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 | media RSS feed for this section

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up *updated*

Good morning and welcome to Sunday.

On this day in history, August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. And right now, he is turning over in his grave.






Some links for you to peruse:

~UPDATE: Tim Pawlenty just quit the Presidential race.

~Ok, Bachmann wins the Iowa popularity contest.

~Labor unions are growing increasingly angry at President Obama and with good reason. In what some are saying is a slap in the face to the labor unions, the Democratic convention will be held in a right to work state, North Carolina. Twelve labor unions will sit out the convention and while Obama may assume that at the end of the day he will get their support, he may be underestimating the electoral impact of having some of the Democrats’ most ardent supporters refusing to take to the streets, go door to door and generate enthusiasm for a democratic victory in 2012. In addition, the unions are none too happy with the three free trade bills (South Korea, Panama, Colombia) that Obama will sign, as they are net job-killers and provide more tax havens for wealthy corporations.

~Mitt Romney’s recent “gaffe” about corporations being “people” actually wasn’t a gaffe. Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, corporations are people, with some (not all) constitutional rights. Of course, the decisions that anointed corporations with”personhood” was the result of years of out-of-control conservative judicial activism by the SCOTUS and which culminated in the Citizen’s United case. All that said, it does say a lot about Romney’s view of the role of corporations in public life, the economy and politics.

~The administration has claimed that drone strikes in Pakistan have not resulted in civilian casualties, but this report says otherwise. Many civilians have been killed, including 168 children.

~A new political era in Israel? The tent protests are truly incredible to behold. I only wish here in the U.S. we would wake up and feel inspired to do the same thing rather than simply feeling resigned.

~Run Elizabeth, Run.

~David Meyer asks (and answers) “why aren’t Americans protesting?” like their compatriots in other parts of the world.

~Sarah Palin just can’t stand to not be the center of attention.

~Gay rights in Nepal.

~A gay man at the Iowa State Fair asked Tim Pawlenty if he considered him a second class citizen b/c he was gay. Good for him. These candidates with hateful policies and rhetoric need to be confronted.

~The Pentagon is playing with fire. But luckily for them, the MSM isn’t interested.

~President Obama isn’t even pretending to be interested in the grass roots donation drive that helped him achieve victory in 2008. He’s going for the big bucks. We all understand how this works- he had big donors last time around too- but he’s “I’m for the little guy” message has largely been jettisoned due to total lack of credibility.

~I’m sorry, but Rick Perry is a joke. I’m sure he’ll excite a lot of the far right Evangelical base but when you proclaim that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and then can’t have an articulate discussion about it other than to throw out bumper sticker sound bites, then you aren’t serious. Also with Rick Perry, he is even more opposed to gay rights than his fellow right wing GOP candidates.

~Speaking of right wing GOP candidates, next up…Rick Santorum. Have you noticed that when it comes to foreign policy (ie. anything other than talk about the economy/taxes and social wedge issues like gay rights and abortion), the Tea Party types get a glazed look and start speaking total nonsense? Rick Santorum has an interesting view of the history of Iran vis-a-vis the U.S.

~Speaking of Iran and Santorum, while he unabashedly is opposed to any type of rights for LGBT folks in the U.S., he supports gay rights for….Iranians!

~DC lobbying firms represent the human-rights abusing Bahraini government for a rather large fee. Is there anyone they won’t represent?

~Who is and isn’t deemed a “terrorist organization” and who does and doesn’t provide material support for said terrorist groups is largely political. Take the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK or Warriors of God) for example, now that Iran is in our cross-hairs, a group with American blood on its hands is the darling of Washington DC officials because the group opposes Ahmadinejad. It’s sort of like the pre-Iraq War all over again when the Iraqi diaspora community (think Ahmed Chalabi) won the hearts and minds of neoconservatives (and others) because they were virulently opposed to Saddam Hussein. The problem was, much of the information they passed on to the government was false and they had absolutely no base of support in Iraq. Similarly, the MEK has no support amongst the Iranian Green Movement and it operates in a cult-like, undemocratic manner that should make Washington nervous. The NYT published an excellent opinion piece yesterday that is worth a read if you aren’t familiar with the controversy surrounding MEK.

~So, do you agree with this WaPo commentator that Obama should cancel his Martha’s Vineyard vacation?

~In case you missed it, Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Israeli opposition leader (Kadima) Tzipi Livni, who said that Obama needs to continue to put some pressure on Israel.

~Tom Friedman is overpaid if he keeps writing stuff like this.

~At least one U.S. official seems to understand Afghanistan’s tribal culture.

~A school in Missouri has recently banned one of my favorite books, Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut. Just for fun, here is a list of the top 100 banned books (2000-2009) from the American Library Association. Here are the top ten:

1. Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling
2. Alice series, by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
3. The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier
4. And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
5. Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck
6. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou
7. Scary Stories (series), by Alvin Schwartz
8. His Dark Materials (series), by Philip Pullman
9. ttyl; ttfn; l8r g8r (series), by Myracle, Lauren
10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky

~The latest blow to the health care reform bill is a reminder of what happens when President Obama (and Congress) settle for sketchy compromises like the individual mandate over a public option, which likely wouldn’t be struck down. The next Appellate court to rule on health reform is the notoriously conservative Fourth Circuit. You can be sure of one thing, this is going to the Supreme Court.

~A stage collapse prior to a concert in Indiana ends in tragedy.

~Lets just keep ignoring our crumbling infrastructure because I’m sure it will all just fix itself.

~Are they kidding? Michele Bachmann’s people had insisted in advance of the debate that she be able to leave at each commercial break to “touch up” her makeup?

~Former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke gave an interview for a local PBS station where he accused the top echelon of the CIA of a cover up with respect to two of the 9/11 hijackers. The response from the mainstream media (other than PBS)? Something between a collective yawn and an attempt to downplay the charges leveled by Clarke.

You made it to the end. I’ll leave you with some Free-running/building-jumping that you definitely shouldn’t try at home:

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

New Yorkers & Obama

Hey, they like spine.

Quinnipiac (via Halperin):

New York State voters disapprove 49 – 45 percent of the job President Obama is doing, a huge drop from his 57 – 38 percent approval June 29 and the first time the president ever has had a negative score in New York, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Democrats approve 75 – 19 percent, down from 82 – 12 percent in June. Disapproval is 86 – 10 percent among Republicans, compared to a 74 – 23 percent disapproval in June, and 58 – 36 percent among independent voters, compared to a slightly positive 49 – 45 percent in June, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

Halperin notes: And: It’s the first time a president has ever received a negative score in New York.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Romney: ‘I’m not going to eat Barack Obama’s Dog Food

**UPDATED**

The problem, said the former Arkansas governor and 2008 Iowa caucus winner, is that Perry’s Saturday kickoff in South Carolina shows disrespect to the Iowa process. “It’s a tactical blunder … The people of Iowa work very hard to make the straw poll the biggest political moment in the summer,” Huckabee said. – Mike Huckabee: Rick Perry timing ‘bad form,’ ‘tactical blunder’

…and they’re off.

Bachmann one, Romney zip. …somebody obviously told him “people” liked the Mitt on the soap box.

Pawlenty enters a challenge that if you can find any plan from Obama, I’ll come cook you dinner or do your lawn, though it’s limited to 1 acre for Mitt Romney.

This is just weird.

…and Bret Baier, well, words escape me.

UPDATE: Okay, so Newt was on his game, plenty of make-up and might have even lost a couple of pounds. Tim Pawlenty is on the mat; that fit of his with Bachmann was brutal. Bachmann gave another strong debate performance, which should make her team fell good. Byron York’s question about being subservient was a doozy, but there were quite a few low blow questions. As for Mitt Romney, I hope Mr. Perry took a long, hard look, because he’s not going to walk away with the nomination if slick Mitt has anything to say about it. This guy wants this and he’s not going to go quietly. Jon Huntsman isn’t a Republican by today’s standards. Biggest loser: Bret Baier, who was way out of his league.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Romney Gets Into it in Iowa

“If you don’t like my answer, you can go vote for someone else,” he said. “If you want someone who will raise taxes, you can vote for Barack Obama.” – Romney gets in heated exchange with hecklers at Iowa State Fair

The exchange came on the same day as what’s being billed as a big Republican debate before the ridiculously overrated Ames straw poll. Now that Romney’s being defined as a “fragile” or “tentative” frontrunner, he’s going to have to take his campaign out of coast.

As he did so he ran headlong into a tree of the activist variety. They’re the Citizens for Community Improvement and they made Romney’s day a lot more complicated than he wanted it to be.

Democrats are rightly jumping all over Romney’s “corporations are people, my friend” line, which illustrates why the establishment hasn’t backed him yet. It’s not just tone deaf but an offensive thing to say with 10+ double-digit real unemployment. Anyone thinking sticking up for corporations in the current atmosphere is a winner is hopeless.

For any Democrat or progressive, what Romney said is red meat. It’s also fodder for the Obama campaign if Romney’s the nominee, but he isn’t yet.

However, if you’re a Republican who hasn’t quite warmed to Romney, I’m not so sure this clip is bad for slick Mitt.

It’s the first relaxed, un-weird and unscripted moment that comes with a pretty good punch line for Republican primary voters. He doesn’t come off as afraid to mix it up and commits himself strongly, even if he’s wrong about, well, just about every policy issue, unless you include his move to raise taxes as governor of Massachusetts to lure S&P to raise his state’s credit rating.

However, all of this is a great set up for Gov. Rick Perry’s entrance.

Still, Romney actually showed some life and real humanness today amidst it all, moments that have been very few for him.

I’m starting to think that what was missing from Romney’s campaign was a little healthy competition.

Rick Perry getting in the race may be the best thing that ever happened to Mitt Romney, because he clearly can’t be as nonchalant with Perry poised to enter. But all the hoopla with Perry is reminiscent of what Fred Thompson engendered before he jumped in and landed on his face. Perry’s not Thompson, but he’s also not Chris Christie, who fits the times much better.

Though why anyone would think Perry has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney is beyond me, though the “cowboy” thing in the era of Obama could seduce the neocons.

For Republicans outside the Perryverse, his approach to foreign policy and national security appear to be a natural extension of his personality: aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive… all of the traits Republicans see as lacking in the Obama’s foreign policy.

“He’s a cowboy,” said Michael Goldfarb, former senior staffer on John McCain’s presidential campaign. “You have to assume he’d shoot first and ask questions later — which would be nice after four years of a leading from behind, too little too late foreign policy.”

Yee-haw.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Perry: ‘…This is what I’m supposed to be doing…’

Mark Halperin has a very odd interview (including video) with Texas Gov. Rick Perry that doesn’t focus on one single issue. It’s all touchy, feely, are you okay with the Bushes insider nonsense, which doesn’t speak to Perry’s politics and his outlandish religiosity.

This is the guy who’s supposed to unify the establishment, jettison slick Mitt, pacify the Tea Party pack and go on to beat Barack Obama? In the 21st century, this is the best Republicans can do?

What’s the difference between Perry’s evangelical extremism and Michele Bachmann’s? What makes Perry the go to guy, while Bachmann is a little too crazy? Now, don’t get me wrong, Bachmann’s politics are crazy, but no worse than Perry’s. What makes Perry acceptable is the man thing. Evangelicals don’t take to women running things; they like them on their knees. Or maybe it’s Marcus Bachmann who’s even too much for the wingnuts?

Pres. Obama and his team couldn’t possibly get this lucky.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Romney Raised Taxes to Get S&P to React

(…and other disingenuous moves by Republicans meant to fake out the people)

As Republican presidential hopefuls descended on Iowa for their second major debate on Thursday in Ames, the return of Mr. Romney came at a turning point in his candidacy. His wait-and-see approach toward campaigning in Iowa has been complicated by the expected candidacy of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, whose strategy includes waging a full effort in the caucuses early next year that open the nominating battles ahead. – With Return to Iowa, Romney Heeds Call of G.O.P. Strategists

We’re headed into some busy Republican 2012 days of action, with Iowa the focus and no one wants to be left out, because even though the White House is preparing to run against Romney, anything can still happen.

What you’ve got to understand about Republicans as they make their case is how they lie to the working class, and have been doing so for decades, in order to convince people to vote against their interests, while utilizing Democratic ideas themselves when it suits them. Sam Stein reveals Michele Bachmann’s hypocrisy on this score today.

A Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Huffington Post with three separate federal agencies reveals that on at least 16 separate occasions, Bachmann petitioned the federal government for direct financial help or aid. A large chunk of those requests were for funds set aside through President Obama’s stimulus program, which Bachmann once labeled “fantasy economics.” Bachmann made two more of those requests to the Environmental Protection Agency, an institution that she has suggested she would eliminate if she were in the White House. Taken as a whole, the letters underscore what Bachmann’s critics describe as a glaring distance between her campaign oratory and her actual conduct as a lawmaker.

But Bachmann’s just a sideshow, though she looks a lot better than Sarah Palin these days, who is once again yanking the chain of her adoring fans. Ames may be overblown in importance, but Sarah isn’t going to let the circus pass her by (after all she needs her Fox contract).

Ronald Reagan could relate to what Mitt Romney did as governor of Massachusetts to impress S&P. Of course, like Romney, Reagan would have a lot of trouble winning the Republican nomination today, too. From Politico:

“When I was governor, S&P rewarded Massachusetts with a credit rating upgrade for our sound fiscal management and the underlying strength of our economy,” Romney boasted. “That didn’t happen by accident. The president’s failure to put the nation’s fiscal and economic house in order has caused a massive loss of confidence that resulted in an embarrassing downgrade.”

But Romney’s case to S&P is a far cry from the anti-tax absolutism of the Republican Party he hopes to lead. Indeed, it bears a far closer resemblance to the right-of-center grand compromise rejected by House Republicans this year — dismissed because it would include new taxes and end tax breaks President Barack Obama described as “loopholes” — or the more modest compromise that passed, than to the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan Romney “applauded.”

The presentation to the ratings agency reveals that Romney’s administration made the case to Standard & Poor’s that his state was creditworthy because of both spending cuts — the current preferred GOP method — and new revenues, including fees he imposed and tax “loopholes” he closed. The presentation also prominently cited a controversial set of tax increases in the summer of 2002, which Romney, then a candidate, had opposed.

This is sound fiscal policy compared to what we’re hearing from all other Republicans. The Tea Party hates Romney already, so this isn’t going to make them feel any cozier toward him.

What’s at the bottom of Romney and Bachmann’s hypocrisy is shared by most of their colleagues, though they won’t admit it, because they’ve tied themselves to a false premise and for whatever stupidity they’re going to allow everyone else to pay for it.

It’s why if Pres. Obama and the White House has any game left they’d take Steve Benen’s advice, which has also mentioned by Chris Matthews.

Here’s the pitch: have the White House take the several hundred letters GOP lawmakers have sent to the executive branch since 2009, asking for public investments, and let President Obama announce he’ll gladly fund all of the Republicans’ requests that have not yet been filled.

This is perfect for Pres. Obama: he gets to give Republicans money for jobs programs that make them look good, with the threat of exposing them if they don’t ascent to creating jobs. It would also make the progressive case the best way possible and manifest what’s needed a lot more than anything else right now: economic growth through jobs.

There is no more important act needed today.

There are innumerable ways for Democrats and progressives to beat Republicans up on their risky economic schemes, but Benen’s is the best I’ve heard so far. However, it takes action to actually do something, not just give meaningless speeches.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Scorched Earth is Nothing New for Obama

It’s panic at 1600. The daily Gallup is depressing by itself, but amidst the economic carnage and America losing our AAA status under Obama’s watch, which will make for a snappy negative GOP ad, everyone is girding their loins for the battle.

But really, folks, have people forgotten Alice Palmer? Remember Obama hinting Hillary was “Bush-Cheney lite”? ..and who can forget that South Carolina memo? If it takes scorched earth that’s what Obama will deliver, because he’s done it many times before.

Did people really believe Obama could get by this time on hope and change, the sequel?

I can’t believe people are shocked by the latest news, which comes in a politically titillating article at Politico:

In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama’s high command has even studied former President George W. Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John Kerry, a senior campaign adviser told POLITICO, for clues on how a president with middling approval ratings can defeat a challenger.

“Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,” said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House.

The onslaught would have two aspects. The first is personal: Obama’s reelection campaign will portray the public Romney as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, “weird.”

[...] The second aspect of the campaign to define Romney is his record as CEO of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that was responsible for both creating and eliminating jobs. Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession — a sort of political Gordon Gekko.

I’ve always believed that Obama would have to go hard and go dirty, whether the GOP nominee is Mitt Romney or some other guy. Romney, however, is their worst nightmare, even give his innumerable flaws. The only difficulty for Obama would be if a woman rose to the top, which isn’t going to happen now that Rick Perry and his maleness is in the on-deck circle.

Let’s also not kid ourselves that Obama and Romney are all that different. Neither are ideologues. Both believe in nothing but their own fortunes and futures. Either would sell their soul to make a deal that makes them look good. And both are willing to do anything to get to live in the White House. They’re craven egotists who believe in their own persona and the preciousness of their own man self.

As an insider Dem told me months and months ago, Obama’s never run against a competent Republican, so Mitt Romney scares the crap out of them. But now that people have seen Barack Obama in action, revealing he isn’t all his marketing says he was (as I warned), well, they’re up against it now, because the old Axelrod-Plouffe bs won’t fly this time.

Besides the fact that the entire Politico piece is a gift to Mitt Romney and assumes he’s the nominee, let’s just accept that in 2012 these two unprincipled political chameleons, no insult meant to chameleons, are perfect for the times. Maybe we’ll all get lucky and they’ll tear themselves apart, making way for something novel in 2016: an independent progressive candidate who actually stands for something, but more importantly, is willing to go down fighting for it.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

Cheap Shot, But It’s Not Sexist

Michele Bachmann’s intensity is galvanizing voters in Iowa right now and Newsweek’s cover captures that. – Tina Brown

Female bloggers on the Right are pissed. Interesting that Elizabeth Flock from the Washington Post doesn’t even realize ignores that the picture of Palin in shorts came from Jon Meacham, via Runner’s World, though she does write it was before Tina’s time. She uses the Palin photo as an example of how differently she was covered than Bachmann.

Lois Romano’s piece in Newsweek about Michele Bachmann’s presidential run is not nearly as bad as this editorial cover. I felt like I was back watching “Sex and the City,” the episode where Carrie Bradshaw was on the cover of a magazine looking dreadful, because she didn’t show up on time for the photo shoot.

The title of Romano’s piece is even complimentary: Bachmann: Tea Party Queen – Why Michele Bachmann is riding high going into Iowa.

It’s a bad photo, but sexist? Hardly. As Politico reports, Mrs. Bachmann sat for the photo with Chris Buck, who’s also done George McGovern in a Speedo.

At Bachmann’s level, you never trust a photographer you don’t know, not ever.

Should Ms. Brown have run with it? That’s another question. But as her tweet reveals above, she was going for an editorial statement about Bachmann’s “intensity.” Its’ not like Newsweek readers don’t think of Bachmann as a bit wild-eyed.

Who knows, it might even give her a boost in Iowa with her fans who’ll sympathize with her against the lamestream media.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Axelrod Scores: It was a ‘Tea Party Downgrade’

Former White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday pinned responsibility for the recent U.S. economic downgrade on the Tea Party movement, arguing that the group’s political “brinksmanship” during debt ceiling negotiations “brought us to the brink of a default” — and that, subsequently, “this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.” – CBS News

Absolutely. The Tea Party beat the White House on the debt ceiling, even though the Tea Party won’t claim it, so they’ll have to take the downgrade review, too.

Bob Schieffer got the White House bull’s eye talking point, which hits an easy mark, I know, but at this point it’s still welcome. It has the virtue of being true and something everyone can recognize because we all saw this play out.

It goes along with something else that’s manifested.

The Tea Party has overplayed their hand.

Greg Sargent pointed to something on Friday that works as a foundation to this after going through Friday’s New York Times internal polling numbers.

Tea Party i.d. has cratered.

Just 18% say yes they’re a supporter; 73% say no. All through the spectacle that masqueraded as debate and negotiations, their intransigence was on display. Never mind that their ideological zealotry comes with a fiscal policy that will only makes things worse.

You get held accountable for what you do in Congress, especially if you can’t compromise on what’s actually needed to fix our problem economy. Ideological fortitude is certainly principled up to a point, but legislators are sent to govern and Obama and the Democrats served up a lot (wrongly, in my estimation).

There’s no doubt Pres. Obama blew the set up and the negotiations, while refusing to wield the power he could have used to stop the deal, but there’s nothing to be done about that now.

So, if the White House can make the “Tea Party downgrade” stick it has the potential of being a 90s Newt Gingrich moment for the Tea Party, which actually is quite plausible. Heaven knows Democrats are eager to hear the line, which is a natural applause getter.

Unfortunately, this could help Mitt Romney a lot more than Pres. Obama, given his capitulation to Republican economics on the debt ceiling deal.

Read full story · Comments { 27 }

George W. Bush’s Economy was Even Worse than Obama Knew

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

As insults fly between political parties as well as the U.S. and S&P, with nations like China chirping in, all the rest of us are left to do is wait.

Republicans insisted on a disastrous debt ceiling deal, but it was Pres. Obama who allowed it all to play out as it did instead of demanding a clean debt ceiling and sticking to it or invoking the 14th Amendment. The White House showed no leadership at all.

But since what’s past is prologue…

It was a story entitled “Flying Blind” that drilled home the importance of funding our federal government properly to make sure lawmakers we elect have the information they need to run the place. As Lawrence O’Donnell lays out in the clip above, with help from Howard Fineman, as well as Robert Reich, when you don’t have the correct data it’s really hard to enact the proper policies. It’s what got Pres. Obama started on the economic path that is threatening to take down his presidency.

From The Economist earlier this month:

Output in the third and fourth quarters fell by 3.7% and 8.9%, respectively, not at 0.5% and 3.8% as believed at the time. Employment was also falling much faster than estimated. Some 820,000 jobs were lost in January, rather than the 598,000 then reported. In the three months prior to the passage of stimulus, the economy cut loose 2.2m workers, not 1.8m. In January, total employment was already 1m workers below the level shown in the official data.

We can’t know exactly how things would have played out in a world in which key policymakers had better data. If the true scope of the economic disaster in the fourth quarter had been clear, however, it seems certain that Ms Romer’s models would have shown a need for more stimulus, that the White House would have agreed to push for more (and perhaps a lot more), and that Congress would have been much more receptive to a bigger bill. A drop of 8.9% does seem much more terrifying, after all, than a 3.8% decline. Bigger stimulus would have reduced the economic deterioration in subsequent months. The Fed might also have been more aggressive.

[...] What’s striking to me is that as new data have revealed the true dimensions of the 2008 collapse, the public’s perception of events hasn’t much changed. Critics still jeer the stimulus for its failure to deliver promised results, despite the now-obvious inadequacy of the package. Few in Washington seem willing to discuss how drastically officials underreacted in 2009, and how the results of that underreaction are still with us, waiting for a more appropriate policy response. I don’t know which tragedy is the more troubling: the failure to see the true scope of the disaster when accurate numbers weren’t available, or the failure to see it now that they are.

Stop and re-read those numbers in bold above.

The discrepancy is not only staggering, but would cause any White House to react much differently. Obama’s people had the wrong numbers, so they were operating under a horrifically frightening misconception.

George W. Bush had left the economy in a much worse state than anyone had previously known.

Of course, Obama and Democrats came into power in 2009 not wanting to look back and because of it Bush enjoyed a sort of rehabilitation when his memoir came out. It’s a tragic mistake made by amateurs.

The disconnect, however, is that Pres. Obama, Democrats and Republicans are willing to waste the entire month of August on vacation while our country heaves and gasps for economic leadership.

The lack of coherent, determined and fearless leadership, that’s the scariest part of this entire saga and no one has the confidence this element will change any time soon.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

Good morning and welcome to Sunday!

Quote of the Day:

“No risk of that, no risk.”

– Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during an interview in April, discussing the risk of the U.S. debt being downgraded.

Some links to go with your morning coffee/tea:

~China, our banker, is angry at the U.S. about the downgrade. I guess more administration-China ass kissing diplomacy is in order.

~The Super Duper Debt Committee will just cause more problems than it solves, for obvious reasons.

~The biggest US single-episode loss of life in the Afghanistan War took place Friday as insurgents shot down a Chinook helicopter carrying 38 members of US special forces and 7 Afghan soldiers. More here.

~Also on Afghanistan- The International Crisis Group has issued a report which concludes that despite dumping billions of dollars into nation-building in Afghanistan, the U.S. and its allies have failed to stabilize the country. I think the billions of dollars they are talking about does not include the money spent on the actual war effort there-in other words, just the military and civil rebuilding and stabilization efforts.

~In today’s WaPo there is an article about the origins of the debt showdown and how Eric Cantor took advantage of the House’s new Tea Party recruits to turn the debt ceiling debate into a standoff over the role of government.

~The Wikipedia conference is currently taking place in Israel and the Wikipedia founder talked about how the community tries very hard to keep Wiki entries as neutral as possible. That’s not easy in an era where as soon as there is a political controversy, groups run to the site to get their version of the story out.

~Up to 12 million people’s lives are under direct threat in the Horn of Africa as drought, famine and war take their toll. Much of the world looked away when the predictions of an extreme famine were first put forth. However, the terror group al-Shabab claims there is no famine taking place in Somalia but of course, that could be because the group is preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the men, women and children who are currently starving to death and as a result, they bear direct responsibility.

~A Navy vet and former defense contractor in Iraq explains why he is suing Donald Rumsfeld over the Bush administration’s torture policy- but here’s the thing- in a crazy twist, he was tortured by Americans in Iraq.

~In much of the media’s coverage about the S&P downgrade, there seems to be a tendency to ignore the impact of the refusal to add ANY revenue-generating provisions in the debt deal. There was plenty of blame to spread around to both parties, but there are some interesting tidbits in the S&P statement about revenues. It would seem that the GOP is giddy about the downgrade because throwing a Molotov Cocktail into our already depressed economy was always the GOP plan leading up to 2012.

~While the S&P is certainly correct that Washington is completely dysfunctional and getting them to do anything constructive for the good of the nation is a bit like trying to herd cats, there is no denying the politics of what is taking place. Firedoglake has a good summary of some of the things that may have actually been behind S&P’s decision to downgrade the US credit rating.

~So, how is Saudi Arabia doing on the human rights front? Really, really well. [/sarcasm]

~Despite a lot of people giving Obama props about being willing to put defense cuts on the table, the truth of the matter is that the Obama administration shows no interest in curbing out-of-control defense spending as evidenced by his new Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, publicly complaining all last week about how disastrous defense cuts would be. Once again, fear trumps reason. Interestingly, when asked, Leon Panetta can’t seem to articulate any reason why any proposed cuts would be so dangerous to our nation’s security:

~Over 300,000 people took to the streets in Israel this weekend to protest the high cost of living. Good for them. We need to do that here in the U.S.

~The Obama administration will likely squander yet another opportunity to take a serious stand on environmental issues. The Alberta tar sands pipeline is currently being reviewed by the State Dept. and the review itself has been mired in controversy from the start. The pipeline’s chief lobbyist is a former Hillary Clinton deputy campaign director and Secretary Clinton made the none-too-subtle remark long before the review process even started, that she was “inclined to support” it. That made environmentalists and even many Congressional Democrats hopping mad. Of course, the buck doesn’t stop there and environmentalists and congressional democrats are urging the administration to not approve the project. Good luck with that, the fix is in.

~Speaking of the environment, some say that the current Congress is the most anti-Environment since about the 1950′s. Impressive.

~All eyes are on Wisconsin which is in the midst of the largest number of recall elections in U.S. history. Huge amounts of cash have been flooding in to the state via special interest groups from both the left and the right. Some see Wisconsin as a dry run of sorts for what may happen in 2012, ie. did the Tea Party types go too far?

~Gov. Rick Perry’s prayer rally certainly won’t endear him to moderates or independents but I have a feeling that’s ok with Rick Perry.

~Things are still not well in Sudan/Southern Sudan. There is still a long, long way to go.

~The repressive, human rights-abusing Communist Chinese government continues to throw fuel on the fire of religious freedom with respect to Buddhists in Tibet. Even if Americans know very little about this right now, it is a very big issue and could lead to bloodshed when the current Dalai Lama dies. And when that happens, Washington will be forced to take notice but by then it will be too late.

~The death toll in Syria continues to rise as government forces continue the siege on Hama. As Assad’s forces continue to slaughter his own people, the Syrian foreign minister comes out and makes the ludicrous statement that the Assad government will allow free legislative elections by the end of 2011. Yeah, and unicorns are real.

~Both Palestinian and Israeli security forces are frustrated with the politicians in Ramallah, Jerusalem and Washington DC. This is something I have heard over and over again. The Israeli and Palestinian security forces have been training and had unprecedented security cooperation over the past 8+ years, with impressive results, while the politicians piss away every opportunity for a reasonable solution to the conflict.

~Sean Hannity thinks it’s wrong to require insurers to cover birth control but guess what he thinks they should cover…Viagra. Indeed.

~Fox News is out of control with race-baiting.

~Politico continues with its status quo hackery and prints an op-ed from GOP Representative Duncan Hunter, who fear-mongers about cutting defense spending. Ok, no problem there because people can write opinion pieces from various points of view. The problem is that a) he makes patently false claims about the role of defense spending in our current debt crisis and b) Politico knew, or should have known, that Hunter has a conflict of interest when it comes to defense spending given most of his top campaign contributions come from defense contractors. If Politico readers knew that, they might be a little bit more discerning when it comes to taking Hunter’s claims at face value.

~Demonstrations turned violent in Tottenham, England, as people marched to the police station to protest the shooting of a 29-year old man Mark Duggan by police last week. Racial tensions have historically been high in the Tottenham region and as of last night, the situation was still not under control.

~Some in Israel are concerned about a bill that is poised to pass the Knesset and which seeks to provide guidance to the courts such that they would be expected to privilege maintaining “the state as the Jewish nation state in ruling in situations in which the Jewish character of the state clashes with its democratic character.” Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf and other critics of the pending legislation have argued that proponents of the bill seem to be saying that maintaining a Jewish state and upholding democracy are at odds. It’s an interesting debate.

~Donald Trump really embodies the corporate greed and entitled attitude that seems to have infected this nation. His most recent stunt is to vow to do everything in his power to prevent the building of an offshore wind farm in Scotland because it will obstruct the beautiful view from the golf course he is currently in the process of building.

~Whatever you do, don’t read Thomas Friedman’s silly editorial about the financial crisis in today’s NYT, it’s five minutes of your life that you’ll never get back which is why I read it for you. It’s loaded with dumb analogies and really obvious points like “[r]egarding growth, we surely need a much smarter long-term fiscal plan than the one that just came out of Washington.”

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Bill Clinton Played Hardball and Won, Obama Paid Ransom and America Lost

“(Pres. Bill Clinton) beat the hell out of us first, for a year. He pummeled us for a year. … He didn’t roll over the second we walked in. … Then he out-negotiated us for a year. He brought us to our knees.” – Joe Scarborough

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

Those were the days. A time when a Democratic president in the White House knew how to wage a political fight. Today, not only has Pres. Obama ceded our national economic policies to Republicans and Tea Party extortionists, but he’s managed to alter the entire debate forever.

What we have done, Larry, also is set a new template. In the future, any president, this one or another one, when they request us to raise the debt ceiling, it will not be clean anymore. This is just the first step. This, we anticipate, will take us into 2013. Whoever the new president is, is probably going to be asking us to raise the debt ceiling again. Then we will go through the process again and see what we can continue to achieve in connection with these debt ceiling requests of presidents to get our financial house in order. – Sen. Mitch McConnell

Joe Scarborough was there and explained it best back when the Gingrich revolution rolled into Washington, something I remember well. Joe also makes the Democratic argument starting at around 6:45, with the money quote at 11:45 on the video above.

Back in the ’90s, William Jefferson Clinton had many things going for him Obama didn’t have during the debt ceiling debacle. First, as Kara Brandeisky writes in TNR, there was a roaring economy, but there were also no Republicans willing to take the country over a financial cliff.

Pres. Clinton had something else too. Yes, he became a Third Way centrist hated by progressives, but Clinton drew a line in concrete on what he would accept and not accept. But more importantly, he didn’t let the Republican extortionists set the terms of goddam debate.

November 9, 1995, a senior administration official told the Washington Post, “Our position is it does not matter what they put on this legislation, we are not going to accept anything but clean bills because we will not be blackmailed over default. Get it? No extortion. No blackmail. What you hear are their screams of complaint as they realize we are not, not, not budging on this.”How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama

As Jonathan Chait notes as well, it’s not about looking at Bill Clinton’s centrist presidency, which was filled with compromises, with rose-colored glasses, which isn’t going to happen anyway.

Obama and his loyalists have gone overboard the same way George W. Bush did when he came in. Bush’s Anything But Bill strategy led to the demoting of the first terrorism export, then 9/11. Obama’s aversion to Bill Clinton’s politics, but also Obama’s arrogance in not learning the lessons of his presidency, especially his hardball tactics that go back to Lyndon Johnson, has now given Republican economics to America.

Worse yet, Obama has also told his adversaries that there isn’t anything he won’t do to avoid a confrontation, while simultaneously yielding the economic debate to Republicans.

Clinton may be a lot of things, but he wasn’t a political coward.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Pres. Obama’s Deficit Debacle, National Security, and Warmaking

I’ve been reading a lot about the Pentagon’s possible budget hit, with analysis all over the map. What this proves conclusively is that no one knows what will happen. That’s the real rub in Obama’s debt ceiling debacle. No one can possibly know the specifics in outlying years. There are too many unknown unknowables, to paraphrase big spender Rummy, which is proven by reading the myriad of opinions on what might manifest.

William Hartung, Director, Arms Security Project, Center for International Policy*:

“In the short-term, the budget deal crafted by the president and the congressional leadership gives the Pentagon virtually a free ride. It reduces projected Pentagon spending by less than one percent. These proposed reductions are further diluted by the fact that they will be counted against a broad ‘security’ category that will include the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies beyond the Pentagon proper. These miniscule reductions are unacceptable. Real cuts in Pentagon expenditures can be imposed without reducing our security. Any longer-term deal should reflect this reality.”

Andrew Bacevich, Professor, Boston University:

“The prospect of defense cuts ought to concentrate some minds in Washington. To avoid reductions that are arbitrary and capricious requires clarity of strategic purpose. The really big question is not how many billions should come out of the Pentagon’s bloated budget. No, the big question is this one: given our straitened economic circumstances and in light of the monumental catastrophes of the past decade, what is America’s proper role in the world? Simply reciting cliches about ‘global leadership’ won’t cut it. The time to make hard choices is at hand.”

Winslow Wheeler, head of the Strauss Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, via Josh Rogin:

…said that the whole notion of the cuts is misleading anyway, because the numbers are being compared projections that were inaccurate in the first place.

“There will be reductions … but the actual figure is also masked by the fact that the debt deal is compared to a ten year CBO ‘baseline,’ which is [the fiscal] 2011 spending levels adjusted according to arcane rules and inflated by a highly unreliable projection of long term future inflation,” he said.

“The debt deal kicks the defense budget can down the road for this and future Congresses. People should not read precision and certainty into a political deal specifically designed to be uncertain and indistinct.”

From McClatchy:

Rather than cutting $400 billion in defense spending through 2023, as President Barack Obama had proposed in April, the current debt proposal trims $350 billion through 2024, effectively giving the Pentagon $50 billion more than it had been expecting over the next decade.

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, experts said, the overall change in defense spending practices could be minimal: Instead of cuts, the Pentagon merely could face slower growth.

“This is a good deal for defense when you probe under the numbers,” said Lawrence Korb, a defense expert at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research center. “It’s better than what the Defense Department was expecting.”

[...] But the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — known as the Bowles-Simpson proposal, for its two chairmen — proposed far deeper reductions last fall, saying the military could still maintain its power.

Korb, who studies defense budgets, said Congress could cut the defense baseline budget by $100 billion annually over the next decade and still spend more than it did during the height of the Cold War, adjusted for inflation. He noted that the baseline defense budget has climbed every year for 13 years, a record increase.

Anthony H. Cordesman from CSIS on the debt ceiling deal:

There is good reason why anyone who cares about the current legislation on the budget deficit should care about its near-term impact on national security:

  • The entire debate reflected a total disregard of the need for the State Department and other civil departments to play a major role in consolidating our victory in Iraq, supporting a transition to Afghan control in 2014, and preparing for the United States to play a major role in supporting democracy and political change in the Middle East.
  • This pressure comes at a time when the Defense Department has had years of growth in real spending, does little or no realistic long-term force planning, cannot control its manpower and procurement costs, and was already seeking cuts in programs between $78 billion and $400 billion. Even before the president added the goal of cutting the budget by $400 million over the next 12 years (long before the present debate), the Defense Department had planned to eliminate all real growth in defense spending after FY2013—which would reduce the total defense budget from $708 billion in FY2011 to $661 billion in FY2016—even if one assumes that the United States will still be spending $50 billion a year on its wars.
  • Not one word of the debate addressed the rise in the total interagency homeland defense budget to over $70 billion a year, a massive new effort that has grown with minimal efficiency and without adult supervision.
  • The new legislation layers a whole new set of cuts over the existing cuts forced on the defense secretary in preparing the FY2012 budget submission, which means massive new short-term pressure to find cuts—any cuts—in defense spending.
  • The debate that led up to the legislation produced a totally dishonest proposal for cuts in wartime spending amounting to $1 trillion dollars. This was matched by an equally dishonest Future Year Defense Program submission for FY2012 from the Defense Department, which claimed that the total cost of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terrorism would suddenly drop from $159 billion in FY2011 and $118 billion in FY2012 to a constant level of $50 billion in FY2013–2016. The real cost of our wars has to be over $75 billion in FY2013, and no one knows the out-year costs. As for the $1 trillion in savings, it would take 20 years to achieve a $1-trillion savings at a rate of $50 billion a year, and that would mean two decades in which the United States could not spend a dime on any overseas contingency.

But, the legislation is not going to survive in ways that have any real mid- or long-term impact. This becomes clear the moment anyone examines the real-world nature of the supposed longer-term plans for defense cuts in the legislation.

First, there is no way to usefully assess what the numbers involved actually mean or to regard them as politically credible. We are talking about making cuts to nonexistent plans and budget baselines some 12 years into the future.

Second, these cuts are to be made in undefined dollars, where no one can yet define current or constant dollars for the time period involved or estimate the extent to which the cost of defense rises faster than the average rate of future inflation.

Third, the cuts are purely political numbers that do not reflect any analysis of national security needs, where the cuts would come from, or the risk involved. They make no allowance for new contingency requirements. They are to be carried out over more than a decade without regard to future developments in the U.S. economy and competing needs for federal spending.

Fourth, the cuts are not based on any serious examination of the priority of national security spending relative to other discretionary spending and entitlements programs and sources of revenue. They do not look at the fact that national security—which everyone agrees is a legitimate priority for federal activity—costs less than 5 percent of a $14 trillion dollar economy even though we are still involved in two wars. They totally ignore the fact that it is the rising cost of medical treatment (rising from 5 to 6 percent of GDP in the past toward 19 percent) and the needs of an aging population (rising from 12 to 20 percent of the total) that is the key area that has pushed up our debt and deficit and where we need sound national programs—not simply budget cuts.

Fifth, the deadlines that could trigger the massive additional cuts are absurd. There is no credible way that the Special Joint Committee can really address the cuts that should be made in our national security efforts by November 23, 2011, or that the Congress as whole could properly evaluate the result for an up-or-down vote by December 23, 2011.

Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; former Assistant Secretary of Defense*:

 ”The proposed deal does not go far enough in reining in a military budget which in real terms is higher than at any time since World War II. In fact, the total reductions over the next decade are likely to be less than the $400 billion proposed by President Obama.”

Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director, National Security Network*:

“If a congressional commission includes a serious, bipartisan review of defense strategy and expenditures, and abides by its recommendations, this is an opportunity for all sides to show they’re serious about constructing an American defense strategy that is effective and affordable for our times.”

ABC News:

On first blush it appears the $2.1 billion debt ceiling compromise hits the Pentagon’s budget pretty hard in the next decade, but the reality is that in the short term the $350 billion in defense cuts is smaller than what Pentagon officials had been preparing for. However, the deal also holds out the possibility that in the long term there could be even deeper cuts in defense spending if a bipartisan committee is unable to come up with an additional $1.2 trillion in savings by the end of this year.

…and just in case you haven’t been paying attention, which plays into Pres. Obama’s hands on national security, as well as obliterates the line between Democrats and Republicans, secrecy still rules (n/t Noah Shachtman of Danger Room).

The Senate Intelligence Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to confront the problem of “secret law,” by which government agencies rely on legal authorities that are unknown or misunderstood by the public.

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall, was rejected on a voice vote, according to the new Committee report on the FY2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.

“We remain very concerned that the U.S. government’s official interpretation of the Patriot Act is inconsistent with the public’s understanding of the law,” Senators Wyden and Udall wrote. “We believe that most members of the American public would be very surprised to learn how federal surveillance law is being interpreted in secret.”

Finally, Adm. Dennis Blair, former United States Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, for all you wonks (substance starts at 3 min. in). Blair starts with a terrific quote from John Cleese, which is pretty perfect considering the absurdity we’ve all had to endure the last weeks.

*TM Note: Attribution on this quote has been changed.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Keith Olbermann: Incumbents’ Only Goals are Re-nomination, Re-Election, and the Pursuit of Hypocrisy

Once Mr. Olbermann came to Current TV I made sure our house changed our cable subscription so I could view his show on Al Gore’s network. He has not disappointed, especially last night.

While Lawrence O’Donnell bloviated on MSNBC, more worried about trying to dig himself out of bankrupt political analysis he offered on the debt ceiling, starting off by saying Pres. Obama “blinked” on the budget deal after brilliantly maneuvering the campaign, a ludicrous fact-free assessment, Keith was tearing down the House, Senate and White House, but more importantly, our political system, with a special comment that went far beyond what he’s ever done before.

Our political collapse to vested interests has little to do with which side is president, because whether Obama or Romney, Huntsman, Perry or Bachmann, these people at this level are too bought off to touch. All of these people are equally bankrupt because they’re all competing in the same beauty pageant of power run by big business, Wall Street and special interests, as Al Gore said so eloquently last night as well.

Our problems go well beyond Democratic or Republican choices, which now hold no hope, no change and no answers. It’s not about third parties either. It’s about anyone who is outside the system and is progressively committed to standing against the austerity craze that will crash our country if something isn’t done about it.

Your challenge is to first send a message to the people in Washington. Then it’s to find alternatives to the current political class and choose him or her instead of the cowardly status quo.

TRANSCRIPT

I close, as promised, with a Special Comment on the debt deal.

Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong.

We have, in this deal, declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all political incumbents are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Re-nomination, re-election, and the pursuit of hypocrisy.

We have, in this deal, gone from the Four Freedoms to the Four Great Hypocrisies.

We have superceded Congress to facilitate 750 billion dollars in domestic cuts including Medicare in order to end an artificially-induced political hostage crisis over debt, originating from the bills run up by a Republican president who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex by unfunded, unnecessary, and unproductive wars, enabled in doing so by the very same Republican leaders who now cry for balanced budgets – and we have called it compromise. And those who defend it have called it a credit to a pragmatic president who wins some sort of political “points” because, having stood for almost nothing here, he gave away almost nothing for which he stood.

It would be comical if it were not tragic.

Either way, it is a signal moment in our history, in which both parties have agreed and codified that the political structure of this nation shall now based entirely on hypocrisy and political self-perpetuation.

Let us start with the first of the Great Hypocrisies: The Committee. The Republican dogs can run back to their corporate masters and say they have forced one-and-one-half trillion dollars in cuts and palmed off the responsibility for them on this nonsensical “Super Congress” committee.

For two-and-a-half brutal years we have listened to these Tea Party mountebanks screech about the Constitution of the United States as if it were the revealed word and not the product of other – albeit far better – politicians. They demand the repeal of Amendments they don’t like, and the strict interpretation of the ones they do, and the specific citation of authorization within the Constitution for every proposed act or expenditure or legislation.

Except this one.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the two houses of Congress can, in effect, create a third house to do its dirty work for it; to sacrifice a few Congressmen and Senators so the vast majority of incumbents can tell the voters they had nothing to do with this?

This leads to the second of the Great Hypocrisies: how, in the same breath, the Republicans can create an extra-Constitutional “Super Congress” and yet also demand a Constitutional Amendment to force the economic stupidity that would be a mandated balanced budget. Firstly: pick a side! Ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.

Firstly, pick a side, ignore the constitution or adhere to it. And of what value would this Mandated Balanced Budget be? Our own history proves that at a time of economic crisis, if the businesses aren’t spending, and the consumers aren’t spending, the government must. Our ancestors were the lab rats in the horrible experiments of the Hoover Administration that brought on the Great Depression, in which the government curled up into a ball while it simultaneously insisted the economy should heal itself, when, in times of crisis – then and now – the economy turns out to be comprised entirely of a bunch of rich people who will sit on their money no matter if the country starves.

Forgotten in the Republican Voodoo dance, dressed in the skins of the mythical Balanced Budget, triumphant over the severed head of short-term retrenchment that they can hold up to their moronic followers, are the long-term implications of the mandated Balanced Budget.

What happens if there’s ever another… war?

Or another… terrorist attack?

Or another… natural disaster?

Or any other emergency that requires A government to spend a dollar more than it has? A Constitutional Amendment denying us the right to run a deficit, is madness, and it will be tested by catastrophe sooner than any of its authors with their under-developed imaginations that can count only contributions and votes, can contemplate.

And the third of the Great Hypocrisies is hidden inside the shell game that is the Super Congress. The Super Congress is supposed to cut evenly from domestic and defense spending, but if it cannot agree on those cuts, or Congress will not endorse them, there will be a “trigger” that automatically cuts a trillion-two or more – but those cuts will not necessarily come evenly from the Pentagon. We are presented with an agreement that seems to guarantee the gutting of every local sacred cow from the Defense Department. Except if the Congressmen and Senators to whom the cows are sacred, disagree, and overrule, or sabotage the Super Congress, or, except if for some reason a 12-member Committee split evenly along party lines can’t manage to avoid finishing every damned vote 6-to-6.

We’re cutting Defense. Unless we’re not.

The fourth of the Great Hypocrisies is the evident agreement to not add any revenues to the process of cutting. Not only is the impetus to make human budget sacrifices out of the poor and dependent formalized… but the rich and the corporations are thus indemnified, again, and given more money not merely to spend on themselves and their own luxuries, but more vitally, they are given more money to spend on buying politicians, and legislatures, and courts, buying entire states, all of which can be directed like so many weapons, in the service of one cause and one cause alone: making by statute and ruling, the further protection of the wealthy at the expense of everybody else, untouchable, inviolable – permanent.

The White House today boasted of loopholes to be closed and tax breaks to be rescinded — later.

By a committee.

A committee that has yet to be formed.

There are no new taxes. Except the stealth ones, enacted on 99 out of 100 Americans by this evil transaction. Every dollar cut from the Safety Net is another dollar added to the citizen’s cost for education, for security, for health, for life itself. It is another dollar he can’t spend on making a better life for himself, or at least his children. It is another dollar he must spend instead on simply keeping himself alive.

Where is the outrage over these Great Hypocrisies? Do you expect it to come from a corrupt and corrupted media, for whom access is of greater importance than criticizing the failure of a political party or defending those who don’t buy newspapers or can’t leap website paywalls or could not afford cable TV?

Do you expect it to come from a cynical and manipulative political structure? Do you expect it from those elected officials who no longer know anything of government or governance, but only perceive how to get elected, or how to pose in front of a camera and pretend to be leaders? Do you expect it from politicians themselves, who will merely calculate whether or not it’s right based on whether or not it will get them more contributions?

Do you expect it will come from the great middle ground of this country, with a population obsessed with entertainment, video games, social media, sports, and trivia?

Where is the outrage to come from?

From you!

It will do no good to wait for the politicians to suddenly atone for their sins. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs.

It will do no good to wait for the media to suddenly remember its origins as the ‘free press,’ the watchdog of democracy envisioned by Jefferson. They are too busy trying to get exclusive DETAILS about exactly how the bankrobbers emptied the public’s pockets, to give a damn about telling anybody what they looked like, or which way they went.

It will do no good to wait for the apolitical public to get a clue. They can’t hear the clue through all the chatter and scandal and diversion and delusion and illusion.

The betrayal of what this nation is supposed to be about did not begin with this deal and it surely will not end with this deal. There is a tide pushing back the rights of each of us, and it has been artificially induced by union-bashing and the sowing of hatreds and fears, and now this ever-more-institutionalized economic battering of the average American. It will continue, and it will crush us, because those who created it are organized and unified and hell-bent.

And the only response is to be organized and unified and hell-bent in return. We must find again the energy and the purpose of the 1960′s and early 1970′s and we must protest this deal and all the God damn deals to come, in the streets. We must arise, non-violently but insistently. General strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperation take-overs – but modern versions of that resistance, facilitated and amplified, by a weapon our predecessors did not have: the glory that is instantaneous communication.

It is from an old and almost clichéd motion picture that the wisdom comes: First, you’ve got to get mad.

I cannot say to you, meet here or there at this hour or that one, and we will peacefully break the back of government that now exists merely to get its functionaries re-elected. But I can say that the time is coming when the window for us to restore the control of our government to our selves will close, and we had damn well better act before then.

Because this deal is more than a tipping point in which the government goes from defending the safety net to gutting it. This is wrong, and while our government has now declared that it has given up the concept of right-and-wrong, you and I… have not, and will not, do so.

Good night, and good luck.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

The Final Splash After the ‘Dive’

Matt Taibbi gets this exactly correct.

The Democrats aren’t failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there’s political hay to be made moving to the right. They’re doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I’ve said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.

For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.

The Republicans in this debt debate fought like wolves or alley thugs, biting and scratching and using blades and rocks and shards of glass and every weapon they could reach.

The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn’t fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time — as fixed fights go, you don’t see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did — but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.

[...] It strains the imagination to think that the country’s smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by “surrendering” at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?

It’s not news that Barack Obama is Wall Street and big biz’s minion, we saw that in his sell out on health care, propping up too big to fail, the list goes on and on, but he’s got lots of company in the Democratic party. On the Republican side it’s worse.

So now that it’s all over Barack Obama gets ready to have a big birthday party to celebrate his own cold self, the American middle class, minorities and the jobless are left with a president who not only doesn’t understand they’re plight, but doesn’t care to address it, anymore than he or the Democrats care about progressivism.

Thinking forward, progressives and Democratic activists have another choice to make, as they face their own irrelevance. To keep propping up the Democratic party, which in the era of Barack Obama has come to mean absolutely nothing near what it once was. Or to tear the place down by walking away from Democrats to find another solution, at least for your singular vote, so you don’t become part of the problem, too.

But let’s put aside the notion that one of the big two parties is different from another. In the debt ceiling debacle we learned even more starkly they are not. The final debt deal makes that apparent.

What everyone saw play out is that the only group that revealed any political character, however crazy, was the Tea Party. Whether progressives have the strength and will to create their own vein inside the Democratic party is very much in doubt, because in the end they all voted to rescue the President from his own feckless leadership.

One thing is very clear, Pres. Obama and the Democrats in power are not your friend, but neither are Republicans. How you react and what you do about that is up to you, but after the debt ceiling anyone saying it matter’s who is president, either Obama or Romney, is either kidding him- or herself or too lost in fan politics to trust.

Read full story · Comments { 38 }

Republicans Fake Pres. Obama Out of his Shorts

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. [...] Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels. It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will. – The President Surrenders, by Paul Krugman


Waking up naked on Monday morning in front of the world is embarrassing. It’s even worse when people looking at you are laughing.

It left Obama loyalists in disarray, grasping for a way to handle the onslaught of outrage. TPM had an interesting way to go at it, providing headlines with question marks, emails from outraged readers, while Obama fell off a pedestal he’d never earned in the first place.

But regurgitating puma-esque headlines? It was not just sad, but disgraceful.

Buyer’s remorse?

Pres. Obama is our president and no matter your political party we all needed him to stand up to the Tea Party extortionists, who in the end proved the only principled people, however crazy their politics, in this mess. That they provided Mitch McConnell with the weapons he needed should go without saying at this point. That they unmasked progressives in Congress as not having half their courage does as well.

What was needed from the President’s loyalists was someone to do political analysis that pointed the blame where it belongs: Pres. Barack Obama, who not only surrendered, but set up a situation where we all get to revisit his cowardice until 2012, while Republicans now know beyond a reason of a doubt he hasn’t the character for his job.

Hillary Clinton is not only irrelevant in this discussion, she doesn’t deserve to be mentioned, because she’s so far out of Obama’s disastrous political “surrender,” to use Krugman’s words, that it’s unfair to drag her back in. Unfortunately, at the height of Pres. Obama’s collapse, some loyalists had nothing else to offer but Clinton redux.

Sen. Mitch McConnell used Barack Obama like a cat plays with an insect. Not quite wiping him out with the first swipe, just when you think it’s safe, your adversary closes in for the final assault. The only thing Obama had left at the end of the weekend was the whine and last gasp of a presidency that will continue, but doesn’t mean anything anymore, because he’s left the United States economically crippled for the foreseeable future.

The New York Times editorial page eviscerated the deal:

There is little to like about the tentative agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House except that it happened at all. The deal would avert a catastrophic government default, immediately and probably through the end of 2012. The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists. It will hurt programs for the middle class and poor, and hinder an economic recovery.

Politics isn’t Hollywood, but until people quit playing it as a reality show or a casting call, picking their favorite celebrity and thinking personality is the answer, relying on celebrity talk show hosts who pronounce politicians as “The One,” we’ll get bad endings and short stories about people who leave carnage in their wake, without ever caring what happens when they’re gone.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

As Obama Grasps Austerity, the Rich Get Off and the Middle Class Pays

BREAKING: Reid bill fails in Senate.

“Nothing is agreed to unless everything is agreed to.” – Lawrence O’Donnell

As deal rumors float above the swamp stench around Washington, based on McConnell’s devious plan (I told you so), whether it’s ABC or Major Garrett, the above O’Donnell quote is our foundation. That considered, from Garrett:

President Barack Obama and Press Secretary Jay Carney walk along the Colonnade of the White House towards the Oval Office, July 29, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Other component parts of the tentative deal include:

  • $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called “Super Committee.”
  • The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
  • The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion in spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
  • If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
  • No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

None of this fazes Obama loyalists and die hard fluffers, as they continue their fan politics parade. Whether in emails or in comments here and across the web, with many sites banning Obama dissenters, Obama’s reelection cheer leaders continue to be focused on defending the indefensible, without ever caring one whit about the people impacted by Pres. Obama’s craven collapse to Republican economics, which starts at the state and local level. Peggy Noonan called Obama a “loser” last week, without blinking an eye for the millions of Americans who will be hurt by the austerity fetish, as the super wealthy and corporations get a pass, because Pres. Obama extended the biggest budget buster around, the Bush tax cuts, then, so impressed by the establishment and middle mush applause, decided to double down, leaving us where we are today.

It reduces strong Democratic members of Congress and progressives stuck up against it. Because with Obama’s sights set only on a second term, the entire media establishment is either talking about the Tea Party extortionists or “over spending,” while absolutely no one is giving credence to the progressive economic model, which represented by Sen. Bernie Sanders, Reps. Raul Grivalja and Keith Ellison is now considered not serious enough to consider.

All I can wonder is what might have happened, going all the way back to health care, if progressives knew how to play hardball as well as the Tea Party crazies, who ended up making Sen. Mitch McConnell the man of the hour and actually more important than Pres. Obama; this was a result of progressive Democrats caving to Obama back when they should have fought to the end. The result of the Left’s compromise from Stupak to the Bush tax cuts was the 2010 midterm results, as well as the war on women playing out across America. So no one should be surprised Pres. Obama has expanded it to economic policies that hurt the unemployed, poor, middle class, minorities, women and, potentially, even seniors.

The establishment press, new media and old has an excuse to ignore the solid ideas of progressive economics: If Pres. Obama is ignoring progressive economics, considering he’s the “leader” of the Democratic party, embracing Republican economics instead, anything having to do with aggressively making the case for growth and jobs, which in a recession can only come through dynamic stimulus spending, is now a fringe idea.

There is almost no serious discussion about growth, jobs and how badly austerity will impede getting people back to work. The stupidity is that our talking head class and Democratic zombie fan politics voters don’t get that it’s the middle class that provides the demand to inspire companies to hire. Pres. Obama won’t make that case. He won’t make any case for Democratic economics. Evidently he doesn’t understand anything but money wingnuttery, because it expands his fluffer base.

After the debt ceiling is raised, everyone will simply go back to the 2012 horse race, preparing for an embarrassing Obama birthday spectacle, while people once again start babbling incoherently about Independents and the middle, led by the Obama loyalists, who couldn’t care less about the unemployed, elderly or minorities, as long as their man wins in 2012.

Anyone thinking that Obama being reelected matters, versus, let’s just say, Mitt Romney, is too far gone to deserve serious rebuttal. Now that Pres. Obama has adopted right-wing austerity, now known as Obamanomics, whatever difference there was in the two parties has vanished, so who wins the presidency in 2012 is totally irrelevant, but also reveals the cancer of partisan politics to the health of American prosperity, but also to the average American middle class family trying to keep food on the table and a roof over their head.

But what’s been largely ignored is how the very solution to the debt-ceiling crisis could also squeeze state and local governments that are already strapped for cash. … [...] Local governments will try to raise property taxes to raise revenue, which could be yet another drag on a housing market that’s yet to recover. Those who fail to meet their fiscal obligations could see their credit downgraded, making it even harder for them to borrow money to build basic local infrastructure, while both the president and the GOP have threatened to pull funds for state infrastructure. What was once an ideological abstraction — “austerity” — will have very real effects on everyday life for average Americans. Some state and local officials are already bracing for the worst. As the Pew Center on the States notes, Virginia’s Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has proposed borrowing money fromthe state treasury to cover federal Medicaid funds, and the California state treasurer is considering a Wall Street loan to help the state make ends meet in August. – Why any debt-ceiling deal will squeeze the states, by Ezra Klein

Read full story · Comments { 45 }

Buying Time for the White House, Reid Postpones Vote Until Sunday 1 pm

“Tell your henchman to stop saying nice things about me,” McConnell, the Senate minority leader, told Reid earlier this week, according to people familiar with the conversation. “It hurts me.” Even as he’s sought to project immovable unity with House Speaker John Boehner, the prospects for an eleventh-hour deal rest largely on McConnell’s shoulders. For weeks, he’s kept an open line of communication with Vice President Joe Biden, with whom he struck a deal with in December to extend Bush-era tax cuts, and he heard from President Barack Obama on Saturday, too. In the meantime, he’s been trying to keep anxious Republican senators at bay. – Mitch McConnell’s moment: Debt ceiling deal maker or deal breaker?

All eyes are on Sen. Mitch McConnell, since he “conceded” the point that no deal can happen without Pres. Obama, who is now fully engaged in the final stage. McConnell is also Speaker Boehner’s lifeline, with the letter signed by 43 Republican senators saying Reid’s bill is dead quid pro quo for Reid’s letter on the Boehner bill.

The details of what’s going on between McConnell and Boehner are being kept among a select few. Let’s face it though, McConnell cannot be trusted by Democrats or the White House, a point that is close to irrelevant at this late moment, which is exactly why McConnell waited so long to get involved. He wants to force Pres. Obama into a situation where he feels he has no choice but to make deals no Democrat should make.

So, McConnell and Biden are talking, while anyone watching this spectacle can see Reid and McConnell are not.

Sen. Mitch McConnell’s original plan is now part of the Reid bill, with the triggers at issue on how to force a second round of budget cuts if the bicameral congressional committee being concocted to work on the austerity plan can’t come to an agreement. As Politico and other outlets are reporting, many Democrats believe McConnell is pushing for the second round as a set up for the inevitable and planned breakdown of any committee, so he can get more cuts upon failure. Republicans also want to make Social Security part of their triggers, which went over with a thud, with Chuck Todd reporting there are other triggers beyond entitlements.

Democrats want the trigger to include tax increases, but that’s a line House Republicans won’t cross, so it all depends on finding moderate Republic—, yeah right. Only four senators refused to sign McConnell’s letter stating Republicans intend to vote down Reid’s bill, a vote which was scheduled for 1:00 a.m. Sunday, but that was moved because Sen. Reid was told the White House talks are progressing.

God only knows what that means.

The target is $1.6 – $1.8 million in cuts before year’s end.

[...] The Democrats bigger worry is Boehner, who shows signs of simply running-out-the-clock, playing hard-to-get with Obama and hoping the White House will give into his demands. The speaker and McConnell are in regular contact, but having pushed the fight this far, the GOP has reason to fear it will lose support from its traditional business allies if there isn’t more progress before markets open Monday, one day before the threat of default. – GOP leaders ‘fully engaged’ with W.H., but Dems skeptical on debt deal

No doubt you’re sick to death of reading this from me, but the 14th Amendment remains a shot for Pres. Obama, regardless of the legal imbroglio that would follow. Because what people keep forgetting in all their prognostications is that Pres. Obama simply cannot allow the U.S. to default. One can only guess the fight that would ensue over which House Republican would serve up impeachment if it happened.

With the tension building and the last moment approaching, as McConnell bet on all along, which is why he offered up his devious plan in the first place, the bigger worry for Democrats is that Pres. Obama will offer any number of compromises to stave off a dismal Monday on Wall Street.

So, the question is how much further to the right will the McConnell-Boehner-Reid bill have to go before the White House cries “uncle”? …and will House Democrats balk for the first time and channel their own inner Tea Party rage if what comes back to the House is political poison on entitlements?

The painful negotiations to resolve the crisis have caught the attention of troops in Afghanistan, where Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quizzed repeatedly on Saturday by soldiers and Marines worried about their paychecks. In Kandahar and Helmand Provinces, Admiral Mullen said it remained uncertain where money would be found if the government defaulted. Regardless of budget talks in Washington, the mission for American troops in Afghanistan would not halt, he said. – New York Times

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Obama’s Numbers Tank

The debt ceiling debacle is making everyone look rudderless and without any leadership game.

The good news for Obama reelect is that the American people have the attention span of a newborn gnat.

From Gallup:

President Obama’s job approval rating is at a new low, averaging 40% in July 26-28 Gallup Daily tracking. His prior low rating of 41% occurred several times, the last of which was in April. As recently as June 7, Obama had 50% job approval.

[...] Obama’s job approval rating among Democrats is 72%, compared with 34% among independents and 13% among Republicans. In the prior three weeks, his average approval rating was 79% among Democrats, 41% among independents, and 12% among Republicans.

One thing Barack Obama, David Plouffe and Mr. Axelrod obviously haven’t learned is the lessons of George W. Bush, but also 2010. Those coveted Independents the White House is bending over backward to reach are a lot more impressed with strong leadership and someone who sticks his or her neck out than someone who keeps asking for Americans to call Congress, as if the President has no power at all.

Our political culture is so wrapped up in moderation, centrism, capitulation and compromise that the Tea Party extortionists are the only political class in this country who stand for anything, albeit a whole lot of crazy. Whereas, Democrats and Republicans are basically different sides of the same corrupt coin, with Mr. Wonderful at the top, whether you’re talking about Obama or Romney; both men nothing to behold when it comes to leadership or standing on a line. Mitt Romney’s learned well from Obama’s straddling stance of non-declaration and is basically following his “present” political state of mind.

It’s not 2012, so there’s a lot of time for Pres. Obama to recover. In fact, being down now might work in his favor, because he’s one hell of a political athlete when pushed up against it.

However, Pres. Obama’s biggest opponent isn’t the sorry-assed Republican to be named later. It’s the economy, which should worry everyone, whether you intend to support Barack Obama or not.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Boehner Yanks Debt Ceiling Bill – Doesn’t Have Votes

BREAKING – 10:30 pm: GOP Majority Whip Rep. Kevin McCarthy announces no vote tonight. …as soon as the lights go out Eric Cantor is going to start measuring for drapes.

by Boris Rasin

..at least not yet. From Sam Stein:

House GOP leadership announced abruptly on Thursday evening that they were suspending a vote on Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) debt ceiling proposal, signaling in the process that the GOP lacked the votes to pass the package.

CNN is reporting the vote is still planned for later this evening, with Speaker Boehner’s job on the line.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }