Multi Medium

On Mindless Partisan Boosterism

Not only is it not okay when our guy does it, it’s actually worse, because he’s supposed to be the one who doesn’t do it.  That’s why he was our guy in the first place.

I will not be an apologist for betrayal, and I will not adjust my core principles based solely on who’s in power.

Add comment May 17th, 2012 at 07:02am Posted by Eli

When Will Democrats Learn?

You can’t make a gentlemen’s agreement without gentlemen.

(Actually, I think they know that full well – they’re just not gentlemen either)

Add comment May 12th, 2012 at 12:15pm Posted by Eli

Obama Administration Identifies And Fixes Key Flaw In Unemployment Insurance

The problem is that all of these people are just sitting around and collecting unemployment checks without doing anything to enhance corporate profitability.  But Obama has the solution!

Add comment April 20th, 2012 at 07:30am Posted by Eli

Cowardice Or Corporatism? Part 117

Is Obama deathly afraid of conservative attacks on “job-killing regulations” and “the nanny state”, or does he simply agree with them?  Either way, he’s hamstringing his regulators just like his predecessor did.  I particularly like this tidbit about the guy Obama put in charge of regulating the regulators:

Cass R. Sunstein, director of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, advocates what he calls “libertarian paternalism,” a regulatory philosophy that encourages rather than mandates changes that improve or save lives.

With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

Add comment April 3rd, 2012 at 11:09am Posted by Eli

The Joy Of Partisanship

One of my biggest disappointments since Obama’s election has been not just Obama’s despicable betrayal of Democratic ideals, but liberals and Democrats’ complete willingness to overlook those ideals simply because he’s nominally a member of the same team.  Conservatives did the exact same thing when Bush was president, but I had really hoped progressives were better than that.

When loyalty trumps principles, those principles become meaningless.  And right now neither party has any recognizable principles other than supreme executive power and blind loyalty to moneyed interests.

Add comment March 14th, 2012 at 07:22am Posted by Eli

Something To Look Forward To

In case you were hoping Obama’s latest chief of staff would be an improvement over Rahm and Bill Daley, don’t hold your breath.  The All-Seeing Eye Of Froomkin found this gem from last year:

A former top executive at Citigroup who participated in the deregulation of Wall Street during the Clinton administration and recently was tapped by President Barack Obama for a top White House post told a Senate panel last week that deregulation didn’t lead to the recent financial crisis.

Jacob “Jack” Lew, Obama’s nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget, the White House agency entrusted with ensuring that federal regulations reflect the president’s agenda, was asked Thursday during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Budget Committee by Sen. Bernie Sanders whether he believed that the “deregulation of Wall Street, pushed by people like Alan Greenspan [and] Robert Rubin, contributed significantly to the disaster we saw on Wall Street.”

Lew, a former OMB chief for President Bill Clinton, told the panel that “the problems in the financial industry preceded deregulation,” and after discussing those issues, added that he didn’t “personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I don’t believe that deregulation was the proximate cause.“

Well, I guess that explains how the resolutely obstructionist GOP allowed him to be confirmed as the head of OMB…

Add comment January 10th, 2012 at 11:27am Posted by Eli

Political Channel-Surfing

This ongoing cycle of a new Republican candidate catching fire every month and then abruptly fizzling again, reminds me of nothing so much as the last three elections, which have whiplashed from “throw all the Republican bums out” to “throw all the Democratic bums out”.

It’s like watching someone angrily mashing the remote over and over again in the desperate hope that if they keep clicking long enough they’ll miraculously find a channel that doesn’t suck.

Add comment January 4th, 2012 at 11:25am Posted by Eli

Post-Election Reflection

Yes, the story of the 2011 elections is definitely one of resounding defeat for Republicans, with the author of Arizona’s despicable anti-immigrant SB-1070 getting recalled, and state laws or referendums to restrict collective bargaining rights, eliminate same-day voter registration, and declare fertilized eggs to be people all going down in flames, but here’s a caveat for Obama and triumphant Democrats to consider:

Aside from the Iowa state senate special election, none of these victories were by Democratic candidates.  They were repudiations of anti-progressive, anti-democratic Republican policies.  It’s one thing for voters to say that they don’t want to unconditionally ban all abortions, but another thing entirely for them to vote for Democrats who have shown themselves to be ineffectual losers at best, and willing corporate tools at worst.

If Democrats want to take advantage of the opposition to unpopular conservative policies, then they need to show that they really do oppose them.  America is a 99% nation, not a Tea Party nation, and Obama and the Democrats would do well to start remembering that.

Add comment November 9th, 2011 at 07:18am Posted by Eli

Word Choice Of The Day

Chicago Business makes it sound like Obama’s supporters just got bored and wandered off:

President Barack Obama’s Chicago-based re-election campaign has a hometown problem: the donors and volunteers who have lost interest after launching his run for the White House four years ago.

Obama’s problem isn’t that his supporters have “lost interest,” it’s that they’ve been paying attention.

Add comment September 28th, 2011 at 07:36am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Barack Obama in 2007:

And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.

As you will recall, when American workers were denied their right to collectively bargain in Wisconsin, Obama did precisely nothing.  And now…

Barack Obama in 2011:

“Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes,” he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. “Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We have work to do.”

You have some nerve, Mr. President.  Don’t ask anyone on the left to march with you if you’re not willing to march with them.

Add comment September 26th, 2011 at 07:17am Posted by Eli

Obatross

It’s looking more and more like Obama’s going to take congressional Democrats down with him again next year.  But some Democratic consultants still cling to hope (and change):

“I’m glad the election’s not today,” said Democratic pollster Keith Frederick, a veteran of House races. “Every poll shows independents losing their patience for the president. These House elections tend to get nationalized, and there’s no doubt right now that as a referendum on Barack Obama, House Democrats lose.”

I would love to know what makes Frederick think that Obama is going to be more popular in 2012.  If Democrats think the jobs bill is going to be enough to save them, they are sadly mistaken.  Especially after Obama strips it of everything but corporate tax breaks and forces Democrats to vote for it.

Add comment September 23rd, 2011 at 11:51am Posted by Eli

Why?

Has Russ Feingold been watching the same Obama I have?

Last week a group of liberal activists and academics, led by consumer advocate Ralph Nader and scholar Cornel West, announced that they were looking for six “recognizable, articulate” candidates to launch a primary bid — not to rip the nomination from Obama’s grasp but to keep him honest on issues like civil rights, consumer protections, labor and foreign policy.

(…)

“I strongly disagree with Ralph Nader. As I’ve said many times before, I believe that re-electing President Obama is an absolute imperative for our economy, our judicial system, for progressives and for our country,” said former Sen. Russ Feingold, who announced recently that he was not running for Wisconsin’s open Senate seat.

Really?  Because Obama has been incompetent on the economy (and frighteningly pro-austerity), downright destructive to progressives, and has all but ignored the judiciary.  More from Feingold:

Now, facing Republican candidates that are bought-and-sold by corporate money, and who want to give more tax breaks to the wealthiest and attack the rights of working Americans, the President is fighting to create jobs and provide economic security for middle class families.

Again, who is Russ talking about?  Obama is almost as much a corporate creature as the Republicans, strong-armed congressional Democrats into extending Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, and has twiddled his thumbs on jobs until just recently.

I’m still not quite at the point where I would say I would prefer a Republican president, but I can’t think of a single persuasive reason why Obama deserves to keep his job.  If we could get a Democratic nominee who might actually be a good president, I’d be all for it.

3 comments September 22nd, 2011 at 08:00am Posted by Eli

Approval And Unemployment

David Axelrod whistles past the graveyard:

Despite what you hear in elite commentary, the President’s support among base voters and in key demographic groups has stayed strong. According to the latest NBC-WSJ poll, Democrats approve of his performance by an 81%-14% margin. That’s stronger than President Clinton’s support among Democrats at this point in his term and, according to Gallup, stronger than any Democratic President dating back to Harry Truman through this point in their presidency.

Well, there’s a couple of problems with that.  One is that the 81% are not exactly enthusiastic in their approval:

Only 48% of Democrats on our most recent national survey said they were ‘very excited’ about voting in 2012. On the survey before that the figure was 49%. Those last two polls are the only times all year the ‘very excited’ number has dipped below 50%.

In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats ‘very excited’ about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%.

The other is that since Election Day 2008, the breakdown of party affiliation has gone from 28/37/33 Republican/Independent/Democrat to 28/44/26.  Which kinda suggests to me that Obama just managed to drive 7% of the electorate out of the Democratic Party entirely.  If you add those people back in, then Obama’s approval rating is more like 64% among people who were Democrats when Obama was elected.

Granted, that’s probably an oversimplification, but the shrinkage in Democratic affiliation is almost certainly inflating Obama’s approval rating there, in much the same way that ignoring people who have given up looking for work understates the true scope of unemployment.

1 comment September 17th, 2011 at 04:25pm Posted by Eli

Who You Gonna Believe, Your Gullible Peers Or Your Lying Eyes?

Apparently California Democrats all ignored huge red flags that there was something dodgy about the embezzler they had hired as their treasurer because all the other Democrats were doing the same thing.  It’s a pretty spectacular example of collective stupidity, and it also explains why so many incompetent Democratic political consultants keep getting work despite their long resumes of failure.

I guess “But everyone else is doing it!” is a more important consideration than evidence or outcomes.  It’s a wonder they didn’t all invest their money with Bernie Madoff.

1 comment September 17th, 2011 at 02:17pm Posted by Eli

No Room For Improvement

Ezra Klein explains that Obama couldn’t possibly have done a better job, what with his miniscule majorities in both houses of Congress and all.  I particularly like the part where he suggests that Obama would have been less popular and the 2010 bloodbath would have been worse if Obama had passed an effective stimulus and generally done more to live up to his campaign promises.

Because the American people just hate strong politicians who get results, especially when they don’t act like corporate tools.  That’s why FDR was only able to get elected 4 times.  Well, that and dying.

Add comment August 23rd, 2011 at 07:51am Posted by Eli

S&P Report To Be Posted On Bulletin Board Outside SuperCongress’s Locker Room

The congressional reactions sound an awful lot like that of a sports team that’s been dissed and is using it as motivation:

Representative Joe Courtney, Democrat of Connecticut, said he had “read and reread the S. & P. report” several times since it was issued Friday night, and he said it could spur action by Congress. If the 12 members of the committee, to be appointed by Aug. 16 by Congressional leaders of the two parties, could agree on a deficit-reduction package, and if Congress approved it, Mr. Courtney said, “that would surprise a lot of skeptics” and could disprove the company’s criticism of the United States political system.

Representative Blake Farenthold, a freshman Republican from Texas, said the S.&P. report could have a beneficial effect. “Anything that encourages the new committee to get the job done and get us back on a rational fiscal path is a good thing,” Mr. Farenthold said.

Another freshman Republican, Representative Steve Southerland II of Florida, said the credit report created “a sense of urgency for the two parties to come together.” The possibility of a further downgrade “scares me,” Mr. Southerland said.

Go team! Let’s show S&P who’s boss!  By doing everything they tell us to!

Add comment August 8th, 2011 at 07:50am Posted by Eli

There’s No One Left To Vote For

Shorter American electorate: WE HATE EVERYBODY.

And really, who can blame them?  Both parties got their shot at running the government, and both parties failed miserably because they cared more about their corporate and wealthy donors than the people they were elected to serve.

There is definitely room for a third party (although it would really be more like a second party at this point), but not if it’s just a corporate “centrist” party positioned between the other two corporate parties.  The only kind of third party that’s going to gain any traction would be a populist one that promises to represent ordinary people instead of corporations and the wealthy.

1 comment August 6th, 2011 at 01:47pm Posted by Eli

The Problem

I agree with a lot of this Peter Daou post, especially about how the right has effectively stepped into and taken advantage of this country’s information and education vacuum, and how the left is hobbled by the lack of any kind of common cause between the progressive movement and the Democratic Party.  But I’m not so sure I buy his diagnosis of the root cause:

On the other side you have the Democratic establishment, political leaders, pollsters and strategists who, by and large, are poll addicts, chronically incapable of taking principled stands, obsessed with appealing to independent voters, hostile to progressive advocates, often just as captive to moneyed interests as their Republican counterparts. Mind-bogglingly, it was the White House and Democratic leadership that worked with BP to ‘disappear’ the Gulf spill, for fear it would harm them in the 2010 midterms. Craven doesn’t begin to describe it.

(…)

As I said previously, faced with a public that holds opposing views, politicians can either change their positions to match the public’s views or change the public’s views to match their positions. Only when Democrats decide to do the latter will America’s rightward shift be halted or reversed.

I believe that Obama and most of the Democrats are actually Republicans masquerading as weak Democrats, and all the poll-driven, center-chasing wimpiness is camouflage to make their pro-corporate policies look like some kind of pragmatic (albeit misguided) centrism rather than the corrupt sellout that they actually are.

On a related note, I think it’s hilarious that the White House keeps complaining that progressives aren’t doing a good enough job of selling the American people on the Satan sandwiches they keep offering up, when the real problem is that we can’t convince the White House to stop making them.

3 comments August 4th, 2011 at 07:53am Posted by Eli

This Is What Happens When You’re Not Paying Attention

You say clueless, ridiculous things like this:

Republicans will still be able to refuse to raise taxes. But if they do, it won’t matter. The only way they can succeed in keeping taxes from rising is if the Obama administration and the Democrats stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Srsly?  Did you not see what happened last December???

Add comment August 1st, 2011 at 11:27am Posted by Eli

The Only Winners And Losers Who Really Matter

If you want to understand how Washington thinks and why our government and media are so worthless, just read this repellent column by the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza, toting up “The debt-ceiling deal… winners and losers.”

In the winning column, he lists Mitch McConnell, the Tea Party, Obama, the Congressional Budget Office, Grover Norquist, and – I’m not kidding – David Wu.

In the losing column, he lists Congress, the Gang Of Six, commissions, and liberals.

Missing from either list: The economy or the American people.  Just like they were missing from all the political calculations and posturing by Obama and the Tea Party, who collaborated to produce a terrible deal that will make the country weaker and maybe even increase the debt it was supposed to reduce.

You also have to love this little snippet of DLC-style conventional wisdom:

But remember that Obama’s target constituency in 2012 is not his base but rather independent and moderate voters. And those fence-sitters love compromise in almost any form.

Yep, there’s nothing independents and moderates love more than politicians with no convictions at all (I personally believe Obama is a strong Republican masquerading as a weak Democrat, but the appearance is the same).  And of course they always turn out in droves, not like a motivated Democratic base would.

I understand that most politicians – and much of the media who cover them – are corrupt, shallow, self-centered creatures, and it’s folly to expect them to always put the good of the country first.  But couldn’t they at least think about it a little bit?

Add comment August 1st, 2011 at 07:49am Posted by Eli

Just What We Need

Tom Friedman and Chris Cillizza are absolutely right that there is a palpable hunger for a third-party alternative to the godawful Republicans and Democrats, but I really don’t think that a new corporate-owned party positioned between the two corporate-owned parties that we already have is going to represent our interests any better.

Add comment July 25th, 2011 at 08:05am Posted by Eli

The Guardian Reads My Mind

For all of the people speculating about how the phone-hacking scandal could bring down Fox News or Rupert Murdoch, I just don’t see it.  Even if it comes out that Fox hacked the phones of 9/11 victims, Obama and the Democrats just don’t have the guts to take them on, and would fold at the first Republican accusations of “politically-motivated witch hunt!”.

And of course, as the Guardian points out, Republicans would – and have – destroyed liberal organizations for far less, and even for nothing at all (see: ACORN).

Does no one remember all the scandals of the Bush administration, and how each one was going to be the one that finally brought it down?  It never happened.

Add comment July 21st, 2011 at 07:15am Posted by Eli

What I’ve Been Saying

I said this over five years ago:

Republicans understand that voters in “the base” turn out if motivated, and the undecideds in the middle do not. Consequently, they tailor their electoral strategy to pumping up their base to maximize that turnout, and they don’t worry about the middle all that much because they’re proportionally less of a factor. The Democrats, on the other hand, repeatedly throw their base under the bus in pursuit of those fickle undecideds who probably aren’t voting anyway.

From Nate Silver’s post on why Republicans are crazy (answer: because unlike the Democrats, they’re playing to their base):

Tell me again why alienating your base in pursuit of independents is a good electoral strategy?

(This is, of course, assuming that this actually is the Democrats’ electoral strategy and not just an excuse for pursuing conservative policy goals on behalf of their corporate benefactors.  But as excuses go, it’s a pretty transparently ridiculous one.)

1 comment July 8th, 2011 at 07:36am Posted by Eli

I Got Your “Overreach” Right Here

Hey, remember the Republican narrative about how the Democrats got pummeled last year because Mad Socialist Obama “overreached” with his government takeover agenda?  Funny thing: As soon as the GOP took power after that wave election, it immediately got to work showing everybody what real overreach looks like, attacking collective bargaining rights, and now Medicare.

The Democrats swept the Republicans out in 2006 and 2008 because the Republicans proved themselves to be incompetent and corrupt.  The Republicans swept the Democrats out in 2010 because the Democrats proved themselves to be incompetent and corrupt.  Now the Republicans are proving themselves to be downright malevolent, and could very well swing the backlash pendulum back to the Democrats, and in a presidential election cycle too.

If the presidential election had been held in 2010, Obama might have been in serious trouble if the Republicans nominated someone even semi-sane.  But if the Republicans continue to push a nakedly pro-wealth, anti-everything-else agenda, Obama’s going to win in another landslide, whether he deserves to or not (it’s “not”, by the way).

Also, the fawning Cheney endorsement probably isn’t doing Paul Ryan any favors.  If I’m his opponent, I’m running that quote on a continuous loop from now until election day.

Add comment May 27th, 2011 at 07:55am Posted by Eli

Things Fall Apart

Infrastructure is one of those things that no politician seems to want to talk about.  It’s not like it’s a political third-rail like Social Security (“Keep your government hands off my infrastructure!”), but with all the deficit hysteria raging around Washington these days, no one dares say that we need $2 trillion dollars to keep the country from physically falling apart. So it will.

Frugality’s all well and good until your house collapses.

Add comment May 18th, 2011 at 11:46am Posted by Eli

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Sure, Andy Cuomo may be governing like a Republican, and his policy of shafting public workers to preserve tax cuts may be more popular with Republican voters than Democratic ones, but at least he’s got one issue right:

Cuomo demanded the Legislature pass the major pillars of his agenda: legalization of same-sex marriage, ethics reform and a property tax cap.

“June 20 is the day that the Legislature ends, and June 20 is D-Day for us,” Cuomo said. “Tell your legislators it’s very simple: Pass the bills or don’t come home. Period.”

While his support for marriage equality is heartening (property tax cap, not so much), I feel obliged to point out that Democrats have a lot more latitude to be progressive on social issues, because most corporate donors don’t really care about marriage equality or choice one way or the other.  So… yay, but I wouldn’t exactly call it a profile in courage.

Add comment May 11th, 2011 at 07:59am Posted by Eli

Analogy For The Day

Pakistan is an allly of the United States in much the same way that Obama is an ally of the progressive movement.

Add comment May 4th, 2011 at 12:24pm Posted by Eli

Even Massachusetts Dems Aren’t Dems Anymore

When even Democrats in one of our bluest states are acting like Scott Walker, it’s not hard to see why unions are starting to walk away from them in disgust.  2012 is already likely to be another bad election for the Democrats (who will likely be relying on an inspiring “We may suck, but at least we’re not crazy” campaign strategy), I wonder how much worse it will be if the unions sit on their hands (or boots on the ground, as the case may be).

By the way, I really have to quibble with Mike Elk’s last paragraph here:

While Democrats have been less brazen in their attacks on public employees’ unions, they have still attacked public employees unions. Why is that? It’s because it’s often less politically risky for Democrats weary of taking on the rich to go after unions than to call for higher taxes on the rich.

Saying that Democrats are “weary of taking on the rich” is like me saying I’m tired of fighting Mike Tyson.

Add comment April 28th, 2011 at 08:13am Posted by Eli

When You’ve Lost The Billionaires…

Oh noes, the Democrats have lost the support of the Masters Of The Universe because Obama said mean things about them!

These oh-so-sensitive hedge fund guys just don’t appreciate how good they’ve got it.  Obama talks smack about us whiny unreasonable progressives too, but he almost never does anything we want, and he certainly doesn’t care whether he pisses us off or not.

Add comment April 27th, 2011 at 08:02am Posted by Eli

Overthinking

There’s really a very simple reason why conservatives haven’t built a strong grassroots internet infrastructure: THEY DON’T HAVE TO.

Why on earth do you need internet grassroots when your political movement is primarily about serving the interests of corporations and elites instead of ordinary people?  And when those corporations and elites can funnel you more money than ordinary people could ever dream of without even breaking a sweat?

1 comment April 26th, 2011 at 07:58am Posted by Eli