Multi Medium

Quote Of The Day

From Politico’s story about the GOP’s reform plans if (when) they retake control of the House:

They make clear that they plan not only to change the top-down management style of Speaker Nancy Pelosi but also to pare back the excesses and power plays that occurred during the 12 years of Republican control under Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay.

A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Ha.

Right.  “We’ve learned our lesson, we promise we won’t be dicks anymore.”  That sounds totally plausible, on account of the Republicans are so much more moderate and reasonable now.

This is totally going to suck for Obama and the Democrats, but, well, they’ve kind of earned it.  Unfortunately it’s going to suck for the rest of us too, and we didn’t.

Add comment September 2nd, 2010 at 07:14am Posted by Eli

Palintology

What more appropriate publication to write about Sarah Palin than Vanity Fair?  Michael Joseph Gross has a long but amazing profile of Herself in the latest issue.  Adjectives that come to mind include: thin-skinned, vindictive, secretive, manipulative, callous, angry, selfish, greedy, and phony.  There’s also some interesting nuggets about her nasty sockpuppety supporters and use of suspiciously ephemeral shell PACs to launder her speaking fees.

And then there’s this:

There’s a general consensus in town that, at least since the start of the 2008 campaign, Todd has been shouldering the bulk of the parenting and that Sarah’s relationship with her children has grown more distant. The children did not, as Sarah has claimed, have a chance to weigh in on her decision to run for vice president. She did not even deliver the news to them personally; as has been reported, she asked McCain’s campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, to do it for her. Todd reportedly told Sarah that, if the children spent too much time on the campaign trail, they would pay a price: grades would tumble and discipline would fall apart. When she agreed to serve as McCain’s running mate, one of her children was already failing in school, according to campaign aides. But Sarah, these aides say, seemed comforted by having the children around, and she seemed lonely when they were gone. An aide overheard conversations between Sarah and Todd in which Sarah tried to make a self-serving argument sound selfless, holding that the campaign was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, one that she could not deny the children. “I don’t care what it costs,” she said. “I want them here.” Although the couple hired a nanny to help the children with their homework, little homework got done.

On the road, aides say, Sarah spared the rod. When one child refused to sign autographs unless she was provided with pink or purple Sharpies that had been custom-printed with her name, the staff tried to argue that black Sharpies—the only kind they had—would do just fine. But Sarah ordered them to do what the child said, and personalized pink and purple markers were produced. Another time, when one daughter wanted to have her hair and makeup done by Palin’s campaign stylists (the children’s grooming was not part of their job), Palin’s initial response seemed like an old-fashioned lesson in manners. According to an aide, Palin told the daughter that, since she was seeking a favor from the stylists, she should ask them nicely herself and see what they said. When the stylists apologetically told the girl they didn’t have time that day, Palin, incensed, sent the child back to give them a message: “Tell them they don’t have a choice. They have to do it.” And so they did.  Despite railing at the press for invading her family’s privacy, Palin showed little ambivalence during the campaign about making some aspects of the childrens’ private lives public to serve her interests. Soon after her nomination, she brought up with McCain aides the subject of Bristol’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy by Levi Johnston: “Would it be good for the campaign if they got married before the election?” she asked, and went on to wonder whether one weekend or another would be more advantageous for media coverage.

Enjoy!

Add comment September 1st, 2010 at 07:45am Posted by Eli

Selective Lone-Nuttery

Stanley Fish had a nice column in yesterday’s NYT pointing out the cynical inconsistency of right-wing reaction to terrorist attacks, depending on the perpetrator:

In the brief period between the bombing and the emergence of McVeigh, speculation had centered on Arab terrorists and the culture of violence that was said to be woven into the fabric of the religion of Islam.

But when it turned out that a white guy (with the help of a few of his friends) had done it, talk of “culture” suddenly ceased and was replaced by the vocabulary and mantras of individualism: each of us is a single, free agent; blaming something called “culture” was just a way of off-loading responsibility for the deeds we commit; in America, individuals, not groups, act; and individuals, not groups, should be held accountable. McVeigh may have looked like a whole lot of other guys who dressed up in camouflage and carried guns and marched in the woods, but, we were told by the same people who had been mouthing off about Islam earlier, he was just a lone nut, a kook, and generalizations about some “militia” culture alive and flourishing in the heartland were entirely unwarranted.

(…)

It is wrong, we hear, to regard the proposed mosque or community center as an ordinary exercise of free enterprise and freedom of religion by the private owners of a piece of property. It is, rather, a thumb in the eye or a slap in the face of the 9/11 victims and their families, a potential clearinghouse for international terrorist activities, a “victory mosque” memorializing a great triumph of jihad and a monument to the religion in whose name and by whose adherents the dreadful deed was done.

But according to the same folks who oppose the mosque because of what it stands for, Michael Enright’s act doesn’t stand for anything and is certainly not the product of what Time magazine calls a growing “American strain of Islamophobia.” Instead, The New York Post declares, the stabbing is “the act of a disturbed individual who is now in custody,” and across the fold of the page columnist Jonah Goldberg says that “one assault doesn’t a national trend make” and insists that “we shouldn’t let anyone suggest that this criminal reflects anybody but himself.”

The formula is simple and foolproof (although those who deploy it so facilely seem to think we are all fools): If the bad act is committed by a member of a group you wish to demonize, attribute it to a community or a religion and not to the individual. But if the bad act is committed by someone whose profile, interests and agendas are uncomfortably close to your own, detach the malefactor from everything that is going on or is in the air (he came from nowhere) and characterize him as a one-off, non-generalizable, sui generis phenomenon.

How many violent homicidal right-wing crazies do we have to see before we see some conservatives start to admit that maybe, just maybe, that DHS report was right about the dangers of right-wing extremism, not to mention all the provocative teabagger rhetoric about 2nd Amendment remedies and watering the tree of liberty?  Or are murder and incitement okay as long as you pretend that they’re motivated by patriotism?

Add comment August 31st, 2010 at 07:48am Posted by Eli

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

What Lessig Said

In his reaction to the White House’s latest progressive-bashing fiasco, Professor Lessig nails what makes Obama so deeply frustrating:

It’s certainly not fair to criticize Obama for not being a Lefty. He wasn’t ever a Lefty. He didn’t promise to be a Lefty. And there’s no reason to expect that he would ever become a Lefty.

But Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised.

When Candidate Obama took on Hilary Clinton, he was quite clear about what he thought about the way Washington works. And he was quite clear about why he was running for President. As he said:

[U]nless we’re willing to challenge the broken system in Washington, and stop letting lobbyists use their clout to get their way, nothing else is going to change. And the reason I’m running for president is to challenge that system.

Read it again: “The reason I am running for president is to challenge that system.”

(multiple similar Obama quotes follow)

Since coming to power, Obama has pushed just one piece of legislation that would have any effect at all on the power of lobbyists over Congress. That bill has not passed, and even if it had, it would have changed nothing in the lobbyists’ power. He has not even indicated that he would support the only substantial reform of lobbyists power with support in Congress today — the Fair Elections Now Act. Indeed, “congressional reform” doesn’t even merit a mention on the “Additional Issues” page of whitehouse.gov (though “sportsmen” does).

Obama’s strategy as president has not been to “change the way Washington works.” Rather, he has pushed reforms in the same old way, with the same old games….

(…)

[Obama] promised to “take up the fight.” His failure to deliver on that critical promise — the promise that distinguished him from his main primary rival — or even to try, is a failure that everyone, Lefties included, should be free to complain about without suffering the rage of Gibbs.

Of course, Obama has always been careful to couch his capitulation to the will of corporate lobbyists as some kind of principled pragmatism, as necessary compromise in order to achieve his noble objectives, but the reality is that President Obama has demonstrated little or no desire to oppose or reduce the power of corporate lobbyists and corporate money in our political system, which is rapidly approaching absolute.  And I think that’s a pretty damn fair and reasonable complaint to make after he made such a show of being Mr. Clean during the campaign.

Add comment August 13th, 2010 at 07:19am Posted by Eli

Washington Post Calls 85% Of America “Denialists”

Well isn’t this special…

The current focus of the Social Security denialists’ ire is President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which they view as a stalking horse for gutting Social Security. A new group, the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, which includes the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, asserts that the president’s two choices to chair the panel, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, “sent a clear message. Social Security is on the chopping block.” The groups’ list of what changes are unacceptable is longer than what it would consider: no increase in retirement age; no reduction in benefits; no “means testing.” Rather, they say, the adjustments should come from the revenue side. Though the possibilities are not specified, they include raising the payroll tax rate, raising the ceiling for income on which benefits are paid or finding a new revenue source, such as the estate tax or a new financial transactions tax.

We would prefer a more balanced solution, one that relies on a combination of revenue increases and benefit adjustments. On the revenue side, it’s essential that the funding source come from within the Social Security system itself. The coalition is correct that Social Security should not be used to deal with deficit problems outside the program, but the converse is also true: Getting Social Security on a sustainable footing should not add to the deficit. Raising the payroll tax ceiling to cover the same share of wages that it did in 1983 would make sense, but that would only solve about one-third of the long-term problem. Some adjustments on the benefits side, particularly making benefits less generous for the highest-income recipients, would also make sense.

…Or the payroll tax ceiling could simply be removed, which as I understand it would fix 100% of the problem.  Funny how “benefit adjustments” seems like a perfectly acceptable idea but removing the cap doesn’t.

But if the WaPo wants to call us denialists, we’re in good company:

Social Security turns 75 this week and remains an intensely popular program with voters of all ages, who strongly oppose cutting it to reduce the deficit, according to a new survey paid for by AARP and conducted by GfK Roper.

The poll, which was provided exclusively to HuffPost, finds that 85 percent of adults oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit; 72 percent “strongly oppose” doing so.

Too bad there just doesn’t seem to be any political will for doing what a mere 85% of the country wants.

2 comments August 12th, 2010 at 11:39am 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

Job Creation Fail

Uh, Mr. President?  You’re supposed to be creating jobs here…

In recent months, President Obama reversed his campaign promises on trade issues – first by dropping his pledge to renegotiate NAFTA and then by pushing to pass NAFTA-style trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. Now, with the unemployment crisis persisting, the key jobs question is once again front a center in American politics. Specifically: How do we create jobs here at home and build our most valuable 21st century industries?

The first and foremost answer is that our government should stop doing stuff like the program described in this stunning new report from Information Week:

U.S. To Train 3,000 Offshore IT Workers

Despite President Obama’s pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $22 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.

Following their training, the tech workers will be placed with outsourcing vendors in the region that provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent’s low labor costs…

The outsourcing program (is) sure to draw the most fire from critics. While Obama acknowledged that occupations such as garment making don’t add much value to the U.S. economy, he argued relentlessly during his presidential run that lawmakers needed to do more to keep hi-tech jobs in IT, biological sciences, and green energy in the country.

Amazing.  Just amazing.  Obama is now actively working against employment in the U.S. by actually encouraging American companies to outsource.  I can’t even imagine what he might be thinking, other than that he wants to prove how totally not anti-business he is.

Or, of course, he simply doesn’t give a damn.  That’s usually a pretty safe bet.

Add comment August 6th, 2010 at 07:30am Posted by Eli

It’s Not Just Hyperbole

Conservatives really are crazy:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper’s policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are “converting Denver into a United Nations community.”

“This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed,” Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial.

Maes said in a later interview that he once thought the mayor’s efforts to promote cycling and other environmental initiatives were harmless and well-meaning. Now he realizes “that’s exactly the attitude they want you to have.”

“This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms,” Maes said.

He added: “These aren’t just warm, fuzzy ideas from the mayor. These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to.”

Maes said in a later interview that he was referring to Denver’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, an international association that promotes sustainable development and has attracted the membership of more than 1,200 communities, 600 of which are in the United States.

I guess the UN will be using its famous black helicopters to force everyone to ride Hickenlooper’s Communist UN Bikes.  When they’re not busy fluoridating the water to contaminate our purity of essence, that is.

Add comment August 5th, 2010 at 07:13am Posted by Eli

Tone-Deafness: We Haz It

The Obama administration continues to demonstrate their ultra-keen political instincts and compassion for the common man.  First up, Ken Salazar going to bat for the oil industry:

July’s decision halted development on billions of dollars in leases in the Arctic waters of the Chukchi Sea. Beistline found that the federal government didn’t follow environmental law before selling drilling rights. Among other things, he found the government had failed to analyze the environmental impact of natural gas development, “despite industry interest and specific lease incentives for such development,” according to court records.

The Obama administration is among those seeking clarification from Beistline, a rare recent case of the administration siding with the oil industry. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asked the court to narrow the ruling so that another company, Statoil, which owns 16 Chukchi leases, could start seismic testing roughly 100 miles from the coast. Government attorneys told the judge that Statoil, a global oil company partly owned by the Norwegian government, would likely face “significant economic losses” if it couldn’t proceed with seismic surveying.

Statoil said Tuesday it might cancel the seismic tests it hoped to do in the Chukchi this summer because it remains unclear whether the company will be allowed to do the work.

Environmental groups said they were stunned by the administration move, which they said undercuts the administration’s recent decisions to put the brakes on Arctic exploration in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

And, they said, marine mammals such as whales and walruses can be harmed by the testing. The impact of such tests on marine life was one of the issues the court said the federal government failed to consider adequately before issuing the Arctic drilling leases.

Awesome.  So nice to see the Interior’s deep concern for protecting the environment from the offshore oil industry.

And then there’s the always-reliable, prosperity-is-just-around-the-corner Tim Geithner:

Until now, President Obama and his advisers have been adamant that Congress should extend the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts only for individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000, leaving tax rates on upper-income earners to increase as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2011.

But when asked repeatedly on ABC’s “Good Morning America” whether he would recommend that Obama veto an extension of the upper-income tax cuts, Geithner refused to commit.

(…)

“If you extend particularly these tax cuts that only go to 2 percent of the highest-earning Americans, then there’d be a much higher probability they’ll be extended indefinitely,” Geithner said. That would dramatically drive up the deficit and be “a deeply fiscally irresponsible act,” he added.

But asked again whether he would commit to a veto threat against any legislation extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts for now, Geithner responded “no.”

This sounds an awful lot like the healthcare reform fiasco, where Obama repeatedly claimed to support the public option, but refused to commit to vetoing any bill without it.  And after the way that turned out, it’s hard not to interpret a refusal to veto as a signal of tacit support.

Add comment August 4th, 2010 at 07:24am Posted by Eli

Won’t Someone Think Of The Oil Companies?

Shorter Jonah Goldberg: The offshore drilling ban is the real tragedy of the Gulf.

No, really.  Because he has cheerfully embraced Michael Grunwald’s happy propaganda story about how the oil is all dissolving and everything’s going to be fine and the environmental impact isn’t really a big deal at all (um, right).  He also appears to embrace Grunwald’s assumption that any dead animal carcasses that are not obviously covered with oil must therefore have died of natural causes.  Either that or he’s incredibly dishonest, but surely that can’t be true, right?

Some birds were oiled and died, always a sad sight. But according to Time magazine, the number of birds killed is — so far — less than 1 percent of the avian casualties of the Exxon Valdez. And to date, only three oiled mammal carcasses have been recovered. Three.

Wow, three sure is a small number, isn’t it?  Maybe there isn’t anything to worry about after all!

But if you look at the actual report (PDF) from the Deepwater Horizon Response site (which probably has best-case numbers, and of course doesn’t count dead animals that weren’t recovered), you see that while there were only three oiled mammal carcasses, there were 64 overall. Still not a huge number, but bigger than Jonah’s carefully-parsed figure by a factor of 21.  And mammals are the smallest of the categories encompassed by the report.  There are 504 dead sea turtles, and 3455 dead birds (but that’s nowhere near the number of birds killed by the Exxon Valdez spill, so that’s okay).  But no count of the number of dead fish, or shrimp, or oysters, much less damage to coral reefs and other deep-sea habitats, or even the number of Gulf residents and cleanup workers sickened by dispersants or oil fumes or tainted seafood.

But hey, we only found three dead mammals with oil on them, so that proves that this is just those crazy tree-hugging liberals getting hysterical again and trying to take away everyone’s jobs!  I’m surprised Jonah didn’t cite the lack of seal, otter and walrus casualties as proof that BP’s environmental response plan is working perfectly.

Add comment August 3rd, 2010 at 08:18pm Posted by Eli

Tony Hayward Blames Everyone Else

Tony Hayward attempts to spread blame across the drilling industry like his failed rig has spread oil across the Gulf of Mexico:

BP maintains that it alone does not deserve all the blame for the April 20 accident and its aftermath, and it intends to pursue legal action to have drilling partners share in the cost of containment and cleanup. Those partners include Transocean, which operated the rig; Cameron, which built the blowout preventer that failed to shut down the well; and Halliburton, which cemented the oil drill into place underwater.

“It is clear the accident was the result of multiple equipment errors and human error involving many companies,” Hayward said in the webcast.

(…)

Hayward also defended his record on safety. “Safety, people and performance have been my watchwords,” he said. “We’ve made significant progress.”

Wow.  Way to man up and accept responsibility, Tony.  Even if we grant the rather shaky premise that Transocean, Cameron and Halliburton did shoddy work, it was BP calling the shots, and BP that made all of the fatally bad safety-last decisions that led inevitably to disaster.

It was BP that chose a wellbore design without seals or a liner – and then chose to skip the acoustic test which would have detected any flaws in Halliburton’s cement job.  It was BP that falsely claimed that BOP failures were “inconceivable” and declined to install a backup unit.  It was BP that cut corners on testing the BOP and ignored the presence of rubber sealant in the drilling fluid.  And it was BP that ignored all the warning signs of dangerous pressure and replaced the drilling mud with seawater.

In short, even if there were quality issues with Transocean, Cameron and Halliburton, BP deliberately turned a blind eye to potential problems in order to get the Deepwater Horizon pumping as quickly as possible, and now eleven people are dead and the entire Gulf ecosystem may be dying.  Heckuva job, Tony.

(Cross-posted at the Seminal)

Add comment July 28th, 2010 at 07:28am 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

TARP Bailout Czar Tells Greedy Seniors To Suck It Up And Take One For The Team

He also explains that a “me-first” mentality is a good thing in the corporate world, but not so much when it’s selfish old people trying to get by on a fixed income:

Our belief in free markets is founded on the idea that each individual acting in his or her self-interest will lead to a superior outcome for the whole. The financial crisis has reminded us that free markets are not perfect — but they do allocate capital better than any other system we know. A “me first” mentality usually makes markets more efficient.

But this “me first” mentality can also lead to shortsighted political decision making….

Cutting entitlement spending requires us to think beyond what is in our own immediate self-interest. But it also runs against our sense of fairness: We have, after all, paid for entitlements for earlier generations. Is it now fair to cut my benefits? No, it isn’t. But if we don’t focus on our collective good, all of us will suffer.

(…)

I believe three steps are necessary for our country to embrace any meaningful proposal to cut entitlements:

– Our economy needs to experience sustained growth, creating good jobs, so Americans feel economically secure. It is hard for anyone to think about long-term sacrifice when they are worried about how to pay their bills today.

– The emotional bruising inflicted by the financial crisis needs to heal. Along with the passage of time we need a renewed sense that people are succeeding and failing on their own merits.

– Our leaders need to make the case for cutting entitlement spending by tapping into our shared beliefs of sacrifice and self-reliance. They must be willing to risk their own political fortunes for the sake of our country.

And if someone hasn’t made enough money to live off their savings and has to depend on Social Security, what then?  What kind of “self-reliance” does Kashkari have in mind for them other than “work until you die”?  What a complete and utter heartless Gordon Gekko bastard.

1 comment July 26th, 2010 at 07:03pm 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

The New Patriotism

Whatever happened to “America, love it OR leave it”?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s suggestion in April 2009 that his state might consider secession drew a round of mockery nationwide, but his blustery populist rhetoric earned him serious traction among GOP primary voters in his re-election fight against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

(…)

Rep. Zach Wamp, one of three candidates seeking the GOP gubernatorial nomination in Tennessee, told Hotline OnCall that Perry had the right idea. Wamp argued that mandates forced on the states by the Obama administration’s health care bill have put secession on the table.

“I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government,” Wamp told Hotline OnCall Friday.

Wamp said he hopes voters send a message in November that the federal government should “strictly adhere” to the Constitution.

“Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level,” he told OnCall.

This is a very interesting definition of “patriot” that I have never seen before, but I assume that it simply means that Perry and Wamp’s loyalty is to the real America, not the United States with its oppressive Constitution and liberals and whatnot.  Fine, whatever.  But I sure as hell don’t want to hear any more conservatives making fun of Alec Baldwin for threatening to leave the country during the Bush administration, understood?

Add comment July 24th, 2010 at 04:24pm 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

Simon Johnson Is Half Right

I agree with him completely that Tim Geithner has displayed an uncanny knack for not only surviving, but failing upward, but I just don’t see sabotaging Elizabeth Warren as his Waterloo.  Sure, failing to appoint her to the CFPA would be a huge mistake and disappoint the progressive base terribly, but that’s been Obama’s M.O. for his entire presidency, and I certainly don’t see how Geithner would pay a price for that.  Hell, Obama loves kicking the hippies, he thinks it gives him some kind of centrist street cred, like that’s a good thing.

Add comment July 20th, 2010 at 06:34pm 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

Obama The Socialist Strikes Again

Tell me again about what an overreaching, business-hating liberal Obama is:

A leading big-business group, responding to a request from top White House aides, last month submitted to President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget a 54-page hit list that takes aim at regulations protecting the environment, workers, consumers and investors.

Having asked the Business Roundtable for its advice, the White House was then faced with the question of what to do with it.

Discussions between the two parties are ongoing, the White House says. And their conclusion may depend on who wins the ongoing power struggle between the president’s top political gurus and his policy apparatus.

The push to placate business leaders is being led by Obama’s political team — in this case, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

But just like the advice the White House politicos are giving Obama about pressing forward with deficit reduction in the midst of a jobs crisis, the idea of loosening the reins on big business — at a time when the cost of deregulation has been so viscerally on display in the Gulf of Mexico — strikes some observers as spectacularly tone-deaf. Not just bad policy, but bad politics.

“What we’re in the middle of is a string of regulatory failures that the Obama administration seems very insensitive to,” said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and president of the pro-regulation Center for Progressive Reform. She cited the financial crisis, the Massey Energy mine disaster, and of course the BP oil spill.

“Tone-deaf” is exactly right, especially if you read the whole depressing story.  The Obama administration is apparently seeking more corporate campaign contributions for Democratic candidates, but catering to big business is really the last thing they need to be doing to impress the voters.  As always, I assume the calculation is that with enough campaign cash they can convince the American people that Obama is a “fierce advocate” for Main Street over Wall Street.

Add comment July 16th, 2010 at 11:27am Posted by Eli

Good News On Healthcare Reform

For those of you who were worried that healthcare reform might eventually get watered down:

Remember Liz Fowler? The former WellPoint VP whom William Ockham noted was the literal author of the health care reform bill?

I’m sure you’ll be thrilled to learn that WellPoint’s former VP will be in charge of consumer issues and oversight as our country implements the WellPoint/Liz Fowler health insurance bill. (h/t Glenn Greenwald)

Liz Fowler, a key staffer for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus who helped draft the federal health reform bill enacted in March, is joining the Obama administration to help implement the new law.  Fowler, chief health counsel for the Senate Finance Committee, which Baucus chairs, will become deputy director of the Office of Consumer Information and Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

I for one am relieved to see that WellPoint’s Ms. Fowler’s bold vision will not be compromised when the reform plan is finally implemented.

Add comment July 15th, 2010 at 06:25pm 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 II

CEPR calculates the costs and benefits of cutting Social Security:

• The most frequently suggested [progressive price indexation] formula would imply cuts in benefits of 6.2 percent for a household in the in the middle income quintile between the ages of 45-49 in 2007 and 9.6 percent for a household in the middle quintile between the ages of 40 and 44 in 2007
• Raising the normal retirement age 70 in 2036 would result in a 4.0 percent reduction in benefits for workers between the ages of 50 and 54 in 2007 and a 10.0 percent reduction for workers between the ages of 40-44
• Reducing the COLA by 1.0 percent would result in a benefits cut of 12 percent for a retiree at age 75 and more than 20 percent at age 85
• For retirees in the bottom income quintile at age 85 who were between the ages of 55 and 59 in 2007, reducing the COLA by 1.0 percent implies a 14.6 percent reduction in income and a cut of 16. 5 percent for retirees in the bottom quintile at age 85 between the ages of 40-44.

And how do these massive cuts impact the national debt?  Using CEPR’s Deficit Calculator, it looks it would cut the national debt by $861 billion (about 3.5%) over the next ten years, which if I recall correctly is considerably less the cost of Dubya’s massive tax cuts for the rich.  (Note: Simply raising the cap on the Social Security taxable wages to $180,000 would cut the debt by $877 billion all by itself)

So even ignoring the immorality of defaulting on the bonds Social Security has purchased to fund itself, it looks like Obama’s handpicked, Pete Peterson-funded commission of Social Security-hating deficit hawks is probably going to recommend some very painful – and unpopular – cuts that do very little to solve the supposedly urgent budget problem at hand.

Add comment July 14th, 2010 at 11:22am Posted by Eli

I Want My Country Back

From the insane racist conservatives who insist that Obama is the one who’s stirring up race hatred.  Against white people, that is.

I have a lot of problems with Obama – I think he’s been a huge disappointment with outright disdain for the progressive movement, but here’s a news flash: Not being enthusiastically on board with white racism does not actually make someone an anti-white racist.

Add comment July 13th, 2010 at 11:28am Posted by Eli

Nooo They Be Takin’ My Jesus

That’s what Republican congressional candidate Ed Martin says, anyway.  He doesn’t explain how exactly, but why would he lie?

One thing I like to say is: America is great, not because of our genetics. We’re great because we created a place and space where people can be free. And they can choose Christ, they can choose to be faithful.  They can worship, and they find their way to the Lord. And — or some of them don’t. We sure want them all to, but some of them don’t.

And part of that freedom — when you take a government and you impose, and take away all your choices. One of the choices you take away is to find the Lord.  And find your savior.

And that’s one of the things that’s most destructive about the growth of government. It’s this taking away that freedom. The freedom — the ultimate freedom, to find your salvation, to get your salvation. And to find Christ, for me and you.

And I think that’s one of the things that we have to be very, very aware of that the Obama Administration and Congressman Carnahan are doing to us.

Scary!  Obama’s anti-religious policies must be stopped!  Uh, whatever they are.

Add comment July 13th, 2010 at 07:17am Posted by Eli

Obama Still Determined To Be One-Term President

Why else would he show so little interest in restoring the economy?

David Axelrod appeared on This Week and acknowledged that the Administration has little chance of getting anything beyond an extension of unemployment benefits through Congress between now and the election. That extension would appear to have 60 votes whenever Robert Byrd’s replacement gets into the Senate. But that jobs bill that had all the tax extensions and infrastructure funding and summer job money? Forget it. Aid to state Medicaid programs? Isn’t going to happen. Extending the COBRA subsidy to keep the jobless covered? Nope.

But it’s not all doom and gloom:

“There’s not a great appetite for it, but I do think we can get additional tax relief for small businesses – that’s what we want to do – additional lending for small businesses,” the President’s senior advisor said.

There’s always room for tax cuts!

But it’s not just that Obama’s given up on the economy – he’s also given up on making the Republicans pay any price for it:

[A]s Duncan Black says, there’s more than one way to make that shift [from stimulus to deficit reduction], especially if the economic team understands the importance of more stimulus to support the economy.

So let’s say Obama’s people have correctly deduced that there’s no chance in hell of getting anything through Congress. They have two basic options. First, they could get on the teevee every day and say, “This is my plan to help. Republicans in Congress won’t pass it.” They could hold rallies in Maine. Allies could run ads. At least people would know who is for and who is against…and just what it was that people are for or against.

Option two is back off proposals you’ve previously made and have Axelrod get on the teevee and say, “there is some argument for additional spending in the short-run to continue to generate economic activity.”

Surely the lead political strategist in the White House recognizes the political importance of assigning blame?

Or, maybe not.

This is not exactly surprising, coming from a president so eager to create a Pete Peterson-backed commission whose express purpose appears to be to gut Social Security in the name of deficit reduction.  So how many votes is Obama going to get in 2012 if the economy is still in the toilet and he’s given his blessing to Social Security cuts?  Yeah, good luck with that.

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

Great Moments In Journalism

The New Republic hires a right-wing liar as their new fact-checker, apparently out of fear that their stories may contain too many facts.

You guys do know that no matter how much you try to distance yourselves from reality, conservatives will still accuse you of liberal bias, right?

Add comment July 10th, 2010 at 06:09pm Posted by Eli

Keep On Winning Those Hearts And Minds

Yes, this sounds like just the kind of guy we need running CentCom…

General James Mattis, the current head of the US Joint Forces Command and who previously led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, had widely been tipped as the next head of Central Command. President Barack Obama must formalise the nomination, which then goes to Congress for approval.

“You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

Centcom, as it is known, oversees operations in a volatile swathe of the world that covers 20 countries and stretches from Egypt across the Middle East and into south and central Asia.

Robert Gates, the defence secretary, praised the four-star general as “one of the military’s most innovative and iconoclastic thinkers.”

Mr Gates also dismissed concerns about his 2005 comments, saying Mattis had learned his lesson.

Gen Mattis was reprimanded at the time by the Marine Corps for telling a conference in San Diego, California: “It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up front with you, I like brawling.”

During a discussion panel he said: “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil.

Fantastic.  So out gays can’t serve in the military at all, but out sociopaths can become four-star generals and be put in charge of two simultaneous wars.

Add comment July 9th, 2010 at 11:25am Posted by Eli