Multi Medium

Eli’s Obsession With The Google

In other news… Multi Medium is the #2 search result for obama is the biggest liar.

I kinda thought I would have more competition…

2 comments March 8th, 2010 at 08:21pm Posted by Eli

NYC’s 2010/2012 Election Preview

NY Daily News reports that one of the reasons Bill Thompson narrowly lost his bid for NYC mayor is that only 20% of the city’s 338,000 first-time voters who voted for Obama turned out to vote for him.  Which begs the question: What happens in November, and in 2012, when those voters don’t show up nationwide?  Because I really don’t see any way that Obama’s going to convince them to turn out again after he completely failed to deliver on everything he promised them.

All that optimism, all that enthusiasm, all that, yes, hope, is gone for good, dead by Obama’s own hand.  I wonder if he thinks he’s going to be able to crank it up again somehow – he’s going to be in for an unpleasant shock if he does.

4 comments March 8th, 2010 at 11:31am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Sales

In their latest e-mail blast, apparently the DNC actually thinks this is a good thing:

On Fox News Sunday this morning Mitt Romney defended the individual mandate, which was in the health care plan he championed as Governor, as the “ultimate conservative plan”

See it HERE:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzdhJ3CsYLQ

DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan offered the following response to Romney’s declaration:

“We know that ensuring everyone is covered and expanding the risk pool will lower costs, but it certainly speaks to the bipartisan nature of the President’s plan that Governor Romney calls the idea of an individual mandate the “ultimate conservative plan.”

Romney Defends Individual Mandate as “Conservative.” “What we did, I think, is the ultimate conservative plan. We said people have to take responsibility for getting insurance, if they can afford it, or paying their own way. No more free-riders.” [FOX News, 3/7/10, See it HERE:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzdhJ3CsYLQ]

DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan offered the following response to Romney’s declaration:

“We know that ensuring everyone is covered and expanding the risk pool will lower costs, but it certainly speaks to the bipartisan nature of the President’s plan that Governor Romney calls the idea of an individual mandate the “ultimate conservative plan.”

Oh yeah, I am soooo stoked to run out and support the Senate’s healthcare plan now that I know that Mitt Romney has endorsed the individual mandate as “the ultimate conservative plan” – I’m gonna get on the phone to my congressman right away!

2 comments March 7th, 2010 at 03:27pm Posted by Eli

Question Of The Day

Does The Obama Administration Even Want To Win In November?

Johnson’s bafflement is an excellent companion piece to Scarecrow’s.

My take on it is that a Republican-controlled (or Republican + Blue Dog-controlled) Congress gives Obama an excuse to pursue the Republican policies that he apparently wants to pursue anyway.  “Oh gee, I really wanted to do something about healthcare/unemployment/financial shenanigans/global warming/EFCA/DADT, but my hands are tied by all those Republicans.  How about some nice shiny tax cuts?”

What I don’t get is how Obama actually thinks that leading his party into a rout in 2010 and then using that as an excuse to govern like a full-blown Republican is going to win him any votes in 2012.  Maybe he’s counting on the Republicans nominating someone terrifyingly, unelectably insane.  Which is not completely out of the question.

Add comment March 6th, 2010 at 01:11pm Posted by Eli

So Now He’s In A Hurry?

Funny how Obama’s patience was nearly infinite when the public option was in the Senate healthcare bill with Republicans and conservadems trying to take it out, but now that the public option is out with liberals and moderates trying to put it back in, he can’t get it passed soon enough.

If it weren’t for his solemn promise to “revisit” the public option at some unspecified future time (just like his promise to “revisit” NAFTA!), I might think that he really really doesn’t want it.

Add comment March 5th, 2010 at 07:02am Posted by Eli

This Is What Happens

When you don’t deliver on your campaign promises.  Or actively work to sabotage them.

A year after supporting Barack Obama for president by an overwhelming 2-to-1 ratio, young adults are cooling quickly toward his Democrats amid dissatisfaction over the lack of change in Washington and an escalating war in Afghanistan.

A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18- to 29-year- olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was read by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.

The findings are significant because they offer further proof that the diverse coalition of voters Obama cobbled together in 2008 — including high numbers of first-timers, young minorities and youths — are not Democratic Party voters who can necessarily be counted on.

While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18- to 29-year-olds has substantially narrowed, from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the Republicans in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.

Young adults’ voting enthusiasm also crumbled.

During the presidential election, turnout among 18- to 29-year-olds was the highest in years, comprising roughly 20 percent of the voters in many states including Virginia and New Jersey, due in part to high participation from young blacks and Hispanics.

That percentage, however, dropped by half for the governors’ races in those states last November, where Republicans celebrated wins as black groups pushed Obama to do more to soften the economic blow from mortgage foreclosures and Latinos saw little progress on immigration reform. Young adults also were the least likely of any age group to identify themselves as regular voters.

They could have been “the start of a new Democratic movement”, but Obama chose to turn his back on them the second his election was secure.  Apparently he either thinks he can win without them, that he can turn on the charm and the uplifting hopey talk when he needs it, or that they’ll just have to vote for him because the alternative is so much worse.  Personally, I wouldn’t bet my presidency on any of those outcomes.  Maybe he thinks grateful PhRMA and Wall Street dollars will be enough to buy the 2012 election, but I kinda doubt that too.

And it won’t be just the youth vote Obama will be losing; he’s going to lose a big chunk of the Democratic base too.  Contempt and betrayal are not really great drivers for turnout.

Add comment February 26th, 2010 at 07:21am Posted by Eli

Obama Vs. Progressives

Despite Obama’s desperate desire to see the public option finally curl up and die, progressive congressmembers are still trying to keep the dream alive at today’s healthcare summit.  In addition to the use-reconciliation-to-pass-PO letter that’s circulating around the Senate, we also have:

• Bernie Sanders saying the Senate does have the 50 votes needed to pass the PO through reconciliation, and that he’s baffled why Obama keeps trying to bury it.

• Nancy Pelosi reminding Obama that he himself said that the PO would “keep the insurance companies honest and… increase competition” and challenging him to produce a better alternative.  She also pointed out that the public option saves money, which is a very important point that is too often forgotten.

• The Congressional Progressive Caucus objected to their exclusion from the summit, pointed out that the PO is mad popular, and suggested that perhaps the savings from the PO which everybody likes could be used to offset the excise tax which everybody hates.

At this point, I fear the fix is in, that Obama has made up his mind that he would rather piss off the voters than piss off the healthcare industry, but I’m glad to see that the progressives aren’t letting him off the hook.  This should also help them when they all have to run against Obama in the midterms.

Add comment February 25th, 2010 at 08:40pm Posted by Eli

No One Could Have Anticipated…

Turns out Obama “supports” the Consumer Financial Protection Agency in much the same way that he “supported” the public option:

The Obama administration is no longer insisting on the creation of a stand-alone consumer protection agency as a central element of the plan to remake regulation of the financial system.

In hopes of quick congressional approval of a reform bill, White House officials are opening the door to compromise with lawmakers concerned about creating a new bureaucracy, according to congressional and some administration sources.

President Obama’s economic team is now open to housing the consumer regulator inside another agency, such as the Treasury Department, though they still prefer a stand-alone agency. In either case, they are insisting on a regulator with political autonomy and real teeth so it can effectively enforce rules designed to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

(…)

A free-standing agency had been a central part of the original blueprint released by the Obama administration, which said it is essential to have one agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers from lending abuses. In the lead-up to the financial crisis, that responsibility was spread across numerous agencies and often took a back seat to ensuring the well-being of banks. A version of the stand-alone proposal was included in a bill passed by the House in December.

(…)

In one scenario under discussion, a consumer bureau would be set up within the Treasury Department. In another, a consumer protection division would be established inside a new national agency to regulate banks.

The latter idea would upset some consumer advocates, who say they do not want the consumer regulator to answer to bank supervisors. Advocates say these supervisors have shoddy records on shielding customers from abusive financial practices.

What could possibly go wrong?

Add comment February 25th, 2010 at 11:28am Posted by Eli

It Certainly Does Explain A Lot…

No wonder Gibbs is trying to throw cold water on passing the public option through reconciliation.  Obama really is playing for the other team. Jebus, what a dishonest scumbag.

I’m still hopeful that Congress will pass the public option simply to save their own skins in November, but it’s going to be a lot harder with the president actively working against them.  I assume even Obama wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually veto the public option if it somehow passed, but if he did I’m sure his explanation would be fascinating.

1 comment February 24th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

This Just In…

Earth to Obama and Democrats: How many times do we have to tell you that the reason everyone hates the Senate healthcare bill is because it doesn’t have a public option?

I know this is hard and painful for you to hear, but you would actually improve your re-election chances by moving left, not right.  But perhaps you’re less worried about staying in office than you are about your employment after office.

(h/t Phoenix Woman)

Add comment February 22nd, 2010 at 07:18pm Posted by Eli

Obama Will Lead If Someone Else Leads First

I suppose it’s a good thing that Obama will push for the public option that he promised and repeatedly claimed he wanted… if Harry Reid will:

Maddow: “The private insurance company writ large hasn’t done a great job. That’s why we want a public option to compete with them. These 18 Democratic senators want to bring that back into the fold. If that happened, would the administration fight for it?”

Sebelius: “Well, I think if it’s…Certainly. If it’s part of the decision of the Senate leadership to move forward, absolutely.”

Especially since both Chuck Schumer and most of Nevada are in favor of it (and against healthcare reform without it), which puts extra pressure on Harry to support it.

But how pitiful is it that Obama is only willing to fight for the public option if one of the weakest Majority Leaders ever fights for it first?  Isn’t the President supposed to be a leader, not a follower?  He’s been in the White House for over a year now, and I’m having a hard time thinking of a time where he’s demonstrated anything remotely resembling leadership or courage.

Add comment February 19th, 2010 at 07:14am 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

Fierce Advocacy: Ur Doin It Wrong

Well, Dick Cheney is now to the left of Obama and the Democrats on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Great job, guys.

As Joe noted below, former vice President, and arch-conservative nemesis of the Obama administration, Dick Cheney said today that he thinks the ban on gays serving in the US military will be lifted, and he thinks it’s time. That means the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress now having Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen covering their backside on this issue. So what do they do? Do they push for a repeal now, strike when the iron is hot, take advantage of the once-in-a-lifetime momentum that has developed around this issue in the past two weeks?

No.

After two weeks of no direction whatsoever from the White House as to whether we even should proceed with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell this year, more unnamed administration officials are telling AP that they won’t touch the repeal for years to come. (Apparently, according to AP, they want to give the troops time to “get used” to the idea, gentle souls that they are.)

(…)

We now have Colin Powell (Republican), SecDef Gates (Republican appointee), Chairman Mullen (Republican appointee), Dick Cheney (Republican), Ted Olson (Republican), and the torture twins (Republicans), better than the Democratic party on this paramount gay civil rights issue. For years, we’ve been able to laugh in the face of gay Republicans who claimed the GOP was a viable alternative for gay Americans seeking their civil rights. No one is laughing any more. The Democratic party needs to wake up and realize that its political homophobia is losing it a constituency.

Fantastic.  Apparently we’ve reached a point where gays’ best chance for equality is to either vote Republican or hope that one of Obama’s daughters comes out.

Add comment February 14th, 2010 at 01:21pm Posted by Eli

So Much For “Dreams Of My FDR”

I partially agree with this…

President Barack Obama’s dream of being a historically transformational figure like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan may be slipping from his grasp.

(…)

Obama’s quest to usher in a new liberal era — one with major new policies and a growing Democratic voter majority punctuating a shift away from the conservative era that Reagan ushered in — is in trouble and may be disintegrating.

That is to say, I agree with the disintegrating/slipping from his grasp part, but not with the dream/quest part.  I just do not see any evidence that this kind of transformation was ever Obama’s goal.  Sure, during the campaign he said it was his goal because that was what everyone wanted to hear, but his lukewarm words and actions since then have been those of a man determined to work within the status quo.

If transformation really is Obama’s dream, then he’s been remarkably half-assed about fighting for it.

Add comment February 13th, 2010 at 04:56pm Posted by Eli

This?

Obama can’t be bothered to involve himself in the healthcare reform process, but he wants to be all hands-on with THIS???

Glad to see that he’s got his priorities and signature issues straight and everything…

Add comment February 13th, 2010 at 02:42pm Posted by Eli

Successiness

[Please imagine that I found a video of "That's not flying!  That's falling with style!" from Toy Story]

Well, that’s awfully nice that Obama doesn’t begrudge Wall Street executives like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein their “success or wealth,” but I just have to wonder whether taking your company to the brink of collapse with risky quasi-legal dealings and then using your connections and too-big-to-failness to extort huge direct and indirect government bailouts that restore it to obscene profitability is, strictly speaking, “success.”

I mean, would Blankfein’s “savvy” strategy have worked as well for a company one-twentieth the size which did not have alumni seeded in key high-level positions all over the federal government?

Add comment February 11th, 2010 at 07:01pm Posted by Eli

Same As The Old Boss

The more things change, the more they stay the same…

A Pomona College student filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday alleging that he was abusively interrogated, handcuffed and detained for five hours at Philadelphia International Airport in August because he carried a set of English-Arabic flashcards as part of his college language studies.

(…)

According to the suit, George, a college senior from Montgomery County, Penn., majoring in physics and Middle Eastern studies, was returning to school when TSA screeners saw his flashcards. A supervisor asked him his views on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, whether he knew who carried them out and what language Osama bin Laden spoke, adding, “Do you see why these cards are suspicious?,” the suit alleged.

Apparently “Arabic” still automatically equals “terrorism”.

Add comment February 11th, 2010 at 11:25am Posted by Eli

Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn Unions…

Back in December when Labor was supporting (or at least holding its fire) on the Senate’s terrible healthcare reform bill in exchange for sugarplum visions of EFCA, I wrote:

I think it’s blindingly obvious at this point that staying on Obama’s good side has bought Labor exactly nothing, and will continue to buy them nothing.  If they don’t start threatening to withhold their support (not just votes, but GOTV and organizational muscle) in the 2010 and 2012 elections, they will continue to get diddly-squat from the Obama White House.

The unions need to stop begging for scraps and start using their leverage.  No more “pretty please”; it’s time for “or else”.

And also:

It is simply amazing to me that the unions are still supporting the terrible Senate healthcare bill in hopes that Obama will push for EFCA in return. How can they possibly still believe that after watching the way the stimulus, bailout, climate reform, financial reform, and healthcare reform have played out?

If Obama “supports” EFCA the way he supported healthcare reform and the public option, union members will end up paying dues directly to their employers.

And what happened?  Scott Brown got elected to Teddy Kennedy’s seat without EFCA getting anywhere near the Senate floor, and now the unions are justifiably pissed.  But it is not strictly accurate to say that the possibility of EFCA passing died in that special election last month; it’s more accurate to say that the useful illusion that EFCA might pass is what died.  Because there was simply no way that EFCA was ever going to pass a Senate ruled by corrupt treacherous scumbags like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.

It’ll be interesting to see just what Labor does now that the Democrats can’t hold EFCA hostage anymore.  Will they simply withhold support, or will they start actively backing primary challengers?  I’m hoping it’s the latter, and I’m hoping Nelson and Lieberman are their top priorities.

Add comment February 10th, 2010 at 06:15pm Posted by Eli

The New Litmus Test

It looks like Republicans and conservative Democrats have settled on a new litmus test to decide which nominees are acceptable: They have to be chosen by a Republican president.

Not sure how Obama’s going to get around that one…

Add comment February 10th, 2010 at 07:27am Posted by Eli

Leadershippiness!

Obama Fail:

Sen. Al Franken ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats.

Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.

(…)

“There was a lot of frustration in there,” said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified.

“People were hot,” another Democratic senator said.

Democratic senators are frustrated that the White House hasn’t done more to win over the public on health care reform and other aspects of its ambitious agenda — and angry that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts Senate race, the White House hasn’t done more to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president’s desk.

In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did in the earlier public session.

Maybe I’m just picky and demanding, but Obama’s “leadership” style sounds an awful lot like “make a vague hand gesture and then wander off.”

This doesn’t exactly put my mind at ease either.

6 comments February 5th, 2010 at 11:28am Posted by Eli

Why Doesn’t Obama Listen To This Guy?

He seems to have the right idea:

From there, Obama turned to a more pointed critique of Lincoln’s argument. “If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression — we don’t tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don’t put in place any insurance reforms, we don’t mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they’re doing now because we don’t want to stir up Wall Street — the result is going to be the same,” he said. “I don’t know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place.”

Middle class Americans, Obama said, “are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don’t want to — we don’t want to stir things up here, we’re just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don’t know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don’t know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us.”

Where has that guy been for the past year?

Add comment February 4th, 2010 at 07:27am Posted by Eli

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

The Weekly World News has the inside story of what really went on in Obama’s State Of The Union address:

Frame by frame analysis of last night’s broadcast reveals subliminal messages in the State of the Union.  During key points of the speech text would appear for only a fraction of a second.  When the President would mention the need for jobs, subliminal messages read “TRUST ME” and “TOTALLY BUSH’S FAULT.”

Discussing failed attempts at health care reform messages read “MY BAD” and “SORRY, I TRIED.”  Outlining his plans for the future the President was framed by phrases like “FOLLOW ME” and “EMBRACE MY DIVINE RULE.”  While mentioning Republican opposition to legislation, messages read “DON’T BE A JERK” and “SERIOUSLY GUYS, GROW UP.”

Also interspersed were subliminal images intended to reinforce the President’s message.  Single frames can be found in last night’s address of emotionally evocative images.  When discussing the “historic call to action” the country is facing, images were seen of Americans on bread lines during the Great Depression, America’s celebration of Victory in Europe, and Rosie the Riveter.  While outlining his future economic policies, motivational posters were seen, including the “Just Hang In There” cat.

Analysis shows that these techniques were also used by White House officials in the audio feed.  Buried in white noise, just barely loud enough for the brain to register subconsciously, the President’s speech was underscored by the sound of kittens purring.  If the President’s speech is played backwards is clearly plays Bob Marley’s “Three Little Birds.”

Finally, Democrats are closing the subliminal messaging/mind control gap!

Add comment February 3rd, 2010 at 11:23am 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

David Michael Green Speaks For Me

I know, I’ve never heard of him either.  But he absolutely dismantles the corruption and self-destructive fecklessness of Obama and congressional (especially Senate) Democrats, who look more and more like Republican double agents every day.

It’s awfully shrill, and a little bit repetitive, and you should totally read it.

1 comment January 26th, 2010 at 11:34am Posted by Eli

Can Someone Give The President A Nudge Or Something?

So let me get this straight – after his brilliant float-above-the-fray strategy resulted in a hideously compromised Senate healthcare reform bill which Americans hate so much that it cost the Democrats a Senate seat in Massachusetts, Obama’s Cunning Plan to fix the healthcare reform mess is… to float above the fray some more?

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is engaged with House progressives, trying to tease out a solution to the health care reform impasse–but he says that at the highest levels of the Senate and the White House, there’s still no plan, and he doubts whether President Obama will insert himself forcefully into the process.

Brown, who traveled with Obama today in Ohio, tells me “I’ve talked to Reid, I’ve talked to Obama. Unclear yet what the strategy is, but clear interest, strong interest in getting as strong a bill as we can get.”

(…)

[H]e doesn’t imagine the President will lay out a way forward in his State of the Union address next week, and he won’t push any buttons in the Senate.

“I doubt if he does, I don’t think he’ll do a procedural thing. I don’t think he will engage in process,” Brown said of State of the Union.

Traveling with Obama today, he and House members from Ohio aired suggestions and opinions about how to get the Senate back into the game–but Obama’s not on the same page. “Everybody had opinions about what the President should do [vis-a-vis the Senate and particular senators],” Brown told me. “But he ain’t bitin’.”

I guess Obama will come out with a forceful statement about how he’s totally rooting for Congress to fix the healthcare bill somehow, and then just sit back and wait for the magic to happen.

Seriously, someone Obama actually listens to needs to get in his ear and tell him that he needs to do everything he can, both publicly and privately, to push the Senate Democrats to pass a strong “sidecar” fix (must restore public option and eliminate excise tax) through budget reconciliation, and push the House Blue Dogs to vote for both the current Senate bill and the sidecar bill.

True, it might still get done without Obama’s help, but does he really want to bet his presidency on it?

Add comment January 23rd, 2010 at 07:39pm Posted by Eli

Cenk Uygur And Drew Westen Speak For Me

They’re essentially saying the same thing: That Obama needs to be a lot more forceful and stop deferring to Republicans.

Cenk:

That’s how you get the opposition to vote with you. Who cares if their feelings are hurt, you’ll get their votes if, and only if, they think their seat is on the line. Politics is almost always a matter of naked self-interest. Make it politically perilous for them to vote against you and all of a sudden they’ll be in a lot more bipartisan mood.

This is one of the few things George Bush did well. Why do you think all those Democrats voted for the Iraq War, because they liked Bush? Because he asked them nicely? No, he made them believe that they will lose their seats if they didn’t vote with him. And all of a sudden, he had a solid bipartisan vote in favor his policy.

(…)

It’s time to stand up for what you believe and challenge the craven positions of your opposition. It’s time to show the American people that the Republicans are not on their side. They’re with the bankers and the lobbyists. And we’re coming for them. We’re coming to their house. They can either get out of our way or get crushed. Come on, let’s play ball. Let’s fuck these guys up.

Drew:

[T]he story of health insurance played right into the story that lies behind the looming tsunami that swept away Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat and will sweep away so many more Democratic seats if the Democrats draw the wrong conclusions from this election. The White House just couldn’t seem to “get” that the American people could see that they were constantly coming down on the side of the same bankers who were foreclosing people’s homes and shutting off the credit to small business owners, when they should have been helping the people whose homes were being foreclosed and the small businesses that were trying to stay afloat because of the recklessness of banks that were now starving them. Americans were tired of hearing Obama “exhort” bankers and speculators to play nice as they collected their record bonuses for a heckuva job in 2009. It took him a year to float the idea of making them pay for a fraction of the damage they had done, and at this point, few Americans have any faith that a tax on big banks will ever become law or that the costs won’t just be passed on to them in new fees.

….A stimulus — including a jobs program — strong enough to prevent the hemorrhaging of 700,000 jobs a month and a muscular approach to the bad actors who had crashed the economy would have gotten the public firmly behind the President and the Democrats, demonstrating to the average voter that they have a choice between one party that’s on their side and another that’s not. Instead, the White House just blurred the lines between the parties so the average American couldn’t tell the difference.

With all its efforts to tack to the center, the White House missed the point. The issue isn’t about right or left. It’s about whose side you’re on. In Massachusetts, the voters believe they know. It’s now up to the President and his party to convince the American people otherwise.

The bottom line is that Obama and the Democrats need to make it clear that they are the party of the American people, and the Republicans are the party of the corporations.  Dare the Republicans to vote against the American people in a time of economic crisis, just like Bush (dishonestly) dared the Democrats to vote against national security in a time of irrational fear.  Clearly and aggressively define what the Republicans are voting for or against, and make them own it.

Add comment January 22nd, 2010 at 07:35am Posted by Eli

Ralph Nader’s Smirking Revenge

It is truly amazing that anyone can look at a shocking Democratic loss in Massachusetts and conclude that it’s a backlash against liberal overreach.  Does anyone really seriously believe that Obama and the Democrats have been too liberal for Massachusetts? Really?  Especially when they’ve fallen far short of enacting the platform they were overwhelmingly elected on?  But if one doesn’t trust logic and common sense, one can always check the polling:

HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT “DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH”

• by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
• by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home

(18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)

VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION

• 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
• 86% of Obama voters who stayed home

OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER

• 57% of Brown voters say Obama “not delivering enough” on change he promised
• 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home

Oh yeah, that’s a real clear call for centrism, all right.

Here’s what I’m seeing: In 2000, Ralph Nader basically ran on a platform of “Republicans and Democrats are all corporate whores, there’s no real difference between them.”  The economy was in great shape at the tail end of a pro-corporate but generally successful Democratic presidency, so his message fell on deaf ears.  If it ain’t broke, etc.

Then Dubya and his pet Congress subject us to eight years of truly disastrous policy that enriches corporations and wealth at the expense of everyone else.  By 2005, America is thoroughly sick of it and starts voting Republicans out en masse in 2006, culminating in a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in 2009, not to mention a frightening economic collapse engineered by years of unconditional corporatism.

And what happened?  Nothing.  This Democratic president and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress continue to coddle, protect, and bail out the same corporations who crashed the economy while doing nothing for their victims.  Americans swept in the Democrats expecting change and reform, and got more of the godawful corporate same.  If ever there was a time for them to be receptive to Nader’s message that both parties are indistinguishable corporate whores, it would be now, when the economy is struggling and the Democrats are following the same corrupt and foolish path as the Republicans (whose awfulness is still very fresh in everyone’s minds).

I don’t know that it will be Nader himself (in fact, I expect it won’t be), but to me it looks like the conditions are ripe for a populist throw-all-the-bums-out third party to make an impact in the 2012 election cycle.  I don’t know whether it’ll be tea partiers from the right (that’d be my bet) or greens from the left, or even some weird coalition of both, but someone is going to capitalize on the “I voted for the Democrats and nothing changed, but I don’t want the Republicans back either” frustration that’s bubbling up out there, mark my words.

1 comment January 21st, 2010 at 11:35am Posted by Eli

Uh-Oh.

Now where have we heard this before?

Right now there are a lot of discussions going on about the best path forward. But let’s be clear that the President’s preference is to pass a bill that meets the principles he laid out months ago: more stability and security for those who have insurance, affordable coverage options for those who don’t, and lower costs for families, businesses, and governments.

Oh right; it was when Obama said he had a strong preference for the public option.  And look how well that turned out.

Add comment January 21st, 2010 at 06:55am Posted by Eli

Electoral Politics In A Nutshell

If the voters think you’re accomplishing most of what they think you promised to accomplish, you’ll probably get re-elected.  If they don’t, you probably won’t.

Obama managed to charm voters into believing that he had promised more than he actually did, but so far has delivered far less than he actually promised.

Here’s a partial composite list of things that Obama promised, or that those who voted for him think he promised:

• Universal healthcare that doesn’t suck
• Financial reform to restructure Wall Street and punish its malefactors of great wealth
• Jobs/economic stimulus/mortgage relief
• Shifting the tax burden back towards the rich
• Emphasis on green energy and jobs/significant reductions of greenhouse emissions
• Government transparency/restoration of respect for the Constitution and rule of law
• Reduction of lobbyist influence
• Abolition of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
• Closing of Gitmo
• Withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
• Accountability for Bush administration criminals

I can’t think of a single item on this list that Obama has come even close to achieving, or even made a good-faith effort to achieve.  I’d say that he was comparatively most successful on jobs and economic stimulus, but 10% unemployment isn’t exactly something to brag about.

Obama and the Democrats got their performance review yesterday.  If they don’t start showing some serious improvement in the quality of their work product over the next nine months, a whole bunch of them are going to get fired.

Add comment January 20th, 2010 at 07:23am Posted by Eli

Democrats Suddenly Rediscover Reconciliation

I actually sort of predicted this about a week ago, although this scenario is broader and less secretive:

If Brown beats Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the seat recently occupied by the late-Ted Kennedy, one alternative has the House passing the [healthcare reform] bill the Senate approved just before Christmas last year, with a promise to make additional changes through the upcoming budget process.

(…)

Under the scenario, the House would approve the Senate bill, sending it to the president’s desk for his signature. The White House and Senate negotiators would then have to promise to push further changes – such as those hashed out by negotiators last week – through the reconciliation process, in which the majority only needs 51 votes.

The problem, though, with reconciliation is that it can only be used for things that have an impact on the federal budget. That would not relate to insurance reforms already in both bills and may limit the room for future negotiators.

Unless I’m very much mistaken, reconciliation also would not be able to strip out the anti-abortion Nelson amendment.  It would also be interesting to see whether the Democrats recalibrate the reconciliation bill to attract 51 votes instead of 60, or to at least track closely to the not-a-complete-corporate-giveaway House bill.

Of course, in my earlier post I suggested that any budget reconciliation talk would merely be an empty promise to trick reluctant Democrats into supporting the godawful Senate bill, and I still believe that’s the case.  Some unexpected “snag” or procedural maneuver by the Republicans would occur that would cause the reconciliation process to collapse, leaving the House Democrats (and us) with nothing.

Add comment January 19th, 2010 at 11:25am Posted by Eli