's Kerry Eleveld reports, "the White House and Gates seemingly didn't want a vote this year. Activists wouldn't let up. Murphy, Levin, and Lieberman put in a heroic effort to salvage repeal" as did Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and by Monday night, just days before the critical vote, the White House endorsed the strategy.

THE COMPROMISE: Under the proposal, Congress would repeal the statute this year, but the current military policy would remain in place until Obama, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal is "consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruitment and retention." As the text of the amendment states, "Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect [the DADT section] until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect." CAP Action Fund provided the draft certification language, and we are very pleased to see it adopted as part of the amendment that will be considered this week. The language would not be replaced by a nondiscrimination policy, however, as some repeal advocates had hoped. On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee will vote on an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, sponsored by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and supported by Levin to repeal DADT. Murphy has offered an identical amendment, which will likely come to the floor for a vote tomorrow. The real challenge rests in the Senate, where Levin has remained cautiously optimistic about the amendment's prospects in the Senate Armed Services Committee. While Susan Collins (R-ME), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) have gone on record as supporting the measure, Scott Brown (R-MA) -- an early target of repeal advocates -- has signaled that he would vote against the measure. If the amendment passes in committee, it would require 60 votes to strip repeal from the bill during the floor debate. The Defense Authorization bill is expected to pass both Houses and be signed by the President by late summer or early fall.

ALL DEMANDS MET: Despite initially saying that he would re-consider the ban if military leaders suggested that it was ineffective, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacked the proposed compromise. McCain told a local Arizona radio station that "he welcomed a review of the military's prohibition on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers," but said that Democrats are "going to try to jam that through without even trying to figure out what the impact on battle effectiveness would be." Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) has said that "there is no question that a review of the policy is necessary and important. I see no reason for the political process to pre-empt it." Brown issued a similar statement, calling repeal "premature." "The Pentagon is still in the midst of its study of the matter, and its report is due in December," Brown said. "I am keeping an open mind, but I do not support moving ahead until I am able to finish my review, the Pentagon completes its study, and we can be assured that a new policy can be implemented without jeopardizing the mission of our military." But the Republican opposition is peculiar, since the compromise struck between the White House, Congress, and repeal advocates already meets their demands. The policy doesn't actually change before "the Pentagon completes its study," and officials are "assured that a new policy can be implemented without" jeopardizing military effectiveness. In fact, Gates and Mullen -- who shares these concerns -- has even issued a statement in support of the compromise. "Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the DOD review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell law," Gates' spokesman Geoff Morrell emailed journalists this morning. "With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the Secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment," he said. Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby also told Stars and Stripes said that "the chairman supports the agreement brokered Monday."

REPEAL IS POPULAR: Yesterday, just hours after the White House announced its support for the compromise, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey found that "78 percent of the public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, with one in five opposed." "Support is widespread, even among Republicans. Nearly six in ten Republicans favor allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "There is a gender gap, with 85 percent of women and 71 percent of men favoring the change, but support remains high among both groups." In fact, even service members have indicated that they have no problems serving alongside openly gay and lesbian soldiers. According to a recent Vet Voice Foundation poll, for instance, 73 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans said it is "personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military." Similarly, an earlier poll conducted by Zogby also concluded that 73 percent of military members are comfortable with lesbians and gays. Many former veterans who are now in Congress also support the measure. As Murphy said yesterday on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, "I like to point out the fact that of my class, the class of 2006 in the Congress, we had the highest ranking military officer ever to serve in a Congress, Admiral Joe Sestak, in favor of repeal; the highest ranking enlisted man ever to serve in the Congress, Command Sergeant Major Tim Walz, for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The View From Abroad

IMMIGRATION

May 25, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Andrea Nill, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Last week, before a joint session of Congress, Mexican President Felipe Calderón slammed Arizona's new immigration law, SB-1070. "I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona," said Calderón. "It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduced a terrible idea using racial profiling for law enforcement." Following Calderón's address, conservative lawmakers have been blasting him for "meddling" in U.S. politics. "It's about us. It's about our citizenry," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "I just think that's a line I would prefer that he did not cross. He went farther than I'm comfortable with," stated Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A statement released by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) read, "It's unfortunate and disappointing the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm the unique relationship between our two countries." In defense of Calderón, ABC News veteran journalist Sam Donaldson pointed out this weekend that American presidents have frequently criticized the policies of foreign nations. "President Calderón represents Mexico, and he said what a lot of Americans are also saying, that that Arizona law is discriminatory and that it ought not to have been on the books," he said.

INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM: Calderón isn't the first international figure to voice his concerns over the law. In fact, he joins a loud chorus of global leaders who have criticized SB-1070. In Central America, the Guatemalan Foreign Ministry, the new government of Honduras, and officials from El Salvador and Nicaragua have all expressed grave concerns about the law. The Secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS) also expressed "the concern of the OAS, its Secretary General, the countries of the hemisphere and the Latin American community with the passage of a law in a state of the United States that we consider to be discriminatory against immigrants, and in particular against a population of such origin that lives in this country." Heads of state and foreign ministers of the 12-member Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) slammed SB-1070, stating that it encourages "discretional detention of people based on racial, ethnic, phenotypic, language and migratory status reasons under the questionable concept of 'reasonable doubt.'" South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu wrote in a blog post that a solution that "degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution." United Nations experts who reviewed the law stated that SB-1070 could violate international standards that are binding in the United States. Amnesty International agreed, identifying the law as being in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and calling it "cruel and misguided."

LESSONS FROM MEXICO: Before Calderón's visit, the Washington Times erroneously reported that "under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison." The Washington Times then quoted Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) calling Calderón "arrogant and hypocritical" -- a right-wing talking point repeated throughout the week. However, during his visit, Calderón pointed out that Mexico overturned the provisions cited by the Washington Times. A couple years ago, "[s]ome Mexican officials acknowledged that the current harsh penalties weakened Mexico's position in arguing for better treatment of its own migrants in the United States." In 2008, the Mexican Congress voted unanimously with 393 votes to decriminalize undocumented immigration to Mexico and make it a minor offense. However, it's worth noting that Mexican immigration reform is still a work in progress. Amnesty International recently issued a report calling the "widespread abuse of migrants in Mexico" a "human rights crisis." Tens of thousands of Central American migrants face "alarming levels" of abuse ranging from abduction to robbery and rape. One of the central issues, according to Amnesty, is that migrants still fear they will be deported if they complain to Mexican authorities about abuses. Article 67 of Mexico's immigration law requires law enforcement to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country. The Mexican Interior Department is reportedly working to repeal Article 67 "so that no one can deny or restrict foreigners' access to justice and human rights, whatever their migratory status." In the meantime, the U.S. would be wise to look at Mexico's immigration problems not as a source of hypocrisy, but rather, an extreme but telling lesson on what can happen when the law turns police into immigration agents and immigrants into criminals.

A CALL FOR REFORM: Standing before Congress, Calderón stated, "I am convinced that a comprehensive immigration reform is also crucial to securing our common border." "The time has come to reduce the causes of migration and to turn this phenomenon into a legal, order and secure flows of workers and visitors," stated Calderón. In a less controversial visit, Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom also recently came to the U.S. with "the need to implement an integrated federal immigration reform" high on his list of priorities. Despite the criticisms hurled, it turns out that the majority of the American people agree with Calderón and Colom. Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress wrote yesterday that the "public's continued support for comprehensive immigration reform is being shunted to the side amid all the fuss about Arizona's draconian new law." Granted, polls show that the majority of Arizonans and Americans as a whole support SB-1070. Yet, support for Arizona's immigration law is a manifestation of the public's widespread frustration with the federal government's inaction on the issue. More polling shows that 57 percent of all Americans believe immigration laws should be set by the federal government and 64 percent support some sort of legal status for undocumented immigrants already living in the country. In a joint press conference with Calderón, President Obama made clear that the "political challenge" that's standing in the way of wanted federal action is the lack of Republican support for immigration reform. "I don't have 60 votes in the Senate. I've got to have some support from Republicans." Just a couple hours earlier, while visiting a local elementary school with Mexico's First Lady Margarita Zavala, First Lady Michelle Obama put the issue in poignantly simpler terms: When pressed by a brave second-grader on whether the President was going to deport her mother for not having papers, Obama replied, "Well, we have to work on that. We have to fix that, and everybody's got to work together in Congress to make sure that happens."