Multi Medium

We Get E-Mails

Well, I don’t – or at least not this one, because I cancelled my OFA membership in disgust after Obama and the Democrats sold out on the public option.  But I know progressives who did:

Eighteen years ago, shortly after graduating from law school, I helped lead a voter registration campaign in Chicago that generated record turnout on Election Day.

That experience taught me one of the most important lessons I ever learned as a community organizer: When people promise that they’ll do something — like voting — they are far more likely to do it.

That’s why one key part of our Vote 2010 plan this year is to get folks like you from across the country to commit to vote, to make sure we get as many people as we can to cast their ballots this fall.

But getting the commitments we need starts with your own promise to make it to the polls and cast your ballot.

Will you please commit to vote in the 2010 elections?

Over the next 82 days, volunteers across the country will spend countless hours calling voters and knocking on their doors, asking them the same question.

And you can bet that I am counting on you to join them in talking to voters in your community.

This election offers a stark choice. We Democrats are hard at work trying to move America forward, repairing a decade of damage and growing an economy based on the Main Street values of hard work and responsibility.

We’ve fought for and won historic reforms to our health care system, a victory 100 years in the making, and to Wall Street, the most sweeping overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression.

But after years of policies that landed us in the worst recession since the 1930’s, the Republicans who got us there have not come up with anything different from the policies of George W. Bush.

We simply cannot afford to go backwards or let them repeal our reforms. And making sure we can continue moving forward starts with your own promise to cast your ballot in these elections.

Please commit to vote this fall:

http://my.barackobama.com/Commitment

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Aw.  Isn’t that nice.  I guess the “P.S. I hate your liberal guts, you pot-smoking dirty hippie retard” at the end must have gotten cut off by an e-mail glitch or something.  That’s okay though, we all got the message anyway.

3 comments August 13th, 2010 at 11:20am Posted by Eli

No One Could Have Anticipated…

Come on, did anyone really think that Congress would pass a financial reform bill that hurt Goldman Sachs?

As Wall Street scrambles to find the best and most profitable way to operate under the new financial reform law, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. — the firm that was expected to suffer the most under the legislation — could emerge practically unscathed.

(…)

[T]op Goldman executives privately advised analysts that the bank did not expect the reform measure to cost it any revenue.

“The statement was perhaps surprising in its level of conviction,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Guy Moszkowski wrote in a note to clients, “but we’ve learned to take such judgments from GS very seriously.”

(…)

The law, signed by President Obama in July, could force the trading of derivatives, a big business line for Goldman, onto exchanges. Regulators might allow the trading of some contracts over the counter but require that the resulting payments be handled by a clearinghouse.

Either way, “we think we are well positioned to be a market leader under the new rules,” said Jack McCabe, co-head of Goldman’s derivatives clearing service business.

Richard Bove, a bank analyst at Rochdale Securities, said he had changed his view of the law’s effect on Goldman.

“I thought this company was going to be really harmed by this bill; now I’ve figured out that it’s not going to happen,” he said. “They should win big here.”

It’s not Matt Drudge who rules our world.  It’s Goldman Sachs.

Add comment August 12th, 2010 at 07:07am Posted by Eli

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

Obama and the Democrats can’t figure out why they just can’t seem to muster any enthusiasm from their base.  I mean, it’s not like they’ve ever done or said anything to demoralize us, right?

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

(…)

Gibbs’s tough comments reflect frustration and some bafflement from the White House, which believes it has done a lot for the left.

In just over 18 months in office, Obama has passed healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform and fair-pay legislation for women, among other bills near and dear to liberals.

Obama is also overseeing the end of the Iraq war, with the U.S. on schedule to end its combat operations by the end of this month.

He’s also added diversity to the Supreme Court by nominating two female justices, including the court’s first Hispanic. Yet some liberal groups have criticized his nominees for not being liberal enough.

“There’s 101 things we’ve done,” said Gibbs, who then mentioned both Iraq and healthcare.

Well gee, maybe Mr. Gibbs can explain Obama’s Unstoppable Freight Train Of Success to drug-addled hippie wavpeac, who is living with the consequences of Obama’s stirring progressive victories on at least four different fronts.  Or to Bob Borosage or Glenn Greenwald, who both have excellent critiques of how the Obama administration has compromised and betrayed progressive ideals at every turn.

The most telling quote comes from conservative David Frum, of all people:

More proof of my longtime thesis, Repub pols fear the GOP base; Dem pols hate the Dem base.

Which is accurate, but incomplete.  Both parties’ pols fear the GOP base, and both parties’ pols hate the Dem base.  And as a result, the Republican base feels energized, triumphant and powerful, while the Democratic base feels dispirited and powerless.  And Gibbs’ lame walkback notwithstanding, abuse and unconvincing happy talk are a poor substitute for conviction and results.

1 comment August 10th, 2010 at 03:01pm Posted by Eli

It’s Not Just HAMP…

Dday is right, of course, that a nominally “liberal” corrupt failure like HAMP makes liberalism look bad.  But the problem is that all of Obama and the Democrats’ failures, sellouts, and assorted disappointments will be blamed on “liberalism” because, as everyone knows, Obama is The Most Liberal President Of All Time.  So now most of America thinks that liberalism means putting corporations first and ordinary people and the Constitution last.  Or maybe that we’re all just craven hypocrites like our supposed leader.

It’s not bad enough that Obama has to repeatedly kick liberals in the face – he makes us look bad by association too.  It’s a win-win!

Add comment July 27th, 2010 at 07:23am Posted by Eli

Democratic Party Still Thinks Progressives Are Fools

Oh, so now the Democrats are worried about progressive enthusiasm:

Party officials acknowledged low morale within their left wing and urged liberal bloggers and activists Friday to keep faith with President Barack Obama in an election year as Democrats brace for losses in Congress.

“We need to find a way to get our voters really engaged in this election,” Democratic National Committee executive director Jennifer O’Malley Dillon said at the annual Netroots Nation convention. “It’s more important, every single day, to know what’s at stake.”

Earth to Democrats: Your voters are not engaged because you’ve been either ignoring them or disparaging them for the past year and a half.  You used “healthcare reform” to deliver an enormous captive customer base to a rapacious health insurance industry while doing little to rein them in, you settled for a weak and ineffective stimulus bill, you pulled your punches on financial reform, you never lifted a finger for EFCA, you’re still foot-dragging on DADT, you’ve shown no more respect for the Constitution than the Bush administration, and you shamefully hung ACORN, Van Jones, Dawn Johnsen and Shirley Sherrod out to dry because you were afraid of conservative shriekers.

You called us “fucking retarded”, and complained that we threw money down the drain by supporting Bill Halter’s primary challenge against the anti-progressive Blanche Lincoln.  Why on earth should we be enthusiastic about supporting you when you so clearly have no respect for us at all?  Why should we care if you only have 52 seats in the Senate when you did so little when you had 59 and even 60?  (Yes, I’m aware that you passed bills called healthcare reform and financial reform, but that doesn’t mean they were progressive.)

You can’t jerk us around and spit on us and call us retards for all this time and then expect us to be your friends again just because you’ve suddenly realized you need us.  Trust and friendship has to be earned, and you haven’t even tried.

6 comments July 25th, 2010 at 01:14pm Posted by Eli

Getting Harder And Harder To Tell The Difference

Between Democrats and Republicans:

A fiscally conservative Democrat who chairs the U.S. Senate’s budget committee on Wednesday said he supports extending all of the tax cuts that expire this year, including for the wealthy.

“The general rule of thumb would be you’d not want to do tax changes, tax increases … until the recovery is on more solid ground,” Senator Kent Conrad said in an interview with reporters outside the Senate chambers, adding he did not believe the recovery has come yet.

Conrad’s comments are sympathetic with Republican arguments against raising taxes amid a fledgling economic recovery. They frame a debate gaining steam over whether stimulus to bolster the economy’s recovery, or deficit reduction, should be the top policy priority.

(…)

Conrad said that it will be tough to extend the top tax cuts, given worries about the deficit and because under budget rules, lawmakers must find offsetting revenue to pay for the lower rates for wealthier Americans.

But the North Dakota Democrat who also is on the Senate Finance Committee, said he thinks waiving so-called pay-go rules to extend the upper income rates should be considered.

“Pay-go is not just a line in the sand,” he said. “There is a reason that you have a pay-go waiver, which requires 60 votes.”

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh also recently questioned whether taxes should be raised on the wealthy, citing the economy.

Yes, let’s do increase the national debt in a way that won’t actually stimulate the economy, and then pretend that that’s somehow more fiscally responsible than targeted spending.  If there’s a better example of irresponsible politics-over-policy mindlessness, I’m hard-pressed to think of what it is.

Add comment July 22nd, 2010 at 11:25am Posted by Eli

Results

It sure would be nice to have a Democratic president and party that gives the progressive movement anywhere near the weight and credibility that they give to a serial liar and political hitman like Breitbart.

When was the last time they acted as quickly and decisively to appease progressives as they did to throw ACORN and Shirley Sherrod under the bus?  And then bragged about it afterwards?

1 comment July 22nd, 2010 at 06:43am Posted by Eli

Welcome To The Club

Is our Hispanic Caucus learning?

A group of Democratic lawmakers wants to use the immigration reform debate to fix one of the most hotly contested aspects of the health care law — provisions that bar immigrants from using new government programs to get coverage.

The move by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus would add a contentious new element to an already monumental task — passing a bill that puts 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

But the lawmakers say they’re merely following through on a pledge they made when the health care overhaul passed in March, and they expect the White House and Democratic leadership to do the same.

Some members of the caucus almost withheld their votes for health reform over what they saw as punitive, anti-immigrant measures in the bill, which bans illegal immigrants from using newly created exchanges to buy insurance, even with their own money, and maintains a five-year waiting period for legal residents to enroll in Medicaid.

They signed on only after receiving assurances that their concerns would be rectified as part of the immigration reform battle, according to lawmakers, advocates and Hill aides.

“The expectation was that everybody knew it was unfair and that a new immigration bill would correct that,” Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told POLITICO.

Asked at what level he received such signals, Grijalva said: “High enough to feel secure about it.”

And you believed them???  Have you been paying any attention at all?  Obama promised labor EFCA if they went along with his terrible healthcare bill, and look how that worked out for them.  You really think Obama’s going to go out on a limb for you when he’s never gone out on a limb for anything progressive in his life?  Yeah, good luck with that.

Add comment July 20th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Messaging… Win?

Wow, I can’t believe it – Obama is actually calling the Republicans on their most glaring contradiction:

President Barack Obama will escalate his attacks on Republicans Monday, planning to blast them for opposing an extension of benefits for the out-of-work while pushing tax cuts for the wealthy.

Obama plans a mid-morning statement in the White House Rose Garden in which he’ll again urge Congress to extend the jobless benefits and rip Republicans for refusing to go along.

(…)

He’ll also draw the sharp contrast between Republican opposition to benefits for the unemployed with their support for tax cuts for wealthier Americans, a White House aide said.

(…)

Obama on Saturday drew the comparison in the kind of language that could easily show up in Democratic ads during this fall’s campaigns for control of Congress.

“So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed,” he said.

“They’ve got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them; but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help. And every day this goes on, another 50,000 Americans lose that badly needed lifeline.”

I can’t wait to hear how they justify this.  And I don’t think claiming that tax cuts will stimulate the economy and raise revenue is going to be good enough, although decades of conservative brainwashing about the magical powers of tax cuts may prove me wrong.

Anyway, it’s nice to see Obama and the Democrats finally listening to me…

Add comment July 19th, 2010 at 07:12am Posted by Eli

The Wages Of Selling Out Is Mistrust

No one could have anticipated…

Almost four out of five Americans surveyed in a Bloomberg National Poll this month say they have just a little or no confidence that the measure being championed by congressional Democrats will prevent or significantly soften a future crisis. More than three-quarters say they don’t have much or any confidence the proposal will make their savings and financial assets more secure.

A plurality — 47 percent — says the bill will do more to protect the financial industry than consumers; 38 percent say consumers would benefit more.

Or this…

A majority or plurality disapproves of Obama’s management of the economy, health care, the budget deficit, the overhaul of financial market regulations and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9- 12. In addition, almost 6 in 10 respondents say the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause. The Senate is scheduled to begin voting on the financial regulation bill today.

Almost two-thirds say they feel the nation is headed in the wrong direction, an even more sour assessment than in March when 58 percent felt that way. Two-thirds of independent voters are pessimistic, while just 56 percent of Democrats offer a vote of confidence.

Great going, guys.  You alienated your own base without doing squat to entice conservatives.  That’s really going to work out well for you in November.

Add comment July 15th, 2010 at 07:12am Posted by Eli

Strategery! Part I

Steny Hoyer explains that the Democratic strategy this year will be to run against the disastrous Bush policies that the Democrats completely failed to oppose.  Combine that with a message about how the Democrats can’t get anything done because of Republican opposition, and that should be a winning message for sure.

Add comment July 14th, 2010 at 07:22am Posted by Eli

Republicans Persist In Their Inability To Take It

This is just too hilarious…

In recent weeks, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has circulated information to local reporters about Republican candidates in close races. Among the claims:

– That Jim Renacci of Ohio once owed nearly $1.4 million in unpaid state taxes.

– That David Harmer of California received $160,000 in bonus and severance pay from a firm that got a federal bailout.

– That Jon Runyan of New Jersey got a legal break in property taxes for his 25-acre homestead by qualifying for a farmland assessment thanks to his four donkeys.

(…)

“When the issues are cutting against you, it is typical for a party in trouble to resort to other means,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “With the unemployment rate unacceptably high and President Obama’s approval rating falling, they have nothing left to run on other than character assassination.”

Yes, that’s right: The party of Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe, Dan Burton, Ken Starr, and the Swift Boat Vets is complaining about Democrats resorting to character assassination to compensate for unpopular policies.  I dunno, maybe the Republicans would be more understanding if the Democrats just made shit up like they do.

Also, it’s a shame the story focuses entirely on House races and doesn’t mention that the Republican’s serial liar nominee for the Illinois Senate makes the right-wing caricature of Al Gore look like George Washington.

Add comment July 8th, 2010 at 08:14am Posted by Eli

The Obstruction Card

It looks like Obama and the Democrats are going to go all in on the “we’re trying to fix the economy but those OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS won’t let us!” strategy for the 2010 and probably 2012 elections, probably because bragging about a cheesecloth financial reform bill and a healthcare bill that forces people to buy private insurance is not going to be real compelling:

President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress are hoping that voters will punish Republicans in the midterm elections for obstructing his efforts to extend unemployment benefits, expand lending to small businesses, and increase aid to struggling state and local governments.

“Republican leaders in Washington just don’t get it,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly video address on Saturday.

I suppose that approach could work, but only if the voters forget all about the previous eight years, where Bush was able to ram through just about everything he wanted despite far narrower congressional majorities (except gutting Social Security, which Obama is now working on).  Given that majority and minority parties had the same tools available to them, why is it that Republicans are able to either block, cripple, or  pervert everything the Democrats try to do to repair Bush’s damage, yet Democrats were helpless to do anything to prevent it while it was being inflicted?

Either the Democrats were too ineffective and weak (or just clueless) an opposition to muster 41 Nays then, or they’re hiding behind a phony 60-Yea requirement now.  Neither explanation inspires a great deal of confidence – what’s the point of voting for Democrats if they can’t pass anything worthwhile when they’re in power or block anything terrible when they’re not?

Obama’s fascination with budget austerity (as embodied by his catfood deficit reduction commission) is not encouraging either:

Mr. Obama’s political aides have tended to emphasize voter worries about the deficit, while his economic advisers have been urging additional stimulus spending.

The thing is, voters are worried about the deficit because they think it’s the reason that the economy’s in the tank and unemployment is almost 10%.  Get the economy humming and hiring, and I can guarantee you that the average voter won’t give a damn about the deficit.  But if you combine a slow economy and persistent unemployment with talk about cutting Social Security, you’re not going to be lauded for your hard-nosed fiscal prudence – no, it’s just going to be further “proof” that Obama hates old people and wants to kill Grandma.  Good luck with that, geniuses.

Add comment July 5th, 2010 at 01:20pm Posted by Eli

Profiles In Courage

Shorter Democrats: Hooray, we lost!  Now we don’t have to worry about being the anti-gun party anymore!

Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what the Republicans said after Roe v. Wade.

Add comment June 30th, 2010 at 06:56am Posted by Eli

Won’t-Do America

Bob Herbert has a great column in yesterday’s NYT about how the U.S. has let greatness slip away, mishandling crisis after crisis and allowing their opportunities go to waste.  But I think his perspective is a little skewed:

As a nation, we are becoming more and more accustomed to a sense of helplessness. We no longer rise to the great challenges before us. It’s not just that we can’t plug the oil leak, which is the perfect metaphor for what we’ve become. We can’t seem to do much of anything.

(…)

We are submitting to this debacle with the same pathetic lack of creativity and helpless mind-set that now seems to be the default position of Americans in the 21st century. We have become a nation that is good at destroying things — with wars overseas and mind-bogglingly self-destructive policies here at home — but that has lost sight of how to build and maintain a flourishing society. We’re dismantling our public school system and, incredibly, attacking our spectacularly successful system of higher education, which is the finest in the world.

How is it possible that we would let this happen?

We’ve got all kinds of sorry explanations for why we can’t do any of the things we need to do. The Democrats can’t get 60 votes in the Senate. Our budget deficits are too high. Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck might object.

Meanwhile, the greatness of the United States, which so many have taken for granted for so long, is steadily slipping away.

It’s not that we can’t fix anything, that we’ve become too collectively stupid to figure out solutions to problems, it’s that we won’t fix anything.  Our political system has become so corrupt that concern for protecting the well-being of corporations and the wealthy now trumps all other considerations.  Remove that constraint, and a whole realm of possibilities and solutions opens up.  But as long as we’re stuck with it, we will continue to muddle through with half-assed band-aids that don’t work because they were designed by the very industries whose recklessness and criminality made them necessary.

Add comment June 23rd, 2010 at 07:25am Posted by Eli

Quote Of The Day

Brad DeLong, after pointing out that Ben we-can’t-spend-$77-billion-on-unemployment-benefits-without-paying-for-it Nelson was one of the architects of Dubya’s $1.3 trillion tax cut:

Budget arsonists shouldn’t be allowed to claim that they are budget firemen. Just saying.

A-fucking-men.  I wonder how many members of Pete Peterson’s Obama’s Social Security-cutting deficit commission opposed those tax cuts.

Add comment June 17th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Obey Obey

This is great framing by Obey:

Talks were under way Tuesday to extricate the administration by coming up with offsets to pay for new education assistance to avert teacher layoffs this fall. At the same time, renewed efforts began to salvage a $24 billion package of state Medicaid assistance, even if it means paring back a proposed 18-month fix of Medicare reimbursements for physicians.

The backdrop in both cases is a Saturday night letter from Obama calling for action on education and Medicaid assistance but giving no direction on how to pay for them — or how to win support in a deficit-conscious Congress. Leaked in advance to the Sunday newspapers, the letter caught party leaders by surprise, and with Obama largely absent from both fights to date, it was widely seen by Democrats as more political showmanship at their expense by the administration.

Clearly annoyed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called White House congressional liaison Phil Schiliro to her office Monday, and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey served notice that he would withhold action on Obama’s new war funding until the dust clears on domestic spending issues.

(…)

Obey has been central to the fight over education aid and, in an interview, drew a direct link between war funding and progress on domestic priorities.

He said he would withhold action on the war funds until there was some resolution on a major economic relief bill extending jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and popular tax breaks for individuals and businesses.

I love this because holding war funding hostage is a not-so-subtle reminder that the supposed fiscal conservatism that the Republicans and conservadems use as an excuse to block any kind of stimulus or relief is a complete sham that magically evaporates wherever military spending is concerned.  Barney Frank has been doing much the same thing with the deficit commission, agitating and gadflying to remind them that Social Security isn’t the only government entity that spends a whole bunch of money.

Plus Social Security does a lot more good, and is, in fact, already paid for.

Add comment June 16th, 2010 at 07:22am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Up-Is-Downism

Chris Matthews compares Blanche Lincoln to Norma Rae:

What gave me hope last night was that we saw voters don’t like to be pushed around any more than I do. A lot of labor money went into the Arkansas Senate primary. It produced a lot of drama – stand-alone, who’s-side-are-you-on drama – and a real hero. Women celebrated in the pro-labor film “Norma Rae;” the irony is that the heroine, the Norma Rae, last night in Little Rock was the Democratic senator who labor tried to beat. Norma Rae’s name in this picture is Blanche Lincoln.

That’s right: Blanche Lincoln is a scrappy populist pro-worker underdog who took on Bill Halter’s mighty union-hating labor juggernaut, with no one at her side but Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, the Chamber Of Commerce, and the entire Democratic establishment.  Truly this is an upset for the ages.

Add comment June 10th, 2010 at 08:16am Posted by Eli

One More Thought On Obama Vs. Labor

Perhaps the most telling thing of all about the Obama White House’s open hostility towards labor for supporting Halter over Lincoln is that it’s not like the unions took on one of Obama’s staunchest allies.  The unions opposed Lincoln because she helped torpedo EFCA and the public option, two things which Obama supposedly (emphasis on supposedly) really wanted.

So that tells us that:

A) Obama really really hates unions,

B) Obama really really likes conservative politicians who screw him over again and again,

C) Lincoln was in fact acting as Obama’s staunch ally by sabotaging progressive initiatives he cynically pretended to support in order to get elected, or

D) Some combination of both A and C.

None of these possibilities are exactly what I would call encouraging.

Add comment June 9th, 2010 at 06:20pm Posted by Eli

Wankers Of The Day

“Senior White House officials”:

A senior White House official just called me with a very pointed message for the administration’s sometime allies in organized labor, who invested heavily in beating Blanche Lincoln, Obama’s candidate, in Arkansas.

“Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members’ money down the toilet on a pointless exercise,” the official said. “If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November.”

Yes, stupid organized labor, trying to get rid of one of their bitterest enemies in the Senate Democratic caucus, what could they possibly have been thinking?  (Does anyone else wonder if perhaps a lot of swear words were edited out of this totally anonymous “senior White House official”’s quote?)

But wait, there’s more…

WH anger at labor predates tonight. Pelosi/Reid/Obama did a lot for labor and labor repays them by wasting $10 million. That’s their [c]laim.

Sure, that sounds reasonable, if you define “a lot” as “stringing them along with empty EFCA promises to retain their support for an increasingly shitty and public-optionless healthcare bill.” Besides, labor’s support for Halter wasn’t really  about what Pelosi/Reid/Obama did for labor, it was about what Blanche Lincoln did for labor.  Or rather, against labor.

4 comments June 9th, 2010 at 07:32am Posted by Eli

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Bad enough that Chris Hedges paints a terrifying picture of just how insane and evil and dangerous the Christian right is, but he also points out how the fecklessness and corruption of the Democratic establishment has enabled it by doing so little to push back against the out-of-control corporations that have destroyed our environment and economy.

I think he probably overstates just how numerous and powerful the truly crazy right-wing Christians are, but they clearly do have enough influence on American policy and discourse to be very, very scary.

Add comment June 8th, 2010 at 11:31am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

John Kerry, Environmental Champion:

File this one under not at all helpful:

Stopping offshore drilling is not a realistic option, the senator said.

“Now we are not going to stop drilling in the Gulf tomorrow, folks. Let’s be realistic. There are 48,000 wells out there. One of them went sour. About 30 percent of our transportation fuel comes from the Gulf. You think Americans are going to suddenly stop driving to work tomorrow? Do you think people are going to stop driving the trucks to deliver the goods to the department stores? Not going to happen,” said the Massachusetts Democrat.

This goes beyond the strictly political argument I’ve heard from staffers, which says that drilling is part of Senator Kerry’s energy legislation only because it may help pick up Republican support.  It remains to be seen whether that political calculation will pay dividends or end up costing the bill more support than it gains.

The bit about halting drilling ‘tomorrow’ is a straw-man designed to make opponents of offshore drilling seem extreme.  While some groups are calling for a pause on new permits, and others may be advocating taking steps to shut down currently operating offshore rigs, I haven’t seen anyone argue that we should stop drilling ‘tomorrow.’

Thanks, Big John.  Way to be a fierce advocate for the environment and brand the Democrats as the let’s-not-destroy-any-more-ecosystems party.

Add comment May 27th, 2010 at 06:25pm Posted by Eli

Democrats Still Haven’t Learned

Yesterday’s NYT:

In 2008, when Mr. Obama’s candidacy galvanized Democrats and intrigued the nation, nearly 4 in 10 Americans declined to vote. Even at peak interest, the American appetite for democratic rituals is hardly universal.

Without a presidential race to lead the ballot, the appetite is even weaker. The last time more than half of the eligible citizens voted in a midterm election was nearly three decades ago, in 1982, census figures show.

Students of modern political history point out that this is often a problem for Democrats. Their less-affluent constituency traditionally goes to the polls at lower rates.

“We usually do well when the turnout is low,” said John Morgan, a longtime Republican demographic specialist.

(…)

Elections with low turnout can allow parties to tilt the outcome substantially through small shifts in the composition of those voting.

In the 1994 midterms, for example, overall turnout as a proportion of eligible citizens dropped slightly. But since Representative Newt Gingrich’s party was energized that year and President Bill Clinton’s was downcast, the result earned the moniker “Republican Revolution.”

“You can have a big-wave result,” Mr. Cook said, “without a big wave of voters.”

Multi Medium, 2/14/06:

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.

In other words, Republicans understand that turnout is a force multiplier. Democrats are satisfied with just being ahead in opinion polls, implicitly assuming that voter turnout is homogeneous.

And this is why the ballot results never quite live up to the poll results for the Democrats. The Democrats are alienating voters by chasing after non-voters.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  The Republicans and the Democrats continue to race to the right, for complete opposite reasons.  The Republicans may scare off everyone except their crazy base, but they don’t care because they know the crazy base will turn out.  The Democrats may alienate everyone except a few people in the middle who won’t vote, but they don’t care because, well, they’re corporate-owned idiots.

GOTV and boots on the ground are all well and good, but if no one’s excited about what you’re selling and what you’ve done, it’s not going to translate into as many votes.  This is why Republicans usually do better in elections than they have any right to.  The GOP got crushed in 2006 and 2008 because so many people were passionate and energized against Bush’s failures, but Obama and the Democrats squandered all of that energy by deciding to be GOP Lite instead of actually keeping the promises that got them elected.  And now they’re about to pay the price.

Add comment May 18th, 2010 at 11:39am Posted by Eli

No One Could Have Anticipated…

Hey everybody!  It looks like Blanche Lincoln’s surprisingly populist and progressive derivatives bill was all a sham to get her re-elected!

Earlier today I mentioned that the Senate club was working to protect Blanche Lincoln, first by allowing her to offer up a kabuki derivatives bill which was strong enough for her to counteract claims of being too tight with Wall Street, then by delaying the eventual watering down of that piece in the overall bill until after her Senate primary. I’ve heard that Lincoln couldn’t even defend the concept of forcing the big banks to spin off their swaps trading desks in a caucus luncheon; Maria Cantwell had to do it for her. Clearly, she was fed the most left-leaning derivatives package available, with the expressed intention that it wouldn’t make the bill. Nobody wants to overturn it before it serves its purpose of getting Lincoln nominated for re-election, however.

It’s not like anyone predicted this or anything…

I kind of suspect that this was the kabuki plan all along – let Blanche posture and grandstand as some kind of anti-Wall Street crusader to fend off Halter’s primary challenge, but make sure her bill gets watered down substantially by other Senators before it actually comes up for a vote so her generous Wall Street donors don’t get pissed off.

Otherwise I think Blanche would be in the awkward position of having to vote against her own bill…

3 comments May 14th, 2010 at 11:20am Posted by Eli

How To Rein In The Credit Card Companies

Change the law so that they have to abide by the rules of the states they issue credit cards in instead of the states they’re incorporated in.  I particularly like this bit:

If you think interest-rate regulation is a bad idea, nothing in the Whitehouse amendment should bother you. It merely shifts the power to make decisions about interest-rate caps to the states and away from Washington bank regulators. California can enact laws appropriate for the conditions there, just like South Dakota can enact laws appropriate for its citizens. The Whitehouse amendment does not take any position on whether the appropriate law is a high cap, a low cap, or no cap at all. California or South Dakota or Delaware or any other state just would no longer be able to export their interest-rate laws to other states. It would allow the states to be laboratories of democracy, as the saying goes, and experiment with interest rate regulation.

The beauty of it is that it puts the Republicans in the position of opposing states’ rights, and pretty much everything they say in opposition to this idea can be used against them in the Roe v. Wade debate (”Reversing it wouldn’t ban abortion – it would just put the decision in the hands of the states!  What’s wrong with giving more power to the states?”)

Add comment May 11th, 2010 at 07:15am Posted by Eli

Why Couldn’t They Have Done This With Healthcare Reform?

Healthcare reform with the public option, that is.  But no, losing votes on that would have been a crippling defeat!

In the last two days, the White House has lost two straight votes in the Senate that would have moved the massive overhaul of the financial system along. The White House is likely to lose a third Wednesday as a unified Republican Party uses procedural rules to block the bill from being debated.

But don’t feel bad for the West Wing. Obama aides are practically giddy about the turn of events.

Not that they don’t want the bill to succeed. They do –and soon. Passing Wall Street reform will help clear the decks for a packed agenda that includes confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, energy legislation and maybe even consideration of immigration changes.

But senior White House officials tell the Briefing that they are “surprised” — pleasantly so — at the GOP decision to block consideration of the legislation.

Ahead of the first vote on Monday evening, the assumption inside the White House was that Republicans would back down and allow the debate to begin, said one top Obama adviser, who asked for anonymity to discuss White House strategy. The fact that they didn’t plays “right into their narrative,” the adviser said.

He called it a “proof point” for the American people as they try to assess which party wants to stick it to Wall Street and which party is trying to protect the banks and institutions from new and onerous regulations if the legislation passes.

I have been saying that Democrats need to force votes that make the Republicans show their true colors and then make them own those votes for almost four years now.  Simply compromising bills on economic stimulus, carbon emissions, and healthcare reform into toothless pro-corporate potemkin bills before the first vote makes the Democrats look like corrupt tools and the Republicans look like principled heroes.  The Democrats need to force the Republicans to vote against good bills, not bad ones.

(Of course, this assumes that Obama and the Democrats compromise everything away because they’re weak and foolish, and not because they actually are corrupt tools, which is a shaky proposition at best.)

Add comment April 29th, 2010 at 07:22am Posted by Eli

Good Luck With That.

The DNC unveils its Genius Strategy for victory (or at least slightly less humiliating defeat) in November:

3)      Heavy targeting of first time 2008 voters.

There were 15 million first-time voters in 2008, or “surge” voters.  The demographic study shows that they are predominantly young, minority, and/or new Americans. The goal is to increase their turnout by 8-12% over what you would normally expect in the off year.

Here’s what I did not hear: I did not hear whether or not these first time 2008 voters had been polled to see if they still love us (I use the royal “us” to denote some combination of Dems/Obama). During the campaign, expectations were raise extremely  high, that it is impossible for me to believe that there has not been some let down, some buyer’s remorse.

Might they be mad at us because there is no single payer? Because EFCA is DOA? Because DADT was not repealed the first week of the new administration? Because everybody didn’t get a real live unicorn for Christmas?  I think before I ran out to target one group that does not have a long track record of voting my way, I would want to just double-check that they were still on my side. On the other hand, I am a lawyer and therefore cautious by nature. YMMV.

Yeah, somehow I don’t see the “energize the people you disappointed” strategy as being a huge winner.  What’s the motivation to send any of these Democrats back to Congress if they’re not going to do anything worthwhile?

Add comment April 27th, 2010 at 11:23am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Irony

I have zero sympathy for them, but I think it’s hilarious that the Stupocrats are being targeted by pro-life organizations after doing more to limit women’s choice than any of those organizations ever have.

I guess there’s just no pleasing some people.

Add comment April 23rd, 2010 at 07:11am Posted by Eli

Bug Or Feature?

Oh noes, Blanche Lincoln’s derivatives bill is being watered down by her fellow Democrats!

I kind of suspect that this was the kabuki plan all along – let Blanche posture and grandstand as some kind of anti-Wall Street crusader to fend off Halter’s primary challenge, but make sure her bill gets watered down substantially by other Senators before it actually comes up for a vote so her generous Wall Street donors don’t get pissed off.

Otherwise I think Blanche would be in the awkward position of having to vote against her own bill…

1 comment April 22nd, 2010 at 07:21am Posted by Eli

Now They Tell Us…

As much as I would like to join Teddy in making fun of the conservative movement for relentlessly cheerleading the Bush administration when it was in power and now complaining that it wasn’t truly conservative, I can’t help but see parallels in all the progressives who are rationalizing and cheerleading Obama’s Republican healthcare bill, energy policies, and pretty much everything else.  Which is especially embarrassing because Obama is far more conservative than Bush was ever progressive.

I wonder, when they’re surveying the wreckage of the Obama administration 3-7 years from now, will his progressive apologists choose that moment to finally tell us that he failed because wasn’t really much of a progressive after all?

Add comment April 5th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli