Multi Medium

Remarkable.

That Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen could write so many words about how healthcare reform is doomed and everybody hates it because they hate Big Government without ever once mentioning the public option and how overwhelmingly popular it is.

I’m sure it’s just an oversight; so many people seem to have forgotten all about the public option lately.

Add comment March 12th, 2010 at 11:32am Posted by Eli

Were You Aware Of It?

Apparently all Protestants are rich white guys.

Who knew?

Add comment March 11th, 2010 at 09:54pm Posted by Eli

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Messrs. Barry Friedman and Andrew Martin have A Cunning Plan to overcome the Republican filibuster:

[T]he Democrats need to take three steps: First, they should announce the order in which they will take up their legislative agenda. Next, they should declare that they will no longer be using dual tracking, so that the Senate will hear just one issue at a time. Finally, Democrats should require those who want to filibuster legislation or appointments to actually do so, by holding the floor, talking the issue to death and bringing everything to a halt.

The new-school filibuster would preserve minority rights in the Senate, while imposing significant costs on obstructionist members, changing the calculus that causes today’s logjam. Stuck on the Senate floor, filibustering senators couldn’t meet with lobbyists or attend campaign fund-raising events; they couldn’t do much of anything, really, until their filibuster ended.

Getting rid of dual-tracking would require the minority to make careful choices about what to obstruct, and when to obstruct it. As Senator Bunning’s unsuccessful solo stand against jobless benefits showed, even Republicans have limited tolerance when it comes to stalling legislation for reasons that lack popular support.

After all, filibusters historically broke when public opinion went against the Senate minority. If the Democratic leadership eliminated the dual-track system, serial, single-issue filibusters would give us an opportunity to see where the country actually stands on issues like health care reform and financial regulation — and where the Senate should stand.

First of all, my understanding was that the rules change that lowered the filibuster threshold from 67 to 60 votes also eliminated the requirement for the minority party to actually perform the full-blown cots-and-phonebooks Mr. Smith-style filibuster.  But even if it hadn’t, this strategy sounds a lot like handing your kidnapper a gun and hoping he shoots himself with it.

The Republicans have absolutely no compunction about obstructing everything, the media has no particular interest in accurately reporting what’s going on, and consequently the public backlash Friedman and Martin are counting on would simply never happen.  Either that or the Republican spin (Healthcare reform is a socialist government takeover!  Financial reform/tax increases/environmental regulation will take away your jobs!) will triumph and make their obstructionism look like a heroic effort to Save America.

I would much rather find ways to neutralize the Republicans, not further empower them in hopes that they will commit suicide by overreach.  It took six years for that to work the last time, and the damage was incalculable.  Why would we want to do it again?

Add comment March 10th, 2010 at 07:46pm Posted by Eli

Massa:Beck::Al Capone’s Vault:Rivera?

Poor Glenn Beck.  Massa was serving up all kinds of juicy tidbits about groping and tickling and naked browbeating, but because he wouldn’t come out and say that Rahm or Obama did horrible corrupt illegal conspiracy things to force him out of office, the whole interview was a waste of time.

1 comment March 10th, 2010 at 11:36am Posted by Eli

Can Doctors Be “Disbarred”?

Looks like yesterday was Professional Misconduct Day on the NYT op-ed pages.

First, the torture doctors:

According to Justice Department memos released last year, the medical service opined that sleep deprivation up to 180 hours didn’t qualify as torture. It determined that confinement in a dark, small space for 18 hours a day was acceptable. It said detainees could be exposed to cold air or hosed down with cold water for up to two-thirds of the time it takes for hypothermia to set in. And it advised that placing a detainee in handcuffs attached by a chain to a ceiling, then forcing him to stand with his feet shackled to a bolt in the floor, “does not result in significant pain for the subject.”

(…)

The medical basis for these opinions was nonexistent. The Office of Medical Services cited no studies of individuals who had been subjected to these techniques. Its sources included a wilderness medical manual, the National Institute of Mental Health Web site and guidelines from the World Health Organization.

(…)

The shabbiness of the medical judgments, though, pales in comparison to the ethical breaches by the doctors and psychologists involved. Health professionals have a responsibility extending well beyond nonparticipation in torture; the historic maxim is, after all, “First do no harm.” These health professionals did the polar opposite.

Nevertheless, no agency — not the Pentagon, the C.I.A., state licensing boards or professional medical societies — has initiated any action to investigate, much less discipline, these individuals. They have ignored the gross and appalling violations by medical personnel. This is an unconscionable disservice to the thousands of ethical doctors and psychologists in the country’s service. It is not too late to begin investigations. They should start now.

And then the legal profession:

The Supreme Court has a chance to reinforce that fundamental protection in the case of Albert Holland. A Florida prisoner, he did everything he could to ensure that his lawyer filed his habeas corpus petition, which would allow the federal courts to review his state-court conviction for first-degree murder and other crimes.

He continually asked about it, and emphasized the importance of meeting the deadlines. The lawyer repeatedly assured Mr. Holland that he would take care of it, and then missed the habeas deadline. Mr. Holland was given a new lawyer, who argued that due to the first lawyer’s extreme negligence, the failure should be excused under “equitable tolling,” which allows for deadlines to be excused in the broader interests of justice.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected the argument, ruling that even gross negligence by a lawyer does not provide a basis for equitable tolling. Unless there was “bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment,” or something of that magnitude, the court said, the deadline would stand.

Disgraceful behavior by Holland’s lawyer, and disgraceful behavior by the appeals court.  I don’t have high hopes for the Supreme Court, but I hope the criminally incompetent lawyer got disbarred (not holding my breath).  And any doctor who facilitated torture should be shunned and shamed, and never allowed to practice medicine ever again.

1 comment March 2nd, 2010 at 07:01am Posted by Eli

Tales From Bizarro World

…Where Evan Bayh, Kit Bond, Judd Gregg, George Voinovich, Mel Martinez, Jim Bunning, Harry Reid, and John McCain are irreplaceable legislative titans:

With the retirement of Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), every Democratic presidential hopeful from 2008 will have exited the Senate by the time the 112th Congress convenes in January — and they’ll have taken an abundance of experience and star power with them.

Bayh joins a group of veteran Democratic and Republican senators, many longtime elected officials, who are set to end their careers at the end of the term. All told, those departures — as well as the death last year of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) — will leave the chamber with a deficit of 232 years of legislative know-how and Washington gravitas that has characterized Capitol Hill for a generation.

(…)

Additionally, four GOP senators are calling it quits, while one Republican, Mel Martinez (Fla.), resigned his seat last summer. Among those Republicans leaving are three former governors: Judd Gregg (N.H.) after 18 years, Christopher J. Bond (Mo.) after 24 years and George V. Voinovich (Ohio) after 12 years. Jim Bunning of Kentucky also is retiring after two terms.

One GOP lobbyist said the combination of Democratic and Republican retirements amount to a loss of “eons” of experience and include unique, irreplaceable characters who have left an indelible imprint on the Senate and American politics.

(…)

One former Senate Democratic leadership aide said the potential loss of experience from Reid or McCain — or both — would be a significant blow to the chamber and its ability to tackle large, complex issues.

A-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Because Reid and McCain have done such a great job of shepherding large, complex issues to successful conclusions in the past.  Okay, I’ll give McCain campaign finance reform, but I can’t think of any other major accomplishment other than laundering his image of the stink of the Keating Five.  And Harry Reid is one of the weakest and most ineffectual Majority Leaders of all time.

I’ll miss Byron Dorgan and Teddy, and that’s about it.

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

Wait… What?

Marc Ambinder explains why Evan Bayh quit:

Bayh is an anomaly of sorts; he really grew to dislike the influence of liberal activists on his Senate colleagues. To him, these activists increased the cost of doing business. Reaching out to the other side became more risky than rallying around an ideological pole, even though that rallying around contributed to stasis. When it became clear to Bayh that the White House wasn’t going to play his game — wasn’t going to sell out liberals at every turn — Bayh decided he had had enough.

What on Earth is he talking about?  In what universe do liberal activists have influence on the Senate?  In what universe is Obama not selling us out at every turn?

This is a great time to be a conservative Democrat: You have a President and a Majority Leader who will bend over backwards to give you whatever you want, even if it means gutting the President’s signature objectives and campaign promises, and you’re quitting? It’s like Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman walking away because they don’t think they have enough influence.

Add comment February 17th, 2010 at 11:24am Posted by Eli

Broder’s New Love

How much does David Broder love Sarah Palin?  So much that he completely forgets to urge her towards centrism like he does for every Democrat to the left of Ben Nelson.

I’d ridicule his out-of-touch “Bush is on the verge of a comeback!” cluelessness that ignores the fact that Americans are no longer interested in having a blithering idiot in the White House (I can’t imagine what might have soured them on that idea), but Attaturk already beat me to it.

Add comment February 11th, 2010 at 08:12pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Rationalization

Obama using a teleprompter?  Proof that he’s a lightweight.  Sarah Palin using notes scrawled on her hand?  Still more evidence of her down-to-earth humanity, and possibly even A Spot Of Brilliant Gamesmanship!

Chuck Todd:

“Daily Rundown” co-host Chuck Todd attempted to defend Palin, saying, “We’ve all done notes.”

Umm, sure.  When you’re the one giving the interview, or providing news or analysis.

But that’s mild compared to the Fox & Friends propagandists:

CARLSON: I think she did it on purpose. I think she did it on purpose, yeah. Because it’s an exact opposite of reading off the teleprompter with a script written for you with every word in a sentence and here’s she’s just taking crib notes on her hand. It makes her look like she can just talk off the cuff and she just jotted down a few couple notes before she went out to give a big long speech.

DOOCY: I think she did it because she probably does it a lot. I do that all the time. [...]

KILMEADE: But to sit there and look at, and do the interview and look down at her hand, I think that is — like you said before, Gretchen — folksy, absolutely, down-to-earth, I can identify. But if you’re going to write on your hand, why not just say, ’staffer, hand me a card.’ And then it would be okay.

CARLSON: Nah, like I said, I think it was on purpose. But anyway, we we may never know.

Ah, I see.  She deliberately made herself look like a clueless boob in order to draw attention to what a clueless boob Obama is.  It was, like, satire – but at the same time totally demonstrated her bond with all the other good ol’ red-blooded American cheaters out there.  Genius!

5 comments February 8th, 2010 at 08:41pm Posted by Eli

When Lupicas Attack!

I don’t think Mike is very impressed by Ex-Semi-Governor Palin:

Now there are many, many ways Sarah Palin could help this country. Running for President will never be one of them. You listen to her long enough and actually feel yourself getting dimmer by the minute, like a dying light bulb.

If her vision and grasp of even the most basic issues – with or without cribnotes – were any lighter, you would have to tie a rock to her to keep her from floating away.

….When she doesn’t like Rahm Emanuel, the President’s chief of staff, using the word “retards” to describe liberal groups, she says Emanuel should be fired.

Then her buddy Rush Limbaugh comes out and says, “Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.”

Chris Wallace asked her about that Sunday, and Palin practically wrestled herself to the ground so she didn’t make Limbaugh – who seems to take her seriously – mad at her. What Palin tried looked trickier than some yoga positions.

Palin: “Rush Limbaugh was using satire.”

No, he wasn’t. If Palin believes that, she really is more limited, and bubble-headed, than Paris Hilton. If not, she is simply a transparent phony.

(…)

The very best news of the weekend? It’s now official that she can fit her entire political philosophy in the palm of her hand.She thinks she is some kind of dream candidate for her party when the truth is that Palin is only a dream candidate for the other party.

All her friends on the right, the ones who treat her like a hot version of Margaret Thatcher, are afraid to say that. Or call her out for being the lightweight that she is, same as she was afraid to call out Limbaugh. So they all deserve one another.

Awesome.  It seems like there is literally nothing that will make the Republican base realize what a lightweight scam artist she is.

1 comment February 8th, 2010 at 07:13am Posted by Eli

A Modest Proposal On Campaign Finance Reform

Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres have a suggestion on how to (mostly) get around the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision:

While Congress can’t issue a broad ban on all companies, it can target the very large class that does business with the federal government and ban those companies from “endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office.”

A 2008 Government Accountability Office study found that almost three-quarters of the largest 100 publicly traded firms are federal contractors. If Congress endorsed our proposal, these companies — and tens of thousands of others — would face a stark choice: They could endorse candidates or do business with the government, but they couldn’t do both. When push came to shove, it’s likely that very few would be willing to pay such a high price for their “free speech.”

The Roberts court is skeptical — to put it mildly — of campaign finance restrictions. But it is still highly unlikely that the justices would strike down a law targeting federal contractors. All nine recognize that Congress may restrict free speech when there is a significant risk of corruption. That risk is obvious when corporate speakers are simultaneously doing business with the government.

(…)

Our proposal requires only a modest extension of existing law. Federal contractors already are not allowed to “directly or indirectly . . . make any contribution of money or other things of value” to “any political party, committee, or candidate.” This provision arguably bars Big Pharma from launching a media campaign in favor of a candidate who supports its special deals, thereby “indirectly providing” the candidate something “of value.” But it doesn’t cover the case in which contractors threaten to spend millions to oppose senators and representatives who refuse their excessive demands. There is a need, then, for a new statutory initiative: The same anti-corruption rationale that may prohibit contractors from spending millions in favor of candidates requires a statutory prohibition on a negative advertising blitz.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but this sounds pretty reasonable to me.  Of course, constitutional or not, our corporate-owned Congress still has to pass it.

1 comment January 27th, 2010 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

Politico To Labor: Why Are You Hitting Yourself?

Yes, that’s right, it’s Labor’s fault that EFCA is dead:

Big Labor’s top legislative priority, a bill creating an easier way to organize workers, is essentially dead – and its own members were instrumental in killing it.

The victory of Republican Scott Brown’s in last week’s Massachusetts Senate special election that deprived Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority is not only bad news for health care. It also means that Republicans will be able to block the Employee Free Choice Act from coming to the Senate floor for a vote.

Asked if EFCA was dead for the year, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the bill’s sponsor, hesitated for several seconds, saying, “Well, it’s, it’s, it’s there. But it doesn’t look too good.” He added: “I’m not going to give up on it. I’ll never give up on it.”

For a year, labor leaders kept their bargain with Congressional Democrats and the White House: health care first, then EFCA. The election of Martha Coakley to fill the seat held for decades by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) was supposed to be the last step on a long, twisting road toward moving the legislation forward.

Whether their rank-and-file lost patience or simply didn’t realize the stakes, the decision of most union members in Massachusetts to back Brown rather than Coakley helped put the last nail in a legislative effort that was already on life support.

According to the AFL-CIO’s election night survey of Massachusetts voters, 49 percent of union members voted for Brown compared to 46 percent who backed Coakley. That’s even worse than the findings of a Republican election night survey, which found union voters split 49-48 for Brown and Coakley, respectively.

Of course, the principal reason why MA union voters turned on Obama and the Democrats was their abject failure to deliver on any of their promises.  Union leadership may have believed the White House when it strung them along and used the promise of EFCA to extort extract their support (or at least non-opposition) for the terrible Senate healthcare reform bill, but the rank-and-file was apparently paying closer attention to Obama’s track record on progressive initiatives.

Obama and the Democrats were never going to exert any more effort for EFCA than they did for the public option, and MA union voters knew it.

(Graphic by Married To The Sea)

Add comment January 27th, 2010 at 07:18am Posted by Eli

Krugigami

As a longtime Paul Krugman fan, it has been sad and disappointing to watch him advocate for the terrible Senate healthcare bill, and repeatedly defend John Gruber for shilling said bill without disclosing all the money the administration paid him.  Overall, his heart’s still in the right place, but this one giant blind spot takes him to some interesting and uncomfortable places:

The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.

(…)

It’s important to remember, also, how important health care reform is to the Democratic base. Some activists have been left disillusioned by the compromises made to get legislation through the Senate — but they would have been even more disillusioned if Democrats had simply punted on the issue.

And politics should be about more than winning elections. Even if health care reform loses Democrats’ votes (which is questionable), it’s the right thing to do.

(…)

Democrats have to do whatever it takes to enact a health care bill. Passing such a bill won’t be their political salvation — but not passing a bill would surely be their political doom.

So, on the one hand, Obama and the Democrats are in trouble because they went half-assed, compromised and corporatist on the stimulus and financial reform… but on the other hand, they’ll be in even more trouble if they don’t pass half-assed, compromised and corporatist healthcare reform.  Mr. Krugman needs to make up his mind.

Add comment January 18th, 2010 at 01:00pm Posted by Eli

Zombie CW

So let me get this straight: Obama and the Democrats win a decisive landslide election on a message of Change in general and healthcare reform in particular, then proceed to pervert it into a series of capitulations and corporate giveaways… but the reason that a Democrat is struggling to win Teddy Kennedy’s seat in one of the most progressive states in the country against a transparently dishonest scumbag is that Obama is too liberal?

Yes, Ad Nags really does try to make that case, with help from some Republicans and progressive Democratic stalwarts like Evan Bayh and Bob Kerrey.  It’s insane on its face, yet far too many pivotal Democrats (Rahm Emanuel comes to mind) and their consultants buy into this belief that every Democratic defeat is a repudiation of progressivism and every Democratic victory is a vindication of corporate centrism.

And what’s the result?  Every single time, the progressive Democratic base gets demoralized and stays home, and the Democrats get their asses kicked… which they promptly interpret as a sign that their raging liberalism scared off the swing voters and they have to move farther to the right.

If Coakley loses, or even wins by less than 20 points, Obama & Co. should take heed that maybe, just maybe, “Vote for Coakley or forever lose your once-in-a-lifetime chance to be forced to buy shitty private health insurance” is not an inspiring GOTV message, not even if you try to pretend that Teddy would have wanted it that way.

I think there are at least two factors working together in the Democrats’ string of corporate sellouts.  One is that they have absolutely no stomach for taking on the powerful economic elites (which they themselves are in fact members of), and the other is the media red shift wherein right-wing positions are described as “centrist” and broadly popular positions are described as “left” or “far left”.

The media reinforce the Democrats’ belief that their moneyed elite bubble is somehow representative of America, and reassuring them that selling out on healthcare or financial reform is okay because only the far left radical crazy fringe wants real reform, and surely it’s never bad to repudiate or ignore radical crazies, right?

One final point about the difference between Democrats and Republicans and their relationship with their bases: Where the Democrats display so little loyalty or respect for a base they apparently see as embarrassing leftist hippies, the Republicans embrace theirs, at least publicly (of course, thanks to the media, even the craziest of teabaggers are considered merely “conservative” rather than “batshit insane”).

They stroke them, they identify them, and they always make sure they look like they’re fighting for them.  True, they don’t always win (abortion and homosexuality are still legal, after all), but it’s because they don’t have the numbers, not because they compromise their objectives into oblivion.  As I’ve said before and will continue saying, it is better to fight for the right thing and lose than to fight for the wrong thing and win.

Add comment January 17th, 2010 at 02:53pm Posted by Eli

Epic Analogy Fail

So Tucker Carlson’s conservative answer to the Huffington Post kicked off today, because if there’s the net doesn’t have enough of, it’s aggregations of right-wing wankers.  Exhibit A:

Legalized rape. What’s that you say? Rape isn’t sanctioned in this country? Then you must not live in a city with red-light or speed cameras, where it happens every day. Forget for a second that in one-fourth of all automated ticket cases, the ticketed  car owner wasn’t the one actually driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction (what other crime-fighting technology do we consider reliable that nabs the wrong person 25 percent of the time?) Just as heinous is that every year, more and more municipal governments pretend that they plant these all-seeing menaces in the interest of “safety.” Yet every year, their revenues tend to  increase from the very same technology. Meaning that the only deterrent effect the technology has is deterring your government from being honest about raping its own citizenry. If you’re going to slide me a roofie, Government, at least take me to dinner and a movie first.

Of course, this is both ridiculous and offensive.  Automated ticketing is nothing at all like rape – it’s more like the Holocaust.

Also, isn’t the GOP supposed to be the Law And Order “civil rights and due process are for pussies” party, or does that only apply to offenses committed by minorities and poor people?  Maybe these automated ticketing systems simply need to use some kind of cross-reference database so that they don’t send any tickets to rich white people, who were probably in a very legitimate hurry to do important rich white people things.  Or drunk.

Add comment January 11th, 2010 at 06:43pm Posted by Eli

What’s Next For WaPo?

First it was the attempt to sell access to government officials and their own news staff, and now they’re outsourcing their reporting to conservative propaganda outlets.

It’s only a matter of time before they attempt to sell naming rights.  Maybe “The Wellpoint Washington Post”, or perhaps “The Halliburton Post”?  Maybe they’ll even start renting out advertising space on their reporters and editors so that they look like NASCAR drivers in suits.  But at least we’d be able to see at a glance who their sponsors are.

Add comment January 3rd, 2010 at 04:08pm Posted by Eli

The Only Metric That Matters

…When evaluating our healthcare system:

“Can ultra-rich people get quality medical treatment?”

Turning from his health to politics, Limbaugh declared Friday he got the best health treatment in the world “right here in the United States of America.”

“I don’t think there’s one thing wrong with the United States health system,” Limbaugh said.

Awesome.  And to think we’ve been all worked up over nothing.

Add comment January 1st, 2010 at 09:39pm Posted by Eli

Rush Limbaugh’s Suspicious Chest Pains

Inspired by Jane Hamsher’s recent alliance with Grover Norquist, I have persuaded Glenn Beck to write a guest post on Rush Limbaugh’s hospitalization in Hawaii:

Have you noticed that every time Obama travels to Hawaii, bad things happen to the people around him?  Last year during the campaign he goes to visit his grandmother, and next thing you know she’s passed away.  This year he goes golfing with a friend, and the friend’s kid ends up in the hospital.  And now Rush Limbaugh gets rushed to the hospital with chest pains.

Is it possible that Obama was afraid that Rush’s probing intellect and investigative skills might get too close to some dark Hawaiian secret that could destroy his presidency?  Is it possible that he could have sent undercover Secret Service operatives to lace Rush’s pain pills with some exotic untraceable toxin?  Can the Obamas and their Secret Service detail completely account for their whereabouts yesterday morning and early afternoon?

And why isn’t anyone in the media looking into this?  Could it be that they’re part of the coverup?

Not that I’m insinuating anything, mind you – I’m just asking questions, because by God someone has to, and the American people deserve answers.

2 comments December 31st, 2009 at 11:39am Posted by Eli

We’re Outsourcing The Wrong Occupations

We need more journalists like that interviewer who almost made Dubya declare war on Ireland, or this reporter from Der Speigel:

Jim-Bo [Inhofe] was apparently surprised to learn that the rest of the world doesn’t dumb their reporters down enough to buy a load of crap like he was selling, because after he made his Republican paranoia jab at “Hollywood elite”, one reporter asked him if he were referring to Schwarzenegger, which he ignored. Darn them reporters. They’re supposed to nod in acquiescence whenever a skinned snake Republican points a finger! It worked for Bush.

And are you ready for the real treat? In response to Jim-Bo’s paranoid and inexplicable narrative, a disgusted reporter from Der Speigel shouted , “You’re ridiculous!”.

(…)

Ain’t it fun to go to places where the press don’t pretend up is down and down is up? And ain’t it great when they don’t suck the Republican lies dry in the retelling? Perhaps some countries learned the dangers of coddling nut jobs and selling propaganda the hard way. Oh, America, I fear for you.

(…)

Apparently flying into Copenhagen to announce that there is no global warming, providing no science to support your position, and avoiding the question by pointing fingers at “Hollywood elites” doesn’t carry as much water in some places as as it does here, in the land of the free.

*wistful sigh*

Just imagine how different the world might be – not just America, but the entire world – if we had a tough, skeptical, reality-based professional press corps like other countries have.

Add comment December 18th, 2009 at 01:24pm Posted by Eli

A Day Without Bitching Is Like A Day Without Sunshine

Hey, you know what would be the awfullest thing ever?  If we got single-payer healthcare, EFCA, ENDA, gay marriage, strong financial and environmental regulations, an end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and prosecutions for all of BushCo’s criminals.  Why, us backseat bitchers wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves and would all become very sad.

So, to sum up Tweety’s argument:

o The netroots don’t really have anything substantive to complain about, we just complain for the sheer joy of complaining.

o The netroots never actually take any kind of action, just sit around and complain.  (Now, if he wanted to argue that we’re not nearly as effective at moving Congress or Obama than multimillion-dollar corporate donors and Fox News, I would probably have to concede that point.)

o The netroots know nothing about governance or campaigning, even though many of its members have run for office and/or worked in government for years.

o The people who actually do run our country have an abundance of both the desire and the knowledge to govern it, and are not just facilitating its continued looting by the aforementioned multimillion-dollar corporate donors.

o As usual, the Village and our professional political class are Serious; the netroots are Not.

That about cover it?

Add comment December 17th, 2009 at 06:54pm Posted by Eli

David Frum Attempts A Little Rebranding

Apparently neocons are the Totally Reasonable Pragmatic Conservatives who are trying to drag the Republican party back from the brink of insanity.

Interestingly, Frum makes absolutely no mention of their disturbing bloodthirst for constant war.

2 comments December 10th, 2009 at 07:23am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Politico’s Victoria McGrane bemoans Barney Frank’s Unbecoming Lack Of Civility:

Barney Frank blows up at people. It’s what he does.

(…)

Frank’s trademark flashes of anger and impatience have gained a new prominence in the past year as Frank himself has grown in importance. He’s now chairman of one of the most influential House committees, which takes up financial reform legislation starting Wednesday that is both a political and policy imperative for the Obama administration.

But now financial lobbyists — Democrats and Republicans — say privately that Frank’s actions on regulatory reform have grown as volatile as his moods. Even some of his most ardent defenders acknowledge Frank has a thin skin. And they say the usually measured policymaker is being forced into an usual position: making calculations based on political pressure from fellow Democrats in ways he never needed to in the past.

(…)

Some Republicans say they expect more from a committee chairman as powerful as Frank, that he needs to tone down his wisecracking and outsized personality to show he’s serious about heading up efforts to pass such a critical bill.

“He really does lash out at people who criticize what he’s doing with a lot of partisan attacks, that are not based really in fact. They are really just very angry kind of anti-Bush, anti-Republican charges,” said Peter Wallison, a former Reagan administration official who is now co-director of financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

“That, I think, is kind of ungracious on his part, or at least on the part of a chairman of a committee. He really shouldn’t be behaving quite as politically and as partisan … as he tends to when he gets under pressure,” Wallison said.

I guess we’ve all been spoiled by how genteel and gracious the Republican committee chairs were during the Duba years.

Add comment December 9th, 2009 at 07:58pm Posted by Eli

Ross Douthat Wanks About Wonks

Wow, that Ross sure does have an active imagination!  Yesterday he blogged about Lou Dobbs running for president as a “radical center populist”, and the day before that he tried to claim that conservatives aren’t really as anti-intellectual as all that, and might even vote for a thoughtful policy wonk.  No, really!

Matt Yglesias and Isaac Chotiner both suggest that if a Republican politician were to embrace serious domestic policy ideas, Republican voters wouldn’t want anything to do with him. The conservative movement tends to “fetishize stupidity,” Yglesias writes, and believes that there’s “something actually un-American about being thoughtful, having respect for scholarship, or incorporating any kind of nuance into your discussion.” If Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee “were interested in policy, then they would not be so appealing to the GOP base,” Chotiner argues, adding that since movement conservatism “sneers at intellectuals and elites,” a conservative candidate “who was interested in learning the ins and outs of the welfare state and health care policy is unlikely to ever achieve Palin/Huckabee levels of popularity with the grassroots.”

(So far, so good!)

I would really like to see this theory put to the test. Certainly there’s a strong anti-egghead bent on the Right, and you’re probably never going to see grassroots conservatives swooning for a purely cerebral candidate — a Adlai Stevenson or Bill Bradley type. But it’s possible for a candidate to have the common touch and to know a thing or two about domestic policy (see Clinton, William Jefferson), and I don’t see any evidence that a conservative politician couldn’t profit from trying to pull off that particular two-step.

Then he talks about how Palin (hahahaha) or Huckabee wouldn’t suffer politically if they boned up on policy, and about how popular Gingrich is because he has a reputation as a policy wonk even though Ross himself admits that he really isn’t one.  Which proves only that conservatives like ideologues who masquerade as policy wonks.

[P]recisely because the G.O.P. currently has a reputation for being anti-intellectual, there’s a huge upside for a Republican politician in being identified as that rarest of species — a “conservative with domestic policy ideas.” (For a small-bore example of how this works, look at Paul Ryan, who’s made a substantial name for himself by being one of the few House Republicans willing to get into the weeds on health care reform.) Of course identity politics and symbolic appeals will always matter more than substance, and political careers will never be made on wonkery alone. But even — or especially — in today’s Republican Party, being known as a thoughtful politician seems much more likely to help you than to hurt you.

Okay, some comments:

1) Interesting that Paul Ryan is the only Republican policy wonk Douthat mentions, and he’s not exactly a high-profile figure in the GOP.  Perhaps it’s because Republican policy wonks don’t get elected very often, much less obtain prominent GOP leadership positions?

2) Hey, can someone refresh my memory on what happens every time a conservative with some degree of intellectual honesty criticizes Dubya, or one of the GOP’s other heroes for being incompetent, immoral, or insane?  How does that work out for them?

3) How often do policy wonks of either party get elected?  Dukakis got crushed by a mediocrity, and Gore managed to lose to the dumbest man ever to run for president.  Clinton won despite his wonkery, not because of it.

4) Most people don’t like Republican policies, because they’re mean-spirited and prone to spectacular failure.  Republican candidates win by using emotional appeals and misinformation to camouflage those toxic policies, not illuminate them.

But hey, if they want to try it, I’m all for it.  In fact, I think the Republicans should keep on fielding wonky candidates until they start winning, that’s how committed I am to Ross’s genius idea.

1 comment November 26th, 2009 at 01:11pm Posted by Eli

Richard Cohen Serves Self Up A Softball, Whiffs Anyway

Because I try not to read him because he makes my brain sad, sometimes I forgot just how stupid and obtuse Richard Cohen is.  In yesterday’s column, he manages to come up with a very valid thesis (Obama has lost his moral clarity and betrayed the ideals he professed on the campaign trail) and then does an incredibly awful job of backing it up:

Somehow, though, that moral clarity has dissipated. The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conferences and events — and having his remarks sometimes censored. When I saw him in that picture alone on the Great Wall, he seemed to be thinking, “What the hell am I doing here?” If so, it was a good question.

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Sept. 11 defendants in criminal court, as if this were a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. What is the principle in that: What works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.

Of course, there’s a difference between campaigning and governing. There is no reality to campaigning. You want Guantanamo closed, you say you’ll close it. You want to close it as president, and all of a sudden it becomes a political crisis that costs you your White House counsel, an experienced and principled man named Gregory Craig. Governing is hard.

Okay, he’s right about the Dalai Lama and Gitmo, but The Bow? (It’s a sign of respect not submission, you pinhead)  Getting China on board with reducing carbon emissions?  Trying KSM in a civilian court?  These are supposed examples of Obama losing his moral clarity?  How about his continuation of Bush’s policies of secrecy and executive power?  His doubling down on Afghanistan?  His unconcern for the public option?  His serial betrayals of the gay community?

It’s a pretty easy case to make, and Cohen still can’t do it effectively.  Why a major American newspaper would pay him to write this inept drivel, I have no idea.

Add comment November 25th, 2009 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Palin ≠ Reagan

Yeah, what John Nichols said. Just because people thought Reagan was a stupid lightweight too, that doesn’t make them the same, any more than their shared lousy approval ratings make George W. Bush into Harry Truman.  Sometimes people think you’re an idiot because… you’re an idiot.

I would further add that all talk of qualifications aside, Reagan was a soothing, reassuring presence, whereas Palin is, for want of a better word, alarming.  I can absolutely understand an apolitical person who goes with their gut voting for Ronald Reagan solely because of his persona.  Sarah Palin, not so much.

To put it another way: Ronald Reagan scared liberals; Sarah Palin scares non-conservatives.  See the difference?

Add comment November 18th, 2009 at 08:41pm Posted by Eli

Wednesday Why-I-Love-The-Weekly-World-News Blogging

Oh yeah, Obama sure is sticking it to Fox News, all right.  If by “sticking it to”, you mean “granting an exclusive interview with”.  Weekly World News has the inside skinny on Obama’s preparations:

President Obama will finally give an interview to Fox News.  Both he and the station are preparing for the imminent showdown.

News broke this week that the Obama administration will be reversing its policy towards Fox News.  Previously the administration refused to give the channel interviews, ignored Fox reporters at press conferences, and federally detained Fox reporters whenever the President “had a case of the Mondays.”

The rivalry came to a head Tuesday when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and his staff started a food fight with Rupert Murdoch at a five-star restaurant in Washington D.c.  After the incident the White House decided that President Obama would finally give Fox News an interview.

In preparation for the event the President is preparing himself mentally and physically.  Knowing that Fox reporters will try any and every trick to make him look bad he has taken up meditation in the hopes of remaining calm and focused no matter what is said.

To improve his memory, the White House has begun a strict hypnotherapy program to give him exceptional recall for even the most minute of details.  The President has also taken advanced Tai Chi, blindfolded fencing, and challenging two chess grand-masters at once while balancing the education budget.

Fox News is also preparing for the interview.  Sources claim they have already started compiling their list of questions, which is to include “Were you really born in Hawaii?” “Really?” and “Really?”

Further they will ask, “Why do you hate America so much?” and “Will you admit that you’re a socialist?”

Other questions may include:

- “Are you a puppet of the New World Order?”
- “Do you know some people believe you are the Anti-Christ?”
- “Why do you ignore the will of the American people, as seen in Tea Party demonstrations and town hall meetings?”
- “Does the sight of American Values burn you like a cross to a vampire?”
- “Will you ever come clean about being a Muslim?”
- “Do you have a fatwa against the Constitution?”
- “How are we supposed to believe that you are not a Kenyan/socialist/fascist/muslim/anti-christ untill you prove otherwise?”

I can hardly wait.

Add comment November 18th, 2009 at 11:25am Posted by Eli

Propaganda. Ur Doin It Wrong.

I can’t understand why a network whose entire raison d’etre is to catapult anti-progressive smears and GOP talking points would want to make their content harder to access.

Not that I’m complaining, mind you.  The fewer people who can read Fox News online, the better.

(h/t PW)

1 comment November 14th, 2009 at 11:49am Posted by Eli

Lou Dobbs Deported From CNN

Woohoo!!!

Lou Dobbs, the longtime CNN anchor whose anti-immigration views have made him a TV lightning rod, plans to announce Wednesday that he is leaving the network, two network employees said.

A CNN executive confirmed that Mr. Dobbs will announce his resignation plans on his 7 p.m. program. His resignation is effective immediately; tonight’s program will be his last on CNN. His contract was not set to expire until the end of 2011.

Good riddance.  I’m gonna go with four months as the over/under for when he gets his own show at Fox News.

4 comments November 11th, 2009 at 06:57pm Posted by Eli

Come To Think Of It, I’ve Never Seen Them Together…

The resemblance is uncanny!

If only I had the juice (and cash) of sick, bloviating, untethered-from-reality-and-the truth Glenn Beck! The New York Times Opinionator Tobin Harshaw compares my call to shut down the gAyTM to the radical, racist, bigoted diatribes of Glenn Beck. His reasoning?

“We know that hard-line conservatives are riled up. But so are hard-left Democrats and their gay allies.”

Who knew my statement was equivalent to the nut-teabaggers and a radical call to arms:

(…)

She offers a call to arms along the lines of MoveOn’s:

I don’t know about you, but at the very least, it’s a peek at the kind the two-timing that goes on in national politics with constituencies they find “troublesome” or a perceived “liability” (save the $$$, of course). The difference is that the peek inside makes you realize how easily you’ve been had …Shut the gAyTM down; only give directly to candidates and organizations you believe are truly working in your best interest. Not a penny to the DNC; it’s the only leverage you have as an average citizen. The big donors in our community have to take a stand on this kind of nonsense, otherwise, they are enabling this kind of treatment of our community. It’s party-building at our expense each and every time …

Pam, you may not like to hear it, but that last line could just as easily have come from Glenn Beck. Just goes to show: it may be entertaining to watch your enemies rip themselves apart, but you might just want to keep an eye on the guy to your left.

What.

Apparently, saying “Let’s stop giving money to people who repeatedly take advantage of us” is exactly the same as saying that the president hates white people, organizing hate rallies, and rolling out a new insane black-UN-helicopters-are-trying-to-fluoridate-our-water-for-one-world-government conspiracy theory every night.  Who knew?

Add comment November 9th, 2009 at 09:01pm Posted by Eli

This. Is. Brilliant.

Jon Stewart with an absolutely perfect parody of Glenn Beck:

Can’t add anything to that.

Add comment November 7th, 2009 at 12:35pm Posted by Eli