TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | December, 2010

TM.com Fundraiser – Thank You!

By on 09 December 2010

bumped & updated

After a year of terrific analysis, thanks to everyone for joining in. …and please remember you can contribute all year ’round! There’s always a donate button on the right-hand margin. Seriously, it’s expensive operating on the web, so your investment is critical to keeping this site high in everyone’s eyes.

No amount is ever too small. For those who can afford it, $20 is appreciated, just like a subscription or supporting your local PBS station.

Below is the mailing address for those who want to send checks:

Taylor Marsh LLC
P.O. Box 8303
Alexandria, Virginia
22306-0303

Thanks to everyone who gave this past week, including those who do it during the year. It makes a huge difference. New media sites like mine thrive through your continued support.

Merry Christmas season to everyone.

Support Taylor’s Independent Voice

(Just follow the link above. You can pay with a debit or credit card)

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Signs of Life in the Democratic Party

By on 09 December 2010



..at least in the House. Symbolic it may end up being, as it’s non-binding, but it’s a dramatic message sent.

In an update, Pelosi’s spokesperson is disputing reports that she will bring the bill to the floor, saying “she will honor the resolution,” and has issued a stated saying “this means we will not bring this [agreement] to the floor as is. It has to be changed.” More from POLITICO.

From Sam Stein:

“It was an indication of disapproval and a rejection of the deal as currently written,” said one House Democratic aide.

The vote, which was conducted with something less than a full caucus present, was as much a repudiation of the substance of the deal as the White House’s handling of it. According to sources, several members spoke out about the provision that deals with the estate tax, calling it too generous to the wealthy in its current incarnation. But there was also evident frustration with the administration for essentially cutting House Democrats out of the negotiations.

“The White House f—ed up in how they rolled this out and this is a vote sharing that frustration,” said one aide. “But it is not a deal killer.”

DeFazio added, “They said take it or leave it. We left it.”

“The House was not consulted during the negotiations that produced this package, and our support cannot be taken for granted now or in the future,” said Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

If Pres. Obama gets his act together he can still get a deal, no doubt, because no Democrat wants to stiff the unemployed and the middle class. But this isn’t 2008 and he’s not the Prince of Washington anymore.

“This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It’s as simple as that,” said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen. – CNN

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Sarah Palin, Fake Annie Oakley

By on 09 December 2010

Among the basic items of protocol blithely ignored by Palin as she set off into the wilderness in a Rambo-style headband was her failure to take practice shots, or check the sights of the rifle, which duly turned out to be off-kilter. She failed to carry her own weapon, relying on her elderly father and his companion, Steve, to lug it around. When a beast eventually wandered into range, Ms Palin left Chuck Snr to load the rifle, and discharge spent bullet casings. – Hunter becomes the hunted as Palin critics say she can’t shoot

“Does it kick?”

Seriously?

Is she kidding with this crap? If Sarah was a Democrat she’d be flayed for this fakery. I can’t imagine asking that question, except the very first time you fired a rifle, which for me happened when I was a kid.

Palin’s latest embarrassment comes as TIME’s cover story on Sarah Palin lands, where she gives little doubt she’s moving closer to a presidential run.

But Palin thinks Obama is vulnerable, and she implies that she is the one to take him on. “In battleground states, he’s polling at 40% or below,” she notes. “The country is rejecting his agenda … My vision of America is diametrically opposed to his. He sees America as the problem. I see America as the solution.” Asked what she makes of Obama’s presidency thus far, Palin quipped, “Two words: Jimmy Carter.” Asked who can beat him, she needed seven more: “Someone who can draw a sharp contrast.”

As she does, her people need to rein in her needless penchant for setting herself up as an easy target, on video no less, as she did in last week’s episode of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.”

It seems not even her fans are willing to put up with Palin’s preening.

“What a joke,” wrote one viewer on Palin’s Facebook page. “I was a fan before the show. No one who is a true hunter lets others carry their rifle or can’t load their own shells. Sarah, you are a phony.”

Daily Caller has the video, with the back & forth at the top for those of you who don’t want to watch her targeting, wildly missing, then killing a Caribou.

“What kind of a question is that?” wrote a fan called Brad Schegel on Palin’s Facebook wall. “Doesn’t matter if it kicks or not, you shoot it the same. That was a girly question, momma griz.”

So, Sarah becomes yet another in a long line of right-wing politicians who think it’s important to show she can shoot, when she doesn’t know her ass from her elbow about hunting rifles or the time honored code of real hunters (which I am not, but my gun expert hubby helped prove Whittington was shot close to his heart, which we now know is true) who respect the hunting of animals enough to make sure they know what they’re doing. If it takes you five shots to hone in on your prey let alone take it down, either your site is off or you obviously a terrible shot or more likely, you shouldn’t be seen with a loaded gun outside the firing range, because you’ve not had enough practice with the rifle to be targeting squat.

Whatever authenticity she proclaimed as a hunter and rugged westerner went up in smoke as she walked along side her father, who carried her rifle for her, and after firing her fifth shot, since the first four missed.

I won’t even get into the fact that she couldn’t catch one salmon in another “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” episode, in a scene that had the fish lined up for the hook.

UPDATE: PPP has the latest Republican ’12 poll numbers. Their conclusion is exactly the same as Joe Scarborough.

Across the 7 individual states where we’ve done 2012 polls so far- Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Montana, and Virginia- Palin averages receiving 77% of the Republican vote against Barack Obama. That puts her slightly behind Gingrich at 80% and well behind Romney and Huckabee at 84%. Palin does the worst of the Republicans among Republicans in Montana, Missouri, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota. Only North Carolina where she does better than Romney and Virginia where she does better than Gingrich and Romney serve as exceptions to the rule.

Republicans may hate Barack Obama but there look to be a pretty meaningful percentage of them who don’t hate him enough to vote to put Sarah Palin in the White House. When you combine that with her complete lack of appeal to Democrats and independents she looks virtually unelectable for 2012.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Obama Using Bushesque Fear Tactics to Push Tax Deal

By on 08 December 2010

“If they [Democrats] don’t pass this bill in the next couple weeks it will materially increase the risk that the economy would stall out and we would have a double dip,” he told a gathering of reporters at an off camera briefing. A double dip recession? “What I said it would significantly increase the risk,” Summers replied. – Sam Stein of Huffington Post



The Obama White House is channeling George W. Bush on economics a lot these days. As Dan Froomkin proves, during Pres. Obama’s tantrum he also got his facts wrong on Social Security, but no one should be surprised, because he’s gunning for it too. As for Larry Summers, he was against the Bush tax cuts, before he started fearmongering for them.

Back in September, Larry Summers told CNBC that continuing the tax cuts for the wealthy wouldn’t really help the economy where it was needed. Via Bush Tax Cuts Not Important for US Economy: Summers:

But he dismissed the importance of continuing the cuts for those earning over $250,000, a key part of the political battle raging in Washington. The cuts expire at the end of 2010.

“With deficits looming as seriously as they are, why is now the right moment to lock in several hundred billion dollars of tax cuts for 2 percent of the population when we could be using those revenues to strengthen incentives for investment in the country’s future?” Summers said.

“I think the case is pretty clear, if you look at what the vast majority of economists are saying, (that) what will stimulate economy more are measures that are targeted at investments, it’s measures that are targeted at research and development,” he continued. “So I think those are the right steps forward.”

I thought Sen. Schumer’s millionaire gambit was the way to go, because more tax advantages for millionaires and billionaires just rings sour to most people.

I’ve said all along that I liked the idea of a payroll tax holiday, but only on the condition that the Bush tax cuts were let to expire. But I don’t take lightly what my progressive activist colleagues are warning, that this tactic would indeed be the first salvo against Social Security. Many believe this very strongly, beginning with Nancy Altman, author of “The Battle For Social Security”, who heads the group Social Security Works, and whose post on Firedoglake is worth a read. From her post:

… Given that unwillingness to raise taxes by less than a nickel on every dollar earned over $1 million, I find it unfathomable that a more conservative Congress, in two years, in an election year, will increase the payroll tax by 2 percent on the very first dollar, and every other dollar up to the cap, earned by virtually every single worker in the country. Consequently, I think we have to assume that the payroll tax holiday will be extended beyond the two years the president is proposing and quite likely could become permanent.

That means that the federal government will have to continue to transfer $120 billion to the Social Security trust funds each and every year even as it has to transfer more and more interest payments as the trust funds continue to grow and as interest rates return to more normal levels. Unless Congress acts to restore Social Security to solvency, the Treasury bonds held in trust will have to be redeemed, again on top of that new $120 billion transfer from the general fund, starting fifteen years from now, assuming Congress even continues to make the $120 billion every year before that point. These dollars will be competing with dollars for defense, environmental protection, education, school lunches, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, Pell grants for low income college students, and every other good and service financed by the federal government.

A permanent two percent cut in Social Security contributions doubles the 75 year projected shortfall. Scrapping the cap (eliminating the $106,800 maximum on earnings), tonally eliminates the shortfall today. If FICA is cut by 2 percent, scrapping the cap gets Social Security only halfway there. …

Pres. Obama’s Bushesque fearmongering on his right-leaning tax scheme is unfortunate, but this type of language is only going to get worse as we go forward.

As for congressional Democrats, they’ve simply got to make the tax scheme better or kill it. They need to prove to the people who elected them that they’re still willing to fight for Democratic principles and policies, because it’s clear the President is not.

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

DADT Close But…

By on 08 December 2010

Sen. Murkowski is in, and the amendment issue is being handled deftly by Sen. Reid, according to Greg Sargent.

Adding to the urgency, Reid announced this morning that he will bring the Defense Authorization Bill to the floor for a vote this evening. Proponents of repeal worry that this could scuttle repeal, because Republicans have insisted they will not support it if the debate over the tax cuts is not resolved, meaning that repeal could be defeated tonight.

But the aide close to the talks defended Reid’s decision, arguing that it’s just as risky to postpone the vote on repeal. “There’s concern that members of her caucus will be out the door as soon as we pass everything Republicans want,” the aide says.

Talks are continuing with Collins, so it’s not over yet.

However, when I read posts that have Sen. Joe Lieberman taking the lead it makes me nervous. …though truth is he’s a lot more of a Republican than he is a Democrat, so maybe they’d listen to him.

UPDATE: Susan Collins speaks, gets what she wants to debate the bill. It all begins tomorrow. Republicans will likely start working on her in 3… 2…

“The majority leader’s allotment of time for to debate those amendments was extremely short, so I have suggested doubling the amount of time, assuring that there would be votes, and making sure that the Republicans get to pick our own amendments as opposed to the Majority Leader.”

“If he does that I will do all that I can to help him proceed to the bill. But if he does not do that, then I will not,” she added.

Late this evening, per Collins’ request, Reid delayed a test vote he’d planned to hold tonight.

“Everyone on the Republican side wants to see the tax package completed first,” Collins said.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Getting that 1979 Feeling Again

By on 08 December 2010

It’s déjà vu all over again.

Pres. Obama has never understood the incredible gift he was handed when he came into office. He had the American people at his feet, the political winds at his back, the press at his ready, and the world awaiting his leadership. He also had Democratic margins and a bully pulpit to use to push forward on policies that work best for the American people.

Two years later he’s been shown to cave on health care in favor of the insurance companies, protected too big to fail banking system, done nothing about the exporting of corporate cash from this country, ignored the job issue, and given lip service to Democratic policy principles while tilting the country ever rightward until today he’s made a deal with Republicans that they are cheering as he uses language like “hostage” for a situation he created because he not only doesn’t know how to lead, but won’t be bothered to try. He even handed off the tax deal to Vice Pres. Joe Biden, because Barack Obama is always looking for cover. On foreign policy Pres. Obama has ignored the implications of Gen. McChyrstal’s implosion, plus turned away from the obvious ramifications of the Karzai Wikileaks exposure; meanwhile, we’re days away from a complete Middle East dialogue collapse, as we are made to swallow an arms deal for the Saudis that makes absolutely no sense at all. Because of the midterms, Obama’s foreign policy options have dried up. All of this is why he rails at the Left so gracelessly, because those who understand the political disaster Obama’s constructing won’t follow him anywhere anymore.

Harold Myerson:

Changelessness we can’t believe in. Not much of a slogan, I admit, but a pretty fair statement of where we’re at after the president’s tax deal with congressional Republicans.

[...] The best we can say of the deal is that it largely perpetuates, and only occasionally worsens, the status quo – in particular, the three-decade status quo in which the rich get richer at ordinary Americans’ expense. Obama vowed during his news conference Tuesday to take on that status quo over the next two years, but his inability thus far to frame that debate – even though most Americans share his opposition to extending tax cuts for the rich – is maddening.

Stasis you can grieve over. Good grief.

Pres. Barack Obama has lost the entire industrial Midwest and the working class, with women splitting their vote in the midterms with the Right, while seniors went Right as well, because Obama also sold them out.

For all you people too young to remember or not interested in politics when it happened, what you’re feeling is how many Democrats felt before the 1980 elections that swept in the Reagan revolution and made “Reagan Democrats” out of working class voters, who are still referred to today.

Pres. Obama miscalculated terribly on the tax cut scheme he’s concocted, just as he miscalculated with health care. It’s a toss up whether he’ll get it passed or not, but I’m rooting for Sen. Sanders and Rep. Welch.

Whether Obama is challenged or not, his weakness as a Democratic leader is now etched in everyone’s mind. A challenger also doesn’t matter, because there are a growing number of Democrats who won’t vote for him in ’12 no matter what.

..and with that, Keith and Rachel, take it away…

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This essay has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }

Pres. Obama’s Tantrum

By on 07 December 2010

Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the Democratic Party left him before he left the party. Like many progressive supporters of Barack Obama, I’m beginning to have the same feeling about this president. – Katrina vanden Heuvel

It was a compendium of Obamaisms, with a flash of petulant anger aimed at the Left. Naturally.

The question at the start of the video from Marc Ambinder was dead on, challenging the President on what leverage he might have going forward on the debt ceiling considering how he caved on tax cuts. (Exactly zero.)

“I’ll take John Boehner at his word….” Yeah, because trusting Republicans has worked out so well before on economics.

“I’ve got lots of lines in the sand.” …and he keeps tripping over them one at a time.

“This is the public option debate all over again.” Throw in a “purist position,” with a side of “sanctimonious” for all of you Democrats and progressives out there who get tripped up on your silly Democratic principles.

It was President Petulant at this point, his ego bared through his gleaming teeth, a moment when he finally filled out his suit, because his hubris was having a hissy fit that Democrat still aren’t genuflecting at his feet for passing a crap health care bill that brought down the Democratic majority, washed out the industrial Midwest of Democrats, and has Virginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri and Ohio tilting Right.

That this book smart man doesn’t understand that caving on unemployment benefit extensions was a must for Republicans in the end reveals just how deep Barack Obama’s end of the pool is at this point. There is no way Republicans could survive the blowback of stiffing the unemployed at Christmas, because the local news stories alone would have buried them. This is political theater 101, something that Obama still hasn’t mastered after two fricking years.

However, the Republicans needn’t worry, because Pres. Obama will cover the Right’s ass every time.

Democrats are sick of it. Landrieu calling the Obama-McConnell plan “almost morally corrupt.”

“It’s what I’m calling the Obama-McConnell plan. We’re going to borrow $46 billion from the poor, from the middle class, from businesses of all sizes basically to give a tax cut to families in America today, that despite the recession, are making over a million dollars. I mean, this is unprecedented. Unprecedented. I want to repeat that,” she said. Landrieu added, however, that she had yet to make a decision on the final package and was speaking strictly about the extension of tax cuts for the wealthy.
Landrieu put the tax cuts in the context of the poverty and joblessness facing African Americans across the country. “The median net worth of African-American families — net worth, not income — in this country today, according to our census, is $5,000. You want me to repeat that? $5,000. So we are borrowing money from constituencies, and large segments of the population like this,” said Landrieu. “I want you all to get your heads around this.”

Obama had allies in the Senate who would have fought the extension of the tax cuts, Landrieu said, if only he had relied on them. “Why the president didn’t think there were forty or fifty or sixty of us to defend him on this principle, I don’t know, but he basically didn’t think anybody of us cared much about it. Well, I want him to know I do care.”

It’s conventional wisdom in Washington that Pres. Obama punching the Left plays well. It’s amateur political thinking, but there’s a lot of that around here. But today even the vaunted insider David Gergen said on CNN, after Wolf Blitzer regurgitated the thought, that it’s a mistake for Obama to do that on this point. It reminded Gergen of what happened to Bush 41 when he punched his right-wing base on taxes. That whole thing didn’t work out well for Daddy Bush, as I recall.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Elizabeth Edwards’ Life Battle Ends

By on 07 December 2010

There is nothing harder than watching someone you love die at Christmastime.

When the news came Elizabeth Edwards was “gravely ill” yesterday, it threw me back in time to when I lost my mother who lived heroically with cancer for fifteen years so I could thrive, learn and live with her by my side. She made it through Christmas, but it was a morbidly wrenching time.

Knowing a little bit about people who survive cancer even for a while, Elizabeth Edwards would have hated this headline: “Cancer Claims Elizabeth Edwards.” Cancer didn’t “claim” my mother either. You never give a disease the last word.

Elizabeth Edwards lived a heroic, complicated and deeply troubled life. She was beloved by her husband John Edward’s supporters, but the truth is she should have been the candidate. As a fierce advocate for her husband, Elizabeth Edwards was part of a serious fraud perpetrated against people who trusted them both deeply. That John Edwards dealt her a horrific hand at the end of her fiery life is undeniable. No one will ever forget the story from “Game Change” that changed their storybook image forever.

As for John Edwards, their partnership is one of the monstrous betrayals in political history, which he will pay for the rest of his life and so will his children emotionally.

Prayers go out to the Edwards family.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Wikileaks Julian Assange Arrested for Sex Without a Condom

By on 07 December 2010

The charges involve sexual encounters that two women say began as consensual but became nonconsensual after Mr. Assange was no longer using a condom. – New York Times

The Swedes may finally get a shot at their man compliments of unhinged rhetoric that has people targeting his reputation. Assange has been denied bail, with his extradition hearing set for December 14th. The Times is reporting that bail was guaranteed through “surety,” by Ken Loach, an English filmmaker, John Pilger, an Australian investigative reporter, and Jemima Khan, an English socialite and journalist, but to no avail.

In the United States there is no better way to attack a man than to impugn him on sexual assault charges, that is unless he’s a Republican. Now, it’s hard to figure out just what in the hell the charges are, but it looks like sex without a condom.

LONDON (AP) – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange surrendered to London police Tuesday to face a Swedish arrest warrant, the latest blow to an organization that faces legal, financial and technological challenges after releasing hundreds of secret U.S. diplomatic cables.

[...] Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, has been accused by two women in Sweden. He faces rape and sexual molestation allegations in one case and sexual molestation and unlawful coercion in the other. Assange denies the allegations.

His British attorney Mark Stephens says the allegations stem from a “dispute over consensual but unprotected sex” last summer.

Now here’s where I’m going to sound profoundly anti-feminist to some. But any woman having sex with a man she can’t trust enough to keep a condom on has made a bad decision that’s her responsibility to swallow, so to speak. This conclusion is easy for me, because I have always believed that having sex with someone comes with responsibility on the woman’s part that includes a lot of gray area once everyone is naked. I’m obviously not talking about sudden and surprising violent sex that surprises you, which is assault; and I don’t think a condom surprise is assault. But “unlawful coercion” and “sexual molestation” charges when it’s pretty clear the sex was consensual? Then at some point it turned otherwise because Assange didn’t keep his condom promise and the woman didn’t know it until it was over… Well, that’s a risk inherent in consent with a man you don’t know well enough to trust.

Meanwhile, the attacks on Assange continue, the most ironic being Christopher Hitchens who blares in a Slate headline that Assange is an “unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda.”

If you prefer your op-eds mixed with facts read The Economist or Wired’s editor-in-chief:

The greatest threat we face right now from Wikileaks is not the information it has spilled and may spill in the future, but the reactionary response to it that’s building in the United States that promises to repudiate the rule of law and our free speech traditions, if left unchecked.

It’s toxic and a lot more challenging to have a free speech and transparency discussion when the man at the center of it has sex offender hovering over his name.

That’s the point.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

The Democratic Choice: Economic Principle or Pres. Obama

By on 07 December 2010

Nobody expects Pres. Obama to fight anymore, it’s not what he does.

It is very unfortunate, however, that he’s adopting bad Bush economic policy that didn’t create job growth.

He’s also making matters worse long-term by adopting Rush Limbaugh marketing by caving to all of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s demands, which cons people into believing they’ll be rich too by supporting policies against their own interests.

This is a very dangerous road for Democrats, who have to decide whether Obama or Democratic Party economic principles are more important. In the era of Obama and Sarah Palin celebrity this isn’t as easy for politicians as it should be.

Ellison says it’s “not about the president.” He couldn’t be more wrong.

“You can attack the president to the point that you’re going to get a Republican president, so just keep that in mind,” said Rep. Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who will head the Congressional Progressive Caucus next year. “This is not about the president. It’s [about what] Republicans are demanding. And the focus needs to be on them, not on him. … I just want to encourage the president to hold his ground and just ask all Americans to think about what we could do with $700 billion instead of just giving it to people to buy luxury items.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown is correct:

“I think if it’s clear that we are doing what the country wants in saying yes to tax cuts for the middle class and extending unemployment [insurance] and saying no to a tax bonus to millionaires and billionaires, and [if] we stay here until New Year’s and continue to push for that, that Republicans [will] realize that they’re on the wrong side of history,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

…as is Adam Green:

“You can’t let Republicans win on this. There’s no more central campaign promise made by President Obama than to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and he needs to be willing to fight on this,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which on Monday circulated quotations from some of Obama’s 2008 campaign organizers who are threatening to pull their support in 2012 over the tax cut.

Now Pres. Obama has to sell his tax scheme framework with phone calls and a presidential pitch. Democrats in the House and Senate should shut him down.

Don’t hold your breath. The power of celebrity is seductive.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Obama Suckered by Republican Deficit Talking Points

By on 06 December 2010



Harry S Truman would have told the Republicans to go pound sand.

William Jefferson Clinton would have gotten something real for the trouble, while sticking it to Republicans by letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Because back in the early ’90s, Bill first showed Republicans who was boss before he compromised.

But can we now all agree that Republicans don’t give a damn about the deficit?

That Pres. Obama actually fell for this line reveals just how badly this man is getting outplayed. That Republicans get 2 years on tax cuts for the wealthy, but unemployment insurance is extended only by 13 months says it all.

Republicans just used their austerity deficit argument to get Pres. Obama to give them everything they wanted, without giving up anything, with “deficit reduction” to come. As a bonus, Obama also adopted the Bush tax cuts line, talking about taxes going up if he didn’t give Republicans what they demanded.

Top marginal rates went up during Pres. Clinton’s term and that turned out pretty well.

That Pres. Obama allowed himself to be suckered into making the 13-month extension of unemployment benefits part of the negotiation and turned them into a bargaining chip is unconscionable. It’s weakness of the first order from a Democratic President.

Of course, good fall-in-line Democrats across the spectrum will blame the Republicans for making an extension of unemployment benefits part of the bargaining process, but in reality it’s Pres. Obama who in playing chicken with the Republicans telegraphed early that he’d give them what they want.

Obama was suckered into believing that not making the super rich tax cuts permanent, while exchanging his own Making Work Pay program, which knocked middle class taxes down $400, also adding a renewal of the estate tax Republicans also want at 35% and a $5 million exemption, will mollify the Right. Smarter Dems wanted the rate set at 45% and a $3.5 million exemption.

As for the 2% payroll tax cut, I’ve been for it for a very long time, but only if the Bush tax cuts for the super rich were not extended. But then I can do basic math.

Pres. Obama also assured he’s responsible for exploding the deficit, which they can then use against him in 2012, something that will still work with the wingnut crowd even if they don’t understand economics.

Ezra Klein:

That’s the policy of the deal. The politics are similarly focused on the next election: Democrats are negotiating toward a two-year extension of the tax cuts. They’ve rejected a three-year extension. That means the next fight over the tax cuts will be part of the 2012 election. And the White House believes that an improved economy and a bigger deficit will make it much harder for Republicans to support extending tax cuts for the rich. If they try, that gives Democrats both a populist cudgel and a way to take hold of the deficit issue.

The White House’s problem is that they handled the politics of this argument so poorly in 2010 that their allies on the Hill don’t trust them to do better in 2012. One Senate staffer summed up his reaction to the deal in one word: “Nausea.” Another said the deal is fine — but it was getting hard to trust the White House. “Will they actually have that fight in 2012?” He asked. “They dropped the ball this time around.”

It’s clear that the White House sees that the Reagan – Clinton re-election model may not work even with Obama’s current numbers if he doesn’t get the unemployment rate down. It’s already being telegraphed that unemployment will remain in the 8% range when 2012 approaches, so this hail Mary to appease the Right, while using a disastrous conservative economic tax model, plus a payroll tax cut, to provide a boost in 2011, is in hopes that he will be rewarded with a better economy and a better launching pad for his re-election.

For added irony, Obama thinks he can turn populist in his reelection and win back voters and Independents by talking about ending tax cuts for the wealthy. Candidate Barack Obama played that card already in ’08 and when the going got tough he backed down on his promise. Fool voters once, well, the Left shouldn’t buy it.

What Obama needs most of all is job growth. Nothing else matters. Reagan and Clinton had unemployment rates well below what Obama will very likely face. Hey, but Obama doesn’t draw Democratic lines in the sand on principle, so playing to the Right was his only gambit. If unemployment comes down because of what you’ll hear being called a payroll tax cut “stimulus,” 2012 will look different and if it doesn’t he’s done.

Betting that economic growth and a sweetener will make people forget their tenuous employment status, the health care bills that are still skyrocketing, as well as the dismal retirement outlook for Americans, is all he’s got.

Next Obama will turn to austerity in the budget. And since Republicans won big on taxes it’s quite likely they’ll go to the wall against Defense cuts. Republicans have boxed Obama in between the military and an exploding deficit, but he’s the one who made it possible, compliments of extending tax cuts for the wealthy that won’t create a single job.

On the other hand, none of this will matter if Republicans rally the austerity crowd, aided and abetted by Pres. Obama, into believing that 2012 is about repealing “Obamacare,” as they call it, which will require a change of the presidency into Republican hands. The White House evidently hasn’t thought about this either, because their chess board only has one side to it.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Yes We Cave

By on 06 December 2010

But while raising taxes when unemployment is high is a bad thing, there are worse things. And a cold, hard look at the consequences of giving in to the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils. Bear in mind that Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent. They might agree to a two- or three-year extension — but only because they believe that this would set up the conditions for a permanent extension later. And they may well be right: if tax-cut blackmail works now, why shouldn’t it work again later? – Paul Krugman

Mark Halperin, sage of the Washington insiders, gets something very right today.

The already tiresome debate about what Obama should do to launch a comeback tells only part of the story. Yes, he needs to show people what he stands for, fight for what he believes, compromise with Republicans when it’s sensible, reshape his circle of advisers and focus on job growth and deficit reduction. But those are all tall orders, and they run counter to Obama’s instincts, the political realities of American politics for the last generation, or both.

Even if the President somehow sloughs off that Spock-like laconic demeanor and dispatches his fired-up-and-ready-to-go persona, he isn’t going to be able to change many of the dynamics that have weakened him. Republicans are emboldened by the results of the midterm elections and by their continued discipline and verve in driving the same message since Election Day (and likely well into 2011). They believe they can beat Obama for re-election and will stay on their winning path as long as it is working.

Halperin makes the argument also that the Left will be furious and “cry betrayal whenever the President cooperates with the GOP.” Movement progressives have good reason to do both, because Pres. Obama has caved on his campaign marketing from Gitmo to privacy to DADT to health care to Bush tax cuts, while ceding all territory to Republicans in a message collapse that leaves Democrats no one to follow, let alone support looking at 2012.

Paul Krugman’s brilliant column was seconded by Chuck Schumer as well, even if no leadership is coming from the White House beyond their Yes We Cave policy. From Sam Stein:

Amidst the talk of capitulation, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) suggested that rather than extend current rates for two years in exchange for other tax-cut goodies and unemployment insurance, the party might simply let all the tax cuts expire. After all, the president could come back next Congress and build his own package of middle-class tax cuts, branded under the Obama (not Bush) name.

“There are lots of people in our caucus who do have that appetite [to let all rates expire],” said the New York Democrat.

But no place was the Democratic President’s ineptitude revealed more strongly than on “Morning Joe” today. I can’t upload the entire 6 o’clock hour, but here’s a segment with Dee Dee Myers that is illustrative of the conversation.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The situation Pres. Obama finds himself in after the midterms, understanding that he’s lost states to Republicans he held in ’08, doesn’t come close to outlining the President’s apocryphal position after his first two years in office where hope has warn out, change hasn’t happened, and the only thing Democrats are left with is a weakened Obama presidency where foreign policy possibilities are crashing amidst a domestic landscape that has revealed Barack Obama won’t even fight against tax cuts for the super rich, which aren’t stimulative, but also symbolize everything the Democrats are against.

Ironically, the only person to blame for Democrats being in this position is Barack Obama. It’s not Bush’s fault. It’s not the economic recession either.

See Gov. Chris Christie, someone with whom many New Jersey voters disagree, but like George W. Bush before Obama, Christie once again proves that the American people respect strong even if it’s wrong and will give you credit for being a man or woman of your mind. That Obama is not only weak but also very wrong makes matters worse.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Dr. King Counselor and Friend: Primary Obama in ’12

By on 06 December 2010

For those people checking in after their Christmastime weekend festivities, this post will come as a stunner. It’s written by the former personal attorney and friend of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Clarence B. Jones. A man who has a book coming out in January heralding Dr. King’s transforming impact, which seems like the jumping off point of comparison used to level a devastating critique of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Mr. Jones is a Scholar in Residence, Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University. According to his bio at Huffington Post, His personal, insider’s account of the 1963 March On Washington, Behind The Dream: The Making of the Speech that Transformed a Nation, will be released January 2011 from Palgrave Macmillan.

A snippet of his post is below, which really should be read in full:

[...] And, so it is with Obama’s continued squandering of the extraordinary support he developed for his election as President.

It is not easy to consider challenging the first African-American to be elected as President of the United States. But, regrettably, I believe that the time has come to do this.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist nor have a PhD in political science and sociology to see clearly that Obama has abandoned much of the base that elected him. He has done this because he no longer respects, fears or believes those persons who elected him have any alternative, but to accept what he does, whether they like it or not.

It is time for those persons who constituted the “Movement” that enabled Senator Barack Obama to be elected to “break their silence”; to indicate that they no longer will sit on their hands, and only let off verbal steam and ineffective sound and fury, and “hope” for the best.

The answer is blowin’ in the wind

The pursuit of the war in Afghanistan in support of a certifiably corrupt Afghan government and the apparent willingness to retreat from his campaign commitment of no further tax cuts for the rich, his equivocal and foot dragging leadership to end DADT, his TARP for Wall Street, but, equivocal insufficient attention to the unemployment and housing foreclosures of Main Street, suggest that the template of the 1968 challenge to the reelection of President Lyndon Johnson now must be thoughtfully considered for Obama in 2012. …

One can only imagine the incredible thought and intense contemplation that went in to making such a profound challenge to Pres. Obama, something that is a long time coming. Only a man of considerable weight and an African American could do it and hope to be taken seriously, let alone gain any traction at all.

The speculation about who could possibly make such a challenge matter began a long time ago, but it is shoved aside before any conclusion is drawn, because of understandable trepidation and fear of the reaction of the African American community. No one has named anyone who would dare come forward to do it yet.

The media would not make what Mr. Jones is suggesting easy.

The positing of the possibility may even rally people closer to Mr. Obama, though this hardly matters, because without someone of weight coming forward to write of the possibility of challenging him the current depressing situation has no hope of shifting.

It seems impossible it was just two years ago when people thought Obama’s election had squelched conservatism, but now it’s enjoying a revival not seen since Jimmy Carter faltered in 1979, which led to the Reagan era that conservatives hail to this day. Democrats still have nightmares over what they believe a presidential challenge cost them in 1980, even if it was Carter’s weak presidency that is really to blame, so the naysayers will be sure to bring that up saying a Republican win in ’12 can’t be let to happen. A primary challenge to Obama seen as a gimme to the Right by many.

However, Mr. Obama’s electoral map is stunningly abysmal after the Democratic midterm collapse, so regardless of his personal likability, his political incompetence even if he could win in ’12 is so total that progressives should be asking themselves just what is gained even if he wins?

Things are dire for Democrats and it’s Pres. Barack Obama who set it all in motion.

After the midterm catastrophe and after witnessing the appalling political incompetence of the Democrats under Obama’s lack of leadership and feckless messaging, followed by absolutely no plan for the lame duck session or a gaming of how to fight the Republicans using basic Democratic principles to stand firm, it’s clear that Mr. Obama is not only not going to change, but there’s no hope he’ll do anything other than join Republicans in their disastrous policy prescriptions, making America’s troubles worse.

Democrats, liberals and progressives, Blue Dogs too, will have to decide if Barack Obama is more important than the relevance of the Democratic Party and the principles to which people pledged their lives to make manifest for the good of this nation.

Political soul searching is certainly called for, it’s just a question of whether Democrats today have the courage and strength of character to do it.

Photo: Library of Congress, NAACP 1963

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Maher: Obama is ‘Wimpy,’ ‘Wussy’

By on 05 December 2010



Pres. Obama is still liked, but as a leader he’s lost his most loyal boy fans.

Where are they going to draw a line in the sand?

When are they going to remember who they are?

Mr. Maher is talking about Democrats who are being led by someone who has no political compass except to serve his own accomplishments. It goes back to what I said in this essay about strong Democrats knowing they’ll get undercut by Obama if they dare to stand tough. So, why bother? You’re only as strong as your leader.

More from CNN’s Farred Zakaria:

“I’m so disappointed.,” Maher said. “And I still like him and still think there’s hope he could get it yet, but I’m so disappointed that he just seems to be another in a long line of Democrats that come across as wimpy and wussy … and of not standing up for what they believe in enough.”

Well, Obama is standing up for what he believes in: tax cuts for the super rich.

But the funniest line this weekend comes from the Wall Street Journal, who writes the following: After the Senate votes, President Barack Obama told Democratic congressional leaders he would be open to a temporary extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the affluent, but he would demand concessions from the GOP.

So much for Barack Obama’s vaunted chess playing, which I never bought into in the first place.

Instead it’s hey, Mitch. I’ll give in on everything you want, but you gotta give me somethin’ first.

Worst negotiator ever.

No wait, it’s not he’s a bad negotiator, it’s that he doesn’t care where the tax cuts fall because he’s got no affinity whatsoever for the working class in this country.

For instance, Barack Obama isn’t someone who could relate at all to the movie “Unstoppable.” He just doesn’t get blue collar Americans. Wall Street and Rodeo Drive, yes. It’s killing the Democratic Party by a thousand cuts.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

The Sunday News Round-Up: The Post-Democratic Edition

By on 05 December 2010

Good morning and welcome to Sunday!

On this day in history, December 5, 1933, Prohibition ended as Utah became the 36th state to ratify the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.

Why is this the post-democratic edition? I don’t want to be overly-depressing, but but if Obama caves on tax cuts for the wealthy, his political goose is cooked. That the GOP has been able to pursue a shameless and hypocritical Screw The Middle Class economic policy without any principled, vociferous opposition from the White House, shows just how weakened this administration is. Sure, we’ve heard some protestations about this from Obama and Gibbs but it’s too little too late. Right now the Democrats have no message and no messenger. Obama and his circle of political advisers are guilty of gross negligence to a degree I haven’t before witnessed. What took place yesterday on the floor of the Senate is a disgrace. The problem is, this isn’t merely a result of the midterm elections. From the very beginning, Obama’s political strategy was naive, his messaging off and his “compromises” seen as nothing more than capitulations.

Ok, on that happy note, here are some links to go with your morning coffee/tea:

~It’s about time someone makes a real effort to reign in and change or even get rid of the filibuster.

~Jim DeMint and his GOP pals are now claiming that the military report on DADT demonstrates that the military doesn’t want DADT repealed. Of course, that’s not at all what it says and they know that.

~Complicating this debate about DADT is the testimony given to Congress by top Marine and Army Generals this past week, opining that DADT should not be repealed right now, irrespective of the report’s finding. They say that wartime is not a good time for this type of change. Given we seem to be in a state of perpetual war, this seems like another attempt to kick the can way down the road for the foreseeable future. The testimony was interesting because it seems rather unusual to have some members of the top military brass openly defy the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President of the United States. Of course, I’m not an expert in these chain of command issues. Does anyone know if this is unusual? Would they do this on any other issue?

~It’s hard to believe if Julian Assange weren’t Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, that this European arrest warrant would even have been issued.

~Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas spoke via telephone about the deadly fires raging in the Carmel region of Israel. The PA has apparently offered the assistance of the Palestinian Civil Defense forces to aid in slowing the spread of the fire. So that’s positive given the current stalemate. President Obama also spoke with Netanyahu about the fires and equipment and resources from the U.S. should begin arriving today. The fires started on Thursday and have killed at least 42 people and forced the evacuation of thousands.

~Not only is Dick Morris unethical, he’s never really right about anything.

~Glenn Beck and history- after reading this story I think maybe Glenn Beck doesn’t realize that Octavian and Augustus are the same person? I don’t know. He just makes no sense. Or maybe Beck’s just an insufferable liar who knows that the people who watch his show could care less about whether Octavian and Augustus are the same person- they just want to hear scary conspiracy theories about George Soros, Barack Obama and the new Black Panther party.

~WikiLeaks cables would seem to indicate that the U.S. knew that all was not well in the run-up to the Iraqi elections in March. While some disagree, I still can’t totally escape the conclusion that Iran was the main winner in the Iraqi election. Rather ironic, huh? But I guess time will tell.

~The Washington Post has an interesting interview with Brazil’s first woman President (-elect), Dilma Rousseff. It’s interesting and worth a read, particularly given the current tensions in US-Brazil relations.

~Progressive Michael Lerner has an opinion-piece in the Washington Post urging progressives to offer up a primary challenge to Obama in 2012. Or at least threaten to. That would seem to imply that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is organized, has a message and has its act together and as a member of the progressive base, I just don’t see that. At all. Of course, Lerner seems to want to use this as a tactic geared towards moving Obama to the left as opposed to actually putting forth a viable progressive challenger to Obama (and by definition, the Democratic establishment) for 2012.

~Over at Foreign Policy, Dahlia Scheindlin looks at the Israeli referendum law that was recently passed by the Knesset. She argues that it doesn’t necessarily negatively impact the peace process or likelihood of achieving a two-state solution. She does, however, point out that quite a few Israeli lawmakers disagree.

~The federal deficit is bad, but the crisis facing states and municipalities is worse, much worse.

~Frank Rich has an opinion piece in today’s NYT that I think is spot-on. Obama is suffering from the political version of Stockholm Syndrome as he continually gives the GOP the sticks that they use to beat him over the head with. It’s a good read.

~Chas Freeman has a different take on the WikiLeaks debacle vis-a-vis the Arab States’ reaction to Iran’s purported nuclear ambitions.

~What the heck?

~Here are some photos from last night’s Kennedy Center Honors’ dinner.

~This NYT Magazine profile of JPMorgan Chase shows that the bankers are laughing all the way to the bank, all the while crying “but we’re the real victims here!”

~Joe Miller of Alaska keeps fighting for the Senate seat he’s not going to get.

~The fed wants to make it much harder for the average homeowner to prevent foreclosure and escape the terms of predatory loans. That’s a great time to do this, really.

~Here is a great profile of dogs being used to help combat veterans cope with PTSD.

~A rather ugly fight is taking place in the Texas House of Representatives. You see, the current Speaker of the House is Joe Straus and he happens to be Jewish. Why does that matter? Well, quite a few members of the Texas House want a Christian Conservative running the House, the operative word in that phrase being Christian. Oh, but that’s not anti-Semitism according to the anti-Straus crowd, no siree! It’s just, ummm, well, Christians have the “right” values. You can read this tortured logic directly from the Texas Observer.

~Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation: only property owners should vote. Is it me or are we witnessing some sort of backwards evolution? I guess that would be de-evolution?

~In Ecuador the volcano known as the Throat of Fire has erupted.

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Bush Tax Cuts, and the Woman in a Mink

By on 04 December 2010

Senate Republicans blocked two Democratic measures Saturday that would have eliminated the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, forcing both parties back to the negotiating table if they want to avert a tax hike next year for all Americans. The doomed votes mean Democrats may ultimately need to agree to a deal that runs contrary to their campaign promises over the past 10 years. Rather than eliminating the upper-end tax cuts, Democrats will likely cede to Republican demands to renew all of the Bush tax cuts for several years – a move that many in the party view as a major defeat. – POLITICO

Woman in a Mink

This is a terrific photo to go with the latest round of economic insanity in Congress.

It’s a great broad in a mink ringing the Salvation Army bell in bitter cold in Alexandria, Virginia. We had a chat and a cackle over the ironic dichotomy, with me also telling her I’m anything but a fur fan.

It’s quite fitting that POLITICO is adopting the “tax hike” jargon, when the Bush tax cuts were sunset, because none of them were paid for. We still can’t pay for them, which should bring to bear the stark reality that they expire, but instead the politicians see great wisdom in haggling over tax cuts for the super wealthy that adds to the debt, as will the middle class, but at least the latter comes with the practicality that they desperately need them and will spend them differently.

If Republicans win the latest tax stand off it will be because Pres. Obama and Democrats chose to punt on the tax debate before the election and now can’t seem to find the will to hang the Right’s bad math around their neck while championing financial aid for the unemployed and the middle class.

It will be a huge defeat for Pres. Obama who is continuing down an anti Democratic Party ramp that now also includes an insultingly bad free trade agreement with South Korea that the White House is blackmailing all sorts of varied Democratic groups to support. The talking points from Pres. Obama is absolute rubbish.

Sen. Sherrod Brown is exactly correct:

“I continue to believe it is a dangerous mistake to pursue the same kind of trade deals that ballooned our deficit and led to massive job loss. We simply cannot keep barking up this tree as American companies fold and American workers face prolonged unemployment. Until we address China’s manipulation and make decisions to reduce our trade deficit, I see no reason to pursue more NAFTA-style free trade agreements. …”

Former Pres. Bill Clinton was wrong about NAFTA in the ’90s and Obama is wrong now, too, especially since he could have gone to school on the mistakes of Clinton’s deal.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

My $0.02: Saturday Reads in Sheroville

By on 04 December 2010

Greeting Madame Secretary. Dec. 2, 2010, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. (AP/Anvar Ilyasov)

Good morning, news junkies! Wonk here, under the weather with a terrible sinus bug. I hope this roundup is semi-coherent.

It’s Saturday, December 4th, 2010, and on this day in history in…

1791: The first edition of The Observer, the world’s first Sunday newspaper, is published; 1881: The first edition of the Los Angeles Times is published; 1943: The Works Progress Administration ends; 1961: Birth control pill ‘available to all’ (BBC)– Women who wish to take oral contraception may do so on the National Health Service; 2000: The Supremes rule on Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board.

The Pill, The Papers, The Works Progress Administration, oh my! Oh, and we sure could have used another WPA instead of another Bush.

Of course, on this day in the present… Tax Cut Theatre presents… drumroll please… “Inside the Beltway: A Deficit of Purpose” (that’s from the NYT editorial board in today’s Gray Lady). Here’s a Reuters overview of the provisions in the Tax bill expected to fail in the Senate today. I’m sure the day will be filled with coverage of this kabuki, so enough of that for now.

Onto a Wonk the Weekend link parade, with a Shero emphasis on who else…

Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger: (Reuters) – “Hillary Clinton said Friday she would not run for president and her current job as secretary of state was probably her last public position and she would focus on women’s advocacy work after leaving office. Clinton, who has repeatedly laughed off suggestions she might still want to take command of the White House, told an audience of Bahrain students that she was not contemplating a repeat run for president after losing to Barack Obama in 2008. ‘No, I’m not,’ Clinton said. ‘I think I’ll serve as secretary of state as my last public position and then probably go back to advocacy work, particularly on behalf of women and children.’” (Alright, that’s my cue: As much as I love blogtrotting with Hillary as she travels around the globe, I can’t wait to see The Hillary Rodham Clinton Foundation finally realized when the day comes.)

It’s been a Wikileaks Week of Diplomacy Havoc for Secretary Clinton (wikileaks link goes to the Guardian’s coverage), with the Vast Right Idiocy exhaling from the grave to say their ugly-nothings (or as Taylor put it the other day, “Because Dick Morris is a Jackass.”)

As Obama passes the domestic buck yet again (click for C-span video of Obama talking to troops on a surprise visit to Bagram), he is no doubt breaking the heart of yet another batch of supporters who “wanted to believe.” Then, there is his Secretary of State, connecting with the grassroots everywhere she goes –“Hillary Clinton’s Bahrain ‘Townhall’ goes a-Twitter” (via Meera Rani at the Khaleej Times):

“Meanwhile, in the audience, a quick poll showed that young Bahraini girls were more keenly aware of world politics than the boys. Although Hillary Clinton is too big a name for anybody to not to know, many boys said they were unclear of her exact role in the US government. Bahraini girls, on the other hand, were full of questions that they would have liked to ask her about her work-life balance, her career path and world view. Aysha Hamad, 25, said she would like to understand how Clinton got out of the shadow of her powerful husband to carve a career for herself. Perhaps the most promising observation came from Isa Aziz, 19, who shrugged that while he was not personally interested in politics, he would definitely vote for women in Bahrain because progress ‘..was about ability and not gender!’” For the rest of the Bahrain townhall, you can view the state.gov transcript.

Speaking of the Energizer Secretary, heard at the Hillary Townterview in Kyrgyzstan on Thursday (via state.gov): “MODERATOR 2: How many hours do you sleep? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it really depends upon what else is going on. I’ve been kind of busy this week, so I haven’t slept many hours. But I try to get six hours. And then on the weekends, I try to make up for it, because you can’t go too long with too little sleep. It starts to impair your judgment. And so even when I can’t sleep a lot during the week, I try to catch up on the weekends.”

Also heard at the townhall in Kyrgyzstan… Hillary, in Ah-the-remnants-of-sexism wry smile mode: “MODERATOR 1: Okay. Which designers do you prefer? SECRETARY CLINTON: What designers of clothes? MODERATOR 1: Yes. SECRETARY CLINTON: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.) MODERATOR 1: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)”

Now that’s a charm offensive!

One more snippet: “MODERATOR 2: What inspires you? SECRETARY CLINTON: People who have the courage to stand up for human rights of themselves, and particularly others. That I find very inspiring. Leaders who put the needs of their people and their rights ahead of their own personal benefit.”

People and rights before personal profit. Obama is inspirational, but it is Hillary who is inspired. (BTW, people-over-profit, how do you translate that in Caviar commission-speak? On second thought, I can’t imagine there are any terms in the CC manual for the concept of good governance.)

Back at Hillaryland.gov (in an ideal world, that would be a valid url), on Friday: “Ambassador Verveer welcomes participants to a conference on International Day of Persons With Disabilities.”

***

Need a Laugh? Try Brother Husbands! (h/t Fredster)

***

Peter Daou earlier this week: “It’s a nightmarish joke that Republicans and Tea Partiers want to assail President Obama for denying American exceptionalism, while doing everything possible to undercut it.” Perfectly said, but of course, on the other side of the mockery, the great DLC/Clinton Slayer That Never Was… wants to call himself a Blue Dog, not to mention do everything to undercut the domestic policy legacy of FDR and LBJ. Another sick joke for sure, though it is no surprise. (See Politico, March 2009: “I am a New Democrat.” –a newly inaugurated President Obama )

Of course I could quote the dead giveaways from the ’08 primaries, as well, but ’tis the season to be generous and it’s not even necessary to go to that well. This so-called Democratic president’s declarations of independence from core Democratic principles has been on trainwreck display for everyone left-of-center to see and hear with their own lying eyes and ears since his tabula rosa took the oath.

From Wednesday on nakedcapitalism. Matt Stoller says End This Fed. Check out Dakinikat’s comments on Stoller’s thread and her post if you missed it. I wanted to include it in my roundup because the image that struck me while reading all this was a bit chilling: B. Hoover Obama has stuck the shiv in the Democratic party, and the right-wing scavengers have arrived to openly feast on its remains. Yeesh!

The one other story I wanted to touch on briefly and open up for conversation is the dustup over Angelina and her Bosnia movie — link takes you to Melissa Silverstein‘s writeup of the situation at Women and Hollywood.

Also from Hollywood Reporter (H/T Minkoff Minx): “Jolie asked that the women hold their judgment until they have seen the movie, which features a love story between a Bosnian woman and Serbian man. ‘There are many twists in the plot that address the sensitive nature of the relationship between the main characters,’ she said. Jolie explained that she originally decided to write a screenplay to highlight her frustration with the length of time it takes the international community to intervene in conflicts. ‘It kept leaning toward Yugoslavia at the time, I wanted to learn more about it and the people, the more I read and learnt I was drawn to that part of the world,’ she said. ‘I met artists from that part of the world and found they were extraordinary for what they’d gone through, so I wanted to give them a platform.’”

Hmm. Reminds me of the Hindi film Pinjar (based on the novel by the same name–this is a link to a writeup on a lecture series from a couple years ago). The word literally means “skeleton,” but it can also mean “cage.”

So, let’s dish!

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Obama, Self-Described ‘Blue Dog Democrat’

By on 03 December 2010

On Monday, we got the answer: he announced a pay freeze for federal workers. This was an announcement that had it all. It was transparently cynical; it was trivial in scale, but misguided in direction; and by making the announcement, Mr. Obama effectively conceded the policy argument to the very people who are seeking — successfully, it seems — to destroy him. So I guess we are, in fact, seeing what Mr. Obama is made of. – Paul Krugman

From Matt Bai, something I’ve been writing for 20 months and counting:

The body of Mr. Obama’s writing and experiences before he became a presidential candidate would suggest that he is instinctively pragmatic, typical of an emerging generation that sees all political dogma — be it ’60s liberalism or ’80s conservatism — as anachronistic. Privately, Mr. Obama has described himself, at times, as essentially a Blue Dog Democrat, referring to the shrinking caucus of fiscally conservative members of the party.

…it leads us back to Mr. Obama’s George Stephanopoulos interview in 2007, which foreshadowed it all. Including that he’s not only conservative, but sheepishly so, making the entire political exercise in which we’re all engaged a farce. If Mr. Obama could at least act with courage of his inner conservative that could at least be respected.

h/t The New Editor

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Why Is Anyone Surprised?

By on 02 December 2010

Greg Sargent did a post that’s making the rounds that includes this section, which Ezra Klein also utilizes in a post where he asks Why did the Democrats falter on the tax cuts? From Greg:

At risk of overgeneralizing, the problem isn’t that Dems aren’t capable of winning an argument. It’s that they don’t think they’re capable of winning a protracted political standoff, even on an issue where the public is on their side, once Republicans start going on the attack. They seem to set their goal early on at salvaging a compromise, rather than going for the win. As a result, they tend to telegraph weakness at the outset, sending a clear message that they’ll essentially give Republicans what they want as long as they can figure out a way to call it a compromise.

What Greg didn’t or won’t say is that the problem isn’t that Democrats “don’t think they’re capable of winning a protracted political standoff,” which plays into the Right’s meme that all Democrats are weak. The trouble Greg can’t write is that Pres. Obama is not leading them to do so. Any Democrat who is willing to stand up and fight also has to walk the plank only to be triangulated by his/her own leader. It isn’t worth it.

Take the silliness that went on over in the House with Pelosi having a symbolic vote on taxes, which cut out the top 2% super wealthy, which has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting past the Senate, let alone Obama. (Jane Hamsher made this point yesterday debating Adam Green on on “Last Call.”)

Symbolic fighting is like shadow boxing. It serves no purpose but to salve the ego. In the end it’s worthless, particularly when it’s the only ode to aggressive action that’s offered.

It’s representative of why Mrs. Pelosi continues to be a negative for Democrats. Look what her making Dems vote for “Obamacare,” as it’s now derisively called by just about anyone not a Democrat, did for Democrats during the midterms. The negative marketing impact was colossal. Pelosi made deal after deal that squeezed both Blue Dogs and progressives, while ending up with a monstrous bill that infuriated the electorate. There were important elements worth fighting for that should have been made into a smaller package, which I and others have argued non-stop, instead of the concoction Obama signed into law. Add to this that Pres. Obama didn’t give the Democrats a midterm message on which to stand and fight that included a robust defense of health care and you’ve added devastation to the injurious. Considering Obama spent his entire first year on health care instead of jobs and economic growth this capitulation could only be disastrous.

The entire Democratic playbook since Pres. Obama came into office has been one large, never ending, mind numbing clustershtup to watch.

That’s also the answer to Ezra’s question.

Obama’s not leading Democrats to fight on traditionally Democratic terms, while simultaneously ceding territory on taxes in the midst of tyrannical parliamentary tactics from the Right (via digby), because Pres. Obama doesn’t have a political policy compass. His compromises for the sake of “accomplishment” on the altar of Like Me have now cost Democrats the entire playing field.

Pres. Obama’s lack of leadership has taken the guts out of good Democrats who know that even if they stand and fight the leader of their own party will undercut them for the sake of making a deal with the Right.

One of Obama’s latest moves was to freeze federal workers’ pay, something that played to the Right while punching his base, but he didn’t even bother getting something in the bargain for the trouble!

Neither Sargent or Klein, both smart and talented political writers, will deliver this stark and true analysis, because it would be too costly for them to do it. Access is all, baby.

Someone in the traditional media orbit has to keep the faith.

Read full story · Comments { 39 }

Mitt on Sarah: ‘Powerful Figure,’ But She ‘Quit’

By on 02 December 2010



From kindness to quitter in a sentence. I don’t call him ‘slick Mitt’ for nothing.

This is the way it’s done. Smile, pay a true compliment, then tell the truth using a word Palin and her supporters simply hate to admit is true. From The Hill:

Romney, who joked that it’s a sure sign he’s running in 2012 “if you ever see me sign up for a gig on Fox News,” called Palin a “remarkable, energetic, powerful figure in my party … attractive too.”

He then took a shot at Palin’s decision to resign from the governor’s office in Alaska before the end of her term.

“It’s hard to imagine a circumstance where I would quit [the governorship in Massachusetts]. I loved it,” he told Leno. “But she had her reasons.”

Yep, she had her reasons, but Mr. Romney can’t begin to relate. Nobody in the Republican establishment can either, which goes double on the Democratic side.

More evidence of the gradual percolating Republican primary season starting, Grover Norquist takes on Joe Scarborough on POLITICO:

The presidential primary process isn’t a coronation — even when it’s expected to be. Just ask Hillary Clinton. The Republican Party has a proud history of competitive races. Not even sitting presidents have been immune. Ronald Reagan, the father of the modern conservative movement, challenged President Gerald Ford in 1976. Few today begrudge Reagan that insurgent campaign. Indeed, many credit it with giving birth to today’s conservative movement.

Palin has earned the right to run if she chooses. Despite the left’s caricature of her, Palin’s résumé more than qualifies her as a top-tier candidate. She brings almost 20 years of public service experience to the table. She has served as city council member, mayor, chairwoman of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, governor and GOP vice presidential nominee.

Sarah isn’t paying attention to anyone, however. She’s out hawking signed copies of her books for $100 a pop to fund her PAC.

I don’t think anyone would pay $100 for a signed copy of Mitt’s book.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }