FEUDING A-LIST PUNDITS AGREE: PRESIDENT OBAMA IS INFALLIBLE!
I'm somewhat reluctant to get into the latest squabble in the lefty blogosphere, but I'm struck by the fact that both sides, for all their differences, seem to agree on one thing: the president of the United States is incapable of error or failure.
Ezra Klein:
What could Obama have done?
...I've spent a lot of time thinking about ways in which the past few years could have gone differently. I've even come up with a few. But none of them lead to dramatically better outcomes today.
... I've never been able to come up with a realistic scenario in which a lot more got done, the economy is in much better shape, and the president is dramatically more popular today.
...But perhaps I'm missing something obvious. If you have a realistic vision for what an actual president operating in the American political system could have done differently, leave it in comments.
In fact, Klein thinks that Obama's accomplishments as president exceed 100% of what reasonably could have been expected of him:
Indeed, if you had taken me aside in 2008 and sketched out the first three years of Obama’s presidency, I would have thought you were being overoptimistic: an $800 billion stimulus package -- recall that people were only talking in the $200-$300 billion range back then -- followed by near-universal health-care reform, followed by financial regulation, followed by another stimulus (in the 2010 tax deal), followed by the repeal of "don’t ask, don’t tell," followed by the killing of Osama bin Laden and the apparent ousting of Moammar Gaddafi? There was no way. And yet all that did get done.
In opposition to Klein are the deliberatists, led by Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher, whose point of view is summarized by Matt Yglesias:
What an awful lot of people seem to do, however, is look at alleged mistakes early in the administration, assume that they weren't mistakes, reach the conclusion that this proves Obama's nefarious intent, and then assume that absent nefarious intent Obama would be accomplishing tons of awesome new stuff right now.
Either way, the president, we're told, is getting everything he wants that he can possibly get -- he's not failing, he's not falling short, he doesn't lack any negotiating skills or messaging skills or political skills. He's the complete package. He is LeBron.
I look at Klein, Greenwald, and Hamsher and see three people who've taken a trivial enterprise -- blogging -- much further than they probably expected to. Their posts routinely drive debates; they hold forth regularly on TV. In their world, they're successes. And yet at the same time they're powerless -- their entire focus is on the people who run the political system, while they just talk about it.
So it's as if they can't imagine any ability other than absolute ability, any power other than absolute power. They can't seem to imagine that the president might have fallen short in some ways, might have done more (even just a bit more) if he had more skill. To them, that's not possible.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
THEY DIDN'T REMOVE THE BROWN M&M'S FROM OUR FIELD OF CANDIDATES!
I'm really, really sick of right-wingers these days -- yes, even more than usual. They utterly dominate U.S. politics, they're on the verge of a complete takeover a mere four years after destroying everything they touched the last time they had power, their candidates are actually making believable promises to pursue an ideological agenda (which has an excellent chance of actually being implemented) -- and yet right-wing pundits are still whining about how they're not getting what they want:
It's a tough time to be a conservative intellectual.
From the Weekly Standard to the Wall Street Journal, on the pages of policy periodicals and opinion sections, the egghead right's longing for a presidential candidate of ideas -- first Mitch Daniels, then Paul Ryan -- has been endless, intense, and unrequited.
Profoundly dissatisfied with the current field, that dull ache may only grow more acute after Ryan's decision Monday to take himself out of the running.
The problem, in shorthand: To many conservative elites, Rick Perry is a dope, Michele Bachmann is a joke, and Mitt Romney is a fraud....
From the Journal's Midtown Manhattan conference room to the fluorescent corridors of Washington's think tanks, there is a collective sense of, is this the best we can do? ....
Jesus freaking Christ. Even in the heady days of 2008, we on the left couldn't find a candidate capable of winning the nomination who believed in, say, single-payer health care or genuine accountability for Bush administration torture policies. Even in 2006, we had to hold our nose and vote for dozens of DINOs to cobble together Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Our last two presidents started tacking rightward within months of taking office, and every year, many of our most powerful congressional figures reject traditional Democratic ideas twelve months out of the year.
By contrast, the GOP in 2013, in all likelihood, will have a fervid movement-conservative Congress and either a movement-conservative president or a president who's so desperate not to be exposed as a heretic that he may be more subservient to congressional purists than actual purists would be. And still that's not good enough for the whiners!
I read this and I feel as if I'm reading one of those diva-celebrity backstage riders, the ones that promise a hissyfit if the brown M&M's aren't removed or the bottles of Cristal don't come with the requisite number of bendy straws.
I'm really, really sick of right-wingers these days -- yes, even more than usual. They utterly dominate U.S. politics, they're on the verge of a complete takeover a mere four years after destroying everything they touched the last time they had power, their candidates are actually making believable promises to pursue an ideological agenda (which has an excellent chance of actually being implemented) -- and yet right-wing pundits are still whining about how they're not getting what they want:
It's a tough time to be a conservative intellectual.
From the Weekly Standard to the Wall Street Journal, on the pages of policy periodicals and opinion sections, the egghead right's longing for a presidential candidate of ideas -- first Mitch Daniels, then Paul Ryan -- has been endless, intense, and unrequited.
Profoundly dissatisfied with the current field, that dull ache may only grow more acute after Ryan's decision Monday to take himself out of the running.
The problem, in shorthand: To many conservative elites, Rick Perry is a dope, Michele Bachmann is a joke, and Mitt Romney is a fraud....
From the Journal's Midtown Manhattan conference room to the fluorescent corridors of Washington's think tanks, there is a collective sense of, is this the best we can do? ....
Jesus freaking Christ. Even in the heady days of 2008, we on the left couldn't find a candidate capable of winning the nomination who believed in, say, single-payer health care or genuine accountability for Bush administration torture policies. Even in 2006, we had to hold our nose and vote for dozens of DINOs to cobble together Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Our last two presidents started tacking rightward within months of taking office, and every year, many of our most powerful congressional figures reject traditional Democratic ideas twelve months out of the year.
By contrast, the GOP in 2013, in all likelihood, will have a fervid movement-conservative Congress and either a movement-conservative president or a president who's so desperate not to be exposed as a heretic that he may be more subservient to congressional purists than actual purists would be. And still that's not good enough for the whiners!
I read this and I feel as if I'm reading one of those diva-celebrity backstage riders, the ones that promise a hissyfit if the brown M&M's aren't removed or the bottles of Cristal don't come with the requisite number of bendy straws.
Monday, August 22, 2011
REPUBLICANS: THEY ALL LOOK ALIKE
Yeah, I'm disturbed (though not particularly surprised) by the new Gallup poll showing President Obama neck-and-neck with the four GOP front-runners -- but notice something odd about the numbers:
There's barely any difference in the numbers for any of these matchups -- Obama ranges from 46% to 48%, the opponents from 44% to 48% (in a poll with a margin of error of ±4). This despite the fact that you and I, and all political junkies across the political spectrum, believe that it's rather easy to tell these candidates apart -- Paul is miles apart from Bachmann on use of military force overseas, Romney is not a God-botherer like Bachmann or Perry, etc., etc.
But to the voters polled, to a great extent, this is just four polls of Obama vs. Generic Republican. Nobody seems to be distinguishing one from another.
Well, maybe they are a little -- Republicans seem slightly less likely to vote for Paul than for the others, and independents seem slightly less likely to vote for Bachmann. But that's about it:
This suggests to me that most voters aren't paying much attention to these specific candidates -- mostly they're choosing Generic Republican or sticking with the president. Which means that the voters may change their minds if they learn things about the GOP candidates that disturb. Of course, there's plenty to choose from that's disturbing. The only question is how successfully the Obama campaign will define his opponent.
Yeah, I'm disturbed (though not particularly surprised) by the new Gallup poll showing President Obama neck-and-neck with the four GOP front-runners -- but notice something odd about the numbers:
There's barely any difference in the numbers for any of these matchups -- Obama ranges from 46% to 48%, the opponents from 44% to 48% (in a poll with a margin of error of ±4). This despite the fact that you and I, and all political junkies across the political spectrum, believe that it's rather easy to tell these candidates apart -- Paul is miles apart from Bachmann on use of military force overseas, Romney is not a God-botherer like Bachmann or Perry, etc., etc.
But to the voters polled, to a great extent, this is just four polls of Obama vs. Generic Republican. Nobody seems to be distinguishing one from another.
Well, maybe they are a little -- Republicans seem slightly less likely to vote for Paul than for the others, and independents seem slightly less likely to vote for Bachmann. But that's about it:
This suggests to me that most voters aren't paying much attention to these specific candidates -- mostly they're choosing Generic Republican or sticking with the president. Which means that the voters may change their minds if they learn things about the GOP candidates that disturb. Of course, there's plenty to choose from that's disturbing. The only question is how successfully the Obama campaign will define his opponent.
POTENTIALLY A GENIUS MOVE BY MITT ROMNEY
At Balloon Juice, Tom Levenson draws my attention to a story I missed over the weekend. Tom and others who've discussed it seem to think it's a sign of Romney's tin ear, but I think it could be a brilliant move:
...the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination has reminded the public of how much wealthier he is than them in a way that doesn't exactly win the award for campaign optics....
The San Diego Union-Tribune broke the story of Romney's California plans this weekend:
Why is tripling the size of one of his houses a potentially brilliant move? Remember where we are in the election cycle. The general election is more than a year away -- we're entering the Republican primaries. Who's going to vote in those primaries? Ayn Rand junkies. How do they feel about rich people? They adore rich people.
Romney is now seriously threatened by Rick Perry -- a guy who comes off like a stinking-rich Texan. Except he's not as stinking rich as Romney is. But I'm not sure that's really come across to Republican voters on a gut level. Now it can.
The only thing that's not brilliant about this is Romney's attempt to keep it from attracting attention:
The campaign told reporters this weekend that work on the project won't begin until after next year's presidential election.
No, Mitt! Start the work now! Show everyone the blueprints! Release an artist's rendering and make the thing look huge! Wait for us liberals to really pounce on you for flaunting your wealth -- then watch the wingnuts rally to your defense!
Yeah, yeah, I know -- John McCain got in trouble last year when he said he couldn't remember how many houses he owned. But that was just before the general election campaign. This is different! No one will remember this in a year! And you need to win over all those Randians now!
It's also different from Romney's campaign-trail claim a couple of months ago that he's "also unemployed." That offends normal people for obvious reasons -- but to wingnuts it probably comes off as a strained attempt at empathy. Wingnuts hate empathy.
Remember who was the first breakout star of the race this year: Donald Trump. Go in that direction, Mitt. Flash the cash. Show some swagger. Winger voters will adore you for it.
At Balloon Juice, Tom Levenson draws my attention to a story I missed over the weekend. Tom and others who've discussed it seem to think it's a sign of Romney's tin ear, but I think it could be a brilliant move:
...the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination has reminded the public of how much wealthier he is than them in a way that doesn't exactly win the award for campaign optics....
The San Diego Union-Tribune broke the story of Romney's California plans this weekend:
Romney has filed an application with the city to bulldoze his 3,009-square-foot, single-story home at 311 Dunemere Dr. and replace it with a two-story, 11,062-square-foot structure....Three years ago, Romney bought the "oceanfront manse in La Jolla" for $12 million. His campaign says the house on the property is too small for Romney's large extended family, and so he's dipping into some of that unfathomable personal fortune to expand it....
Why is tripling the size of one of his houses a potentially brilliant move? Remember where we are in the election cycle. The general election is more than a year away -- we're entering the Republican primaries. Who's going to vote in those primaries? Ayn Rand junkies. How do they feel about rich people? They adore rich people.
Romney is now seriously threatened by Rick Perry -- a guy who comes off like a stinking-rich Texan. Except he's not as stinking rich as Romney is. But I'm not sure that's really come across to Republican voters on a gut level. Now it can.
The only thing that's not brilliant about this is Romney's attempt to keep it from attracting attention:
The campaign told reporters this weekend that work on the project won't begin until after next year's presidential election.
No, Mitt! Start the work now! Show everyone the blueprints! Release an artist's rendering and make the thing look huge! Wait for us liberals to really pounce on you for flaunting your wealth -- then watch the wingnuts rally to your defense!
Yeah, yeah, I know -- John McCain got in trouble last year when he said he couldn't remember how many houses he owned. But that was just before the general election campaign. This is different! No one will remember this in a year! And you need to win over all those Randians now!
It's also different from Romney's campaign-trail claim a couple of months ago that he's "also unemployed." That offends normal people for obvious reasons -- but to wingnuts it probably comes off as a strained attempt at empathy. Wingnuts hate empathy.
Remember who was the first breakout star of the race this year: Donald Trump. Go in that direction, Mitt. Flash the cash. Show some swagger. Winger voters will adore you for it.
OH, YOU THOUGHT WHEN HE SAID "FORWARD" HE MEANT "FORWARD"
A clarification from Rick Perry's campaign:
Just One Week Into His Campaign, Rick Perry Disavows His Nine-Month-Old Book
Last November, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) published Fed Up, a 240-page ode to tentherism, which argues that everything from child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to Medicare violates the Constitution. As it turns out, however, claiming that America's entire social safety net is unconstitutional isn't a very popular position -- so Perry's now trying to take it all back just one week into his presidential campaign:
Yes -- pay no attention to this passage in the book:
Or this one:
Or this one:
Perry, you see, is a great student of T.S. Eliot, and when he uses the word "forward" in these passages of Fed Up, he's thinking of the famous line in Eliot's Four Quartets:
And the way up is the way down, the way forward is the way back.
So "forward" in this case means "backward." Now don't go twisting Perry's words, hippie!
A clarification from Rick Perry's campaign:
Just One Week Into His Campaign, Rick Perry Disavows His Nine-Month-Old Book
Last November, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) published Fed Up, a 240-page ode to tentherism, which argues that everything from child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to Medicare violates the Constitution. As it turns out, however, claiming that America's entire social safety net is unconstitutional isn't a very popular position -- so Perry's now trying to take it all back just one week into his presidential campaign:
...In an interview, [Ray] Sullivan [Perry's communication director] acknowledged that many passages in Mr. Perry’s "Fed Up!" could dog his presidential campaign. The book, Mr. Sullivan said, "is a look back, not a path forward." ...
Yes -- pay no attention to this passage in the book:
Or this one:
Or this one:
Perry, you see, is a great student of T.S. Eliot, and when he uses the word "forward" in these passages of Fed Up, he's thinking of the famous line in Eliot's Four Quartets:
And the way up is the way down, the way forward is the way back.
So "forward" in this case means "backward." Now don't go twisting Perry's words, hippie!
THE WOLFPACK
I'm not sure what I can add to this anecdote, from a New York Times article about the concentration of right-wingers in Palm Beach, Florida:
...But it was Mr. Limbaugh's arrival in 1996 that appears to be anno Domini in this conservative punditocracy. Gay Gaines, a longtime confidante and fund-raiser for Newt Gingrich, remembers the occasion well. Mr. Limbaugh ... fell in love with Palm Beach, she said, after visiting her over Memorial Day weekend in 1995.
"I might have a picture," she said, disappearing into a sitting room just off her palatial living room, which faces the Atlantic and has floor-to-ceiling picture windows. Sure enough, she emerged a few seconds later with a photo of Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Gingrich and William J. Bennett, the former adviser to Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. The photo shows Mr. Limbaugh playing air guitar, Mr. Bennett playing an actual guitar and Mr. Gingrich holding a beer.
"That was taken at 2 a.m.," Ms. Gaines said, smiling. "It doesn't get any better than that."
Bennett was 51 years old at the time. Gingrich was the same age. Limbaugh was 44.
These, of course, are the people who, when they hold power, tell us that "the grown-ups are in charge."
I'm not sure what I can add to this anecdote, from a New York Times article about the concentration of right-wingers in Palm Beach, Florida:
...But it was Mr. Limbaugh's arrival in 1996 that appears to be anno Domini in this conservative punditocracy. Gay Gaines, a longtime confidante and fund-raiser for Newt Gingrich, remembers the occasion well. Mr. Limbaugh ... fell in love with Palm Beach, she said, after visiting her over Memorial Day weekend in 1995.
"I might have a picture," she said, disappearing into a sitting room just off her palatial living room, which faces the Atlantic and has floor-to-ceiling picture windows. Sure enough, she emerged a few seconds later with a photo of Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Gingrich and William J. Bennett, the former adviser to Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. The photo shows Mr. Limbaugh playing air guitar, Mr. Bennett playing an actual guitar and Mr. Gingrich holding a beer.
"That was taken at 2 a.m.," Ms. Gaines said, smiling. "It doesn't get any better than that."
Bennett was 51 years old at the time. Gingrich was the same age. Limbaugh was 44.
These, of course, are the people who, when they hold power, tell us that "the grown-ups are in charge."
HERITAGE FOUNDATION: HEY, OBAMA, YOU'D BETTER NOT SCREW UP ON LIBYA MORE THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE!
The Obama policy on Libya seems to have achieved the intended results, but the Heritage Foundation still wants you to know that it was right all along about the policy's likely failure. From the Foundation's blog:
...The Obama Administration, which stumbled into the war in Libya with no clear military plan or exit strategy, now must fashion a suitable and acceptable way forward. The Administration's short-sighted effort to score a quick and easy military victory over Qadhafi's regime failed to end the threat to civilians in "days not weeks," as President Barack Obama promised....
Go to that "way forward" link and you get this, posted by Heritage in June:
As frustrating as Obama's Libya policies are, however, Congress should not immediately terminate funding for the operation, which would force the U.S. to abandon its NATO allies in the middle of a war. Given the commitments already made by the President, Congress should support military operations until the end of the 90-day extension NATO authorized for "Operation Unified Protector" in Libya. Any funding of operations beyond that date should be prohibited unless supported by specific congressional approval....
By adopting this course, the U.S. fulfills its obligations to its NATO allies and extricates itself from a failed policy.
Elsewhere, in the piece, that "failed policy" is called a "Slippery Slope to Stalemate." I know saying all that was politically effective for these folks back then, but I'm amused that they still want you to read it now.
The righties love saying that if we'd done in Iraq what Obama and Nancy Pelosi and all those patchouli-drenched hippies demanded in 2007, we'd never have had the glorious surge that's made Iraq the paradise that it is now. Doesn't Obama get to say that today? That if he'd had a cutoff of funds after 90 days, Qaddafi would still hold Tripoli?
****
I've been of two minds about this intervention -- it's been killing innocent people and it's expensive at a time when everyone apart from the rich and the military is being told to do without. But I never thought it was inevitable that we'd wind up in the kind of quagmire that results so easily in a boots-on-the-ground intervention. I thought this outcome was possible. War sucks, but every U.S. war doesn't end like Vietnam.
The Obama policy on Libya seems to have achieved the intended results, but the Heritage Foundation still wants you to know that it was right all along about the policy's likely failure. From the Foundation's blog:
...The Obama Administration, which stumbled into the war in Libya with no clear military plan or exit strategy, now must fashion a suitable and acceptable way forward. The Administration's short-sighted effort to score a quick and easy military victory over Qadhafi's regime failed to end the threat to civilians in "days not weeks," as President Barack Obama promised....
Go to that "way forward" link and you get this, posted by Heritage in June:
As frustrating as Obama's Libya policies are, however, Congress should not immediately terminate funding for the operation, which would force the U.S. to abandon its NATO allies in the middle of a war. Given the commitments already made by the President, Congress should support military operations until the end of the 90-day extension NATO authorized for "Operation Unified Protector" in Libya. Any funding of operations beyond that date should be prohibited unless supported by specific congressional approval....
By adopting this course, the U.S. fulfills its obligations to its NATO allies and extricates itself from a failed policy.
Elsewhere, in the piece, that "failed policy" is called a "Slippery Slope to Stalemate." I know saying all that was politically effective for these folks back then, but I'm amused that they still want you to read it now.
The righties love saying that if we'd done in Iraq what Obama and Nancy Pelosi and all those patchouli-drenched hippies demanded in 2007, we'd never have had the glorious surge that's made Iraq the paradise that it is now. Doesn't Obama get to say that today? That if he'd had a cutoff of funds after 90 days, Qaddafi would still hold Tripoli?
****
I've been of two minds about this intervention -- it's been killing innocent people and it's expensive at a time when everyone apart from the rich and the military is being told to do without. But I never thought it was inevitable that we'd wind up in the kind of quagmire that results so easily in a boots-on-the-ground intervention. I thought this outcome was possible. War sucks, but every U.S. war doesn't end like Vietnam.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
LIBERALS WHO HAVE NO IDEA HOW SOME PEOPLE LIVE
I know I'm supposed to be a good liberal wonk and support a big fat increase in the gas tax, but I've always felt that the people who advocate this really have no clue as to how a huge percentage of America lives, and at times this obliviousness seems almost as bad as the heartlessness of the right.
I was reminded of this when I was reading a New York Times exchange of letters on the subject. In the first one, we get this:
The federal gasoline tax should be increased from the current 18.4 cents a gallon to $1 or more a gallon, but the increase should be phased in over several years. A transition period will allow consumers to plan for higher fuel prices by purchasing more efficient vehicles and by choosing homes near public transportation.
Oh, is that all people will have to do? Buy new cars and change their residences en masse?
This comes, by the way, from a good liberal who wants the gas tax increased not just for better roads and bridges but for more public transit and research into alternative fuels. That's admirable. But in the interim, every poor and lower-middle-class person has to pick up stakes and move? Is it impossible for the letter-writer to see how disruptive this might be in many people's lives? (Or, in today's horrible housing market, next to impossible in many cases?)
The letter, we're told, comes from
KEITH WINZENRIED
Whidbey Island, Wash., Aug. 16, 2011
The writer is a debt finance specialist for a financial services company.
Yeah, I'm not surprised that someone fairly close to the top of the economic ladder would think this is no big whoop for most people.
Another letter writer goes further:
I agree that there should be a higher gas tax, but it shouldn’t be phased in gradually. The shock value of a large one-shot price increase in the cost of gas would lead to more significant behavioral change.
Car buyers and drivers are more likely to react to a gradual approach by grumbling and making small behavioral changes instead of making big changes such as switching to mass transit, buying a hybrid car or relocating to lessen the need to drive.
Mr. Winzenried's goal of allowing consumers time to adjust can be achieved by notice well in advance of the tax increase.
Yeah, screw 'em -- give 'em fair warning, then hit 'em with both barrels all at once. If they haven't moved and bought a Prius, the hell with 'em.
One writer gets it:
As someone who teaches in rural North Carolina, I have become acutely aware of how an admirably purposed gas tax (like the one proposed by Mr. Winzenried) is even more regressive than most consumption levies.
A large percentage of my students' income is spent on gas. Even worse, many of my students cannot afford a new car, and their clunkers get terrible gas mileage. They already pay more at the pump than I do; a surtax would increase this inequity. Nor do they have the option of moving closer to public transportation. It barely exists in this part of the country.
We need to do for driving what was done for cigarettes -- take away the glamour and make fuel inefficiency socially unacceptable. Warnings on low-mileage vehicles and a vigorous advertising campaign would be a start.
A restoration of public transportation in rural areas (we have the tracks here in western North Carolina; we just don't have the trains) would certainly be welcome, as would a revival of the "cash for clunkers" program.
But rather than a regressive gas tax, these -- and any other solutions -- should be paid for by a surcharge on our progressive income tax.
Good points. Where is there any decent public transportation in most of America? Nice if we could get some -- but, of course, we know that can't happen as long as Republicans always either dominate our politics or have veto power over Democrats when they're in power. So why do people with the least social mobility have to pay the most to deal with this problem?
I know I'm supposed to be a good liberal wonk and support a big fat increase in the gas tax, but I've always felt that the people who advocate this really have no clue as to how a huge percentage of America lives, and at times this obliviousness seems almost as bad as the heartlessness of the right.
I was reminded of this when I was reading a New York Times exchange of letters on the subject. In the first one, we get this:
The federal gasoline tax should be increased from the current 18.4 cents a gallon to $1 or more a gallon, but the increase should be phased in over several years. A transition period will allow consumers to plan for higher fuel prices by purchasing more efficient vehicles and by choosing homes near public transportation.
Oh, is that all people will have to do? Buy new cars and change their residences en masse?
This comes, by the way, from a good liberal who wants the gas tax increased not just for better roads and bridges but for more public transit and research into alternative fuels. That's admirable. But in the interim, every poor and lower-middle-class person has to pick up stakes and move? Is it impossible for the letter-writer to see how disruptive this might be in many people's lives? (Or, in today's horrible housing market, next to impossible in many cases?)
The letter, we're told, comes from
KEITH WINZENRIED
Whidbey Island, Wash., Aug. 16, 2011
The writer is a debt finance specialist for a financial services company.
Yeah, I'm not surprised that someone fairly close to the top of the economic ladder would think this is no big whoop for most people.
Another letter writer goes further:
I agree that there should be a higher gas tax, but it shouldn’t be phased in gradually. The shock value of a large one-shot price increase in the cost of gas would lead to more significant behavioral change.
Car buyers and drivers are more likely to react to a gradual approach by grumbling and making small behavioral changes instead of making big changes such as switching to mass transit, buying a hybrid car or relocating to lessen the need to drive.
Mr. Winzenried's goal of allowing consumers time to adjust can be achieved by notice well in advance of the tax increase.
Yeah, screw 'em -- give 'em fair warning, then hit 'em with both barrels all at once. If they haven't moved and bought a Prius, the hell with 'em.
One writer gets it:
As someone who teaches in rural North Carolina, I have become acutely aware of how an admirably purposed gas tax (like the one proposed by Mr. Winzenried) is even more regressive than most consumption levies.
A large percentage of my students' income is spent on gas. Even worse, many of my students cannot afford a new car, and their clunkers get terrible gas mileage. They already pay more at the pump than I do; a surtax would increase this inequity. Nor do they have the option of moving closer to public transportation. It barely exists in this part of the country.
We need to do for driving what was done for cigarettes -- take away the glamour and make fuel inefficiency socially unacceptable. Warnings on low-mileage vehicles and a vigorous advertising campaign would be a start.
A restoration of public transportation in rural areas (we have the tracks here in western North Carolina; we just don't have the trains) would certainly be welcome, as would a revival of the "cash for clunkers" program.
But rather than a regressive gas tax, these -- and any other solutions -- should be paid for by a surcharge on our progressive income tax.
Good points. Where is there any decent public transportation in most of America? Nice if we could get some -- but, of course, we know that can't happen as long as Republicans always either dominate our politics or have veto power over Democrats when they're in power. So why do people with the least social mobility have to pay the most to deal with this problem?
THOSE POWERLESS PLUTOCRATS
Today, in an editorial, The New York Times, perhaps a tad naively, urges the business community to demand that Republican politicians accept stimulus spending and higher taxes on the wealthy, as a means of attaining what would seemingly be big business's goal, namely a strong economy.
I'm especially struck by this sentence in the editorial:
It will be difficult for business leaders to change the minds of the Tea Party lawmakers, even those who rode to office on ads paid for by the chamber [the U.S. Chamber of Commerce] and similar groups, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
It would be difficult? I don't believe that. Money rules American politics. If rich business establishmentarians really wanted to, they could decimate the tea party caucus in one election cycle. And if the teabag legislators really are willing to defy their donors, they're the only politicians in recent American history of whom that's true.
I think one round of opposition research used by the establishmentarians against one teabagger would be enough to put the fear of God into many of the rest of them -- who doesn't have a skeleton or two in the closet?
But the obvious point is that the establishmentarians were just fine with the results of the debt crisis. In the same way that a lot of lefties think Barack Obama feigns liberalism but is getting precisely what he (secretly) wants, I think the establishment fat cats got just what they wanted from the standoff -- as it went on and on, the president and congressional Democrats were pushed further and further to the right until the very end. The end product had plenty of cuts and zero tax increases. And Treasuries, although downgraded by S&P, are still a good buy. What's not to like?
The likelihood of a double dip? Who cares? The fat cats are doing fine right now with the economy in the doldrums -- corporate profits are going great guns -- and I really think they all feel we're so cowed that, however small the pie gets, we'll all agree that they should get whatever share they demand. And meanwhile, no tax increases! And the likelihood of a president and Congress next year who'll deliver even more tax cuts and a regulatory free-for-all!
So don't tell me about plutocrats who are at the mercy of defiant teabaggers. I don't see a conflict.
Today, in an editorial, The New York Times, perhaps a tad naively, urges the business community to demand that Republican politicians accept stimulus spending and higher taxes on the wealthy, as a means of attaining what would seemingly be big business's goal, namely a strong economy.
I'm especially struck by this sentence in the editorial:
It will be difficult for business leaders to change the minds of the Tea Party lawmakers, even those who rode to office on ads paid for by the chamber [the U.S. Chamber of Commerce] and similar groups, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
It would be difficult? I don't believe that. Money rules American politics. If rich business establishmentarians really wanted to, they could decimate the tea party caucus in one election cycle. And if the teabag legislators really are willing to defy their donors, they're the only politicians in recent American history of whom that's true.
I think one round of opposition research used by the establishmentarians against one teabagger would be enough to put the fear of God into many of the rest of them -- who doesn't have a skeleton or two in the closet?
But the obvious point is that the establishmentarians were just fine with the results of the debt crisis. In the same way that a lot of lefties think Barack Obama feigns liberalism but is getting precisely what he (secretly) wants, I think the establishment fat cats got just what they wanted from the standoff -- as it went on and on, the president and congressional Democrats were pushed further and further to the right until the very end. The end product had plenty of cuts and zero tax increases. And Treasuries, although downgraded by S&P, are still a good buy. What's not to like?
The likelihood of a double dip? Who cares? The fat cats are doing fine right now with the economy in the doldrums -- corporate profits are going great guns -- and I really think they all feel we're so cowed that, however small the pie gets, we'll all agree that they should get whatever share they demand. And meanwhile, no tax increases! And the likelihood of a president and Congress next year who'll deliver even more tax cuts and a regulatory free-for-all!
So don't tell me about plutocrats who are at the mercy of defiant teabaggers. I don't see a conflict.
IF WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE TEABAGGERS ARE IDEOLOGICAL FRAUDS, WE'D EXPECT THIS TO UPSET THEM
Who unabashedly believes in pork, certain forms of big government, and open corruption? Why, the tea party's dream candidate, that's who:
...a review of Mr. Perry's years in office reveals that one of his most potent fund-raising tools is the very government he heads.
Over three terms in office, Mr. Perry's administration has doled out grants, tax breaks, contracts and appointments to hundreds of his most generous supporters and their businesses. And they have helped Mr. Perry raise more money than any politician in Texas history....
Mr. Perry has also drawn scrutiny for two of his signature economic development efforts, the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. The enterprise fund, which is intended to be a deal-closing tool for the state as it competes for jobs, has dispensed $435 million in grants to businesses since 2003. The technology fund, which has doled out nearly $200 million to companies since 2005, has a similar job creation mandate.
More than a quarter of the companies that have received grants from the enterprise fund in the most recent fiscal year, or their chief executives, made contributions to either Mr. Perry's campaign dating back to 2001 or to the Republican Governors Association since 2008, when Mr. Perry became its chairman, according to an analysis by The New York Times....
In 2003, after a rash of mold-related lawsuits against home construction companies, Mr. Perry championed the creation of a state board, the Texas Residential Construction Commission. The new commission was a priority of Mr. Perry's most generous contributor: Bob Perry, a homebuilder who has contributed more than $2 million to the governor over his career. (The two men are not related.)
The legislation creating the board also sharply limited the rights of homeowners to sue contractors for faulty construction, shunting most disputes to the commission. After its passage, Bob Perry and his wife sent two $50,000 checks to the governor's campaign....
Creating new bureaucracies? Using government to pick winners and losers in Texas economy? Going far beyond the limited-government vision of the Founding Fathers? The teabaggers say no problem, if it's all done the Perry way!
I know, I know -- the real vision of the teabaggers involves nothing more than bashing liberals and Democrats while, in a Randian way, treating CEOs and entrepreneurs as adolescent crush objects. But it's still appropriate to recall that other view of the teabaggers because that's the way they portray themselves, and many in the mainstream press still don't realize that it's a fraudulent self-portrait.
Who unabashedly believes in pork, certain forms of big government, and open corruption? Why, the tea party's dream candidate, that's who:
...a review of Mr. Perry's years in office reveals that one of his most potent fund-raising tools is the very government he heads.
Over three terms in office, Mr. Perry's administration has doled out grants, tax breaks, contracts and appointments to hundreds of his most generous supporters and their businesses. And they have helped Mr. Perry raise more money than any politician in Texas history....
Mr. Perry has also drawn scrutiny for two of his signature economic development efforts, the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. The enterprise fund, which is intended to be a deal-closing tool for the state as it competes for jobs, has dispensed $435 million in grants to businesses since 2003. The technology fund, which has doled out nearly $200 million to companies since 2005, has a similar job creation mandate.
More than a quarter of the companies that have received grants from the enterprise fund in the most recent fiscal year, or their chief executives, made contributions to either Mr. Perry's campaign dating back to 2001 or to the Republican Governors Association since 2008, when Mr. Perry became its chairman, according to an analysis by The New York Times....
In 2003, after a rash of mold-related lawsuits against home construction companies, Mr. Perry championed the creation of a state board, the Texas Residential Construction Commission. The new commission was a priority of Mr. Perry's most generous contributor: Bob Perry, a homebuilder who has contributed more than $2 million to the governor over his career. (The two men are not related.)
The legislation creating the board also sharply limited the rights of homeowners to sue contractors for faulty construction, shunting most disputes to the commission. After its passage, Bob Perry and his wife sent two $50,000 checks to the governor's campaign....
Creating new bureaucracies? Using government to pick winners and losers in Texas economy? Going far beyond the limited-government vision of the Founding Fathers? The teabaggers say no problem, if it's all done the Perry way!
I know, I know -- the real vision of the teabaggers involves nothing more than bashing liberals and Democrats while, in a Randian way, treating CEOs and entrepreneurs as adolescent crush objects. But it's still appropriate to recall that other view of the teabaggers because that's the way they portray themselves, and many in the mainstream press still don't realize that it's a fraudulent self-portrait.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
RACISM? OR EMPATHY FATIGUE? OR IS THERE NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE?
In the course of defending Rick Perry (and, by extension, the rest of modern conservative America) against charges of racism for Rupert Murdoch's little-read iPad publication the Daily, Reihan Salam writes this -- a paragraph that's getting some left blog attention:
One thing that is undeniably true is that American conservatives are overwhelmingly white in a country that is increasingly less so. As the number of Latinos and Asian-Americans has increased in coastal states like California, New York and New Jersey, many white Americans from these regions have moved inland or to the South. For at least some whites, particularly those over the age of 50, there is a sense that the country they grew up in is fading away, and that Americans with ancestors from Mexico or, as in my case, Bangladesh don't share their religious, cultural and economic values. These white voters are looking for champions, for people who are unafraid to fight for the America they remember and love. It's unfair to call this sentiment racist. But it does help explain at least some of our political divide.
What's odd about this is that Salam tells us this as a way of explaining why conservatives whites might be attracted to Rick Perry and Rick Perry's Texas -- a state that, as he explains elsewhere in his piece,
has a population that is 37.6 percent Latino and 11.8 percent black. The United States as a whole is 16.3 percent Latino and 12.6 percent black.
So if conservative whites are nostalgic for a time when they didn't have to be subjected to those icky, horrible black, Hispanic, or Bangladeshi cultural values, why aren't they moving in large numbers to the whitest states in the union (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Kentucky and North Dakota)? Why move to ethnically diverse Texas (or Arizona or Florida or Georgia or the Carolinas)?
I think the America these white conservatives miss is one in which they didn't feel they had to give a damn about those who were struggling, particularly those who were struggling and weren't ethnically like them. A focus on "the other America" is what they want to avoid, and politicians like Rick Perry give them permission not to focus, by keeping the social spending low and by arguing that social spending is bad for have-nots anyway (an argument Salam also makes). Is that racist? I'd say to a great extent it is, but, at the very least, it's pull-up-the-ladder-now-that-I've-climbed-up-ist.
Right-wing pols make empathy feel like a luxury the middle-class can't afford (and the squeezing of the middle class as the rich get richer reinforces that sense in a very literal way -- by the time middle-class people get done paying their bills with their dwindling share of America's gross income, they feel they literally can't afford empathy).
This is right-wing crypto-racism (sometimes not so crypto-) in the service of plutocrat class warfare. And the plutocrats, needless to say, are winning the war.
In the course of defending Rick Perry (and, by extension, the rest of modern conservative America) against charges of racism for Rupert Murdoch's little-read iPad publication the Daily, Reihan Salam writes this -- a paragraph that's getting some left blog attention:
One thing that is undeniably true is that American conservatives are overwhelmingly white in a country that is increasingly less so. As the number of Latinos and Asian-Americans has increased in coastal states like California, New York and New Jersey, many white Americans from these regions have moved inland or to the South. For at least some whites, particularly those over the age of 50, there is a sense that the country they grew up in is fading away, and that Americans with ancestors from Mexico or, as in my case, Bangladesh don't share their religious, cultural and economic values. These white voters are looking for champions, for people who are unafraid to fight for the America they remember and love. It's unfair to call this sentiment racist. But it does help explain at least some of our political divide.
What's odd about this is that Salam tells us this as a way of explaining why conservatives whites might be attracted to Rick Perry and Rick Perry's Texas -- a state that, as he explains elsewhere in his piece,
has a population that is 37.6 percent Latino and 11.8 percent black. The United States as a whole is 16.3 percent Latino and 12.6 percent black.
So if conservative whites are nostalgic for a time when they didn't have to be subjected to those icky, horrible black, Hispanic, or Bangladeshi cultural values, why aren't they moving in large numbers to the whitest states in the union (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Kentucky and North Dakota)? Why move to ethnically diverse Texas (or Arizona or Florida or Georgia or the Carolinas)?
I think the America these white conservatives miss is one in which they didn't feel they had to give a damn about those who were struggling, particularly those who were struggling and weren't ethnically like them. A focus on "the other America" is what they want to avoid, and politicians like Rick Perry give them permission not to focus, by keeping the social spending low and by arguing that social spending is bad for have-nots anyway (an argument Salam also makes). Is that racist? I'd say to a great extent it is, but, at the very least, it's pull-up-the-ladder-now-that-I've-climbed-up-ist.
Right-wing pols make empathy feel like a luxury the middle-class can't afford (and the squeezing of the middle class as the rich get richer reinforces that sense in a very literal way -- by the time middle-class people get done paying their bills with their dwindling share of America's gross income, they feel they literally can't afford empathy).
This is right-wing crypto-racism (sometimes not so crypto-) in the service of plutocrat class warfare. And the plutocrats, needless to say, are winning the war.
STILL CARRYING THE TORCH
The latest contribution to the Bushies-vs.-Perry and is-Perry-a-Bush-clone? narratives is here, from today's New York Times. There's not much new in it, but there is one silly bit of speculation about right-wingers (garbled syntax left unedited):
To the degree that conservatives make a psychic or political link between Mr. Perry and Mr. Bush, could also undercut Mr. Perry's otherwise solid appeal to members of the Tea Party movement, many of whom feel that Mr. Bush betrayed their principles by becoming a big-government conservative.
That's a crock. I've said this many times, but the vast majority of tea party sympathizers don't really hate George W. Bush, no matter what they tell you. Who the hell do you think bought 2 million copies of Bush's presidential memoir -- liberal Democrats?
Right-wingers say they disapprove of Bush's spending habits for the same reason that Bush himself used to say, "We don't torture" -- not because it's true, but because it's necessary to keep the narrative consistent. Bush's narrative was that we were the good guys fighting a good war in a good way; the teabaggers' narrative is that they hate excessive spenders regardless of party, when the truth is that they really hate liberals and Democrats (with "RINO" Republicans acting as a substitute only when there are no liberals or Democrats around to hate). On this score, Perry has absolutely nothing to worry about.
The latest contribution to the Bushies-vs.-Perry and is-Perry-a-Bush-clone? narratives is here, from today's New York Times. There's not much new in it, but there is one silly bit of speculation about right-wingers (garbled syntax left unedited):
To the degree that conservatives make a psychic or political link between Mr. Perry and Mr. Bush, could also undercut Mr. Perry's otherwise solid appeal to members of the Tea Party movement, many of whom feel that Mr. Bush betrayed their principles by becoming a big-government conservative.
That's a crock. I've said this many times, but the vast majority of tea party sympathizers don't really hate George W. Bush, no matter what they tell you. Who the hell do you think bought 2 million copies of Bush's presidential memoir -- liberal Democrats?
Right-wingers say they disapprove of Bush's spending habits for the same reason that Bush himself used to say, "We don't torture" -- not because it's true, but because it's necessary to keep the narrative consistent. Bush's narrative was that we were the good guys fighting a good war in a good way; the teabaggers' narrative is that they hate excessive spenders regardless of party, when the truth is that they really hate liberals and Democrats (with "RINO" Republicans acting as a substitute only when there are no liberals or Democrats around to hate). On this score, Perry has absolutely nothing to worry about.
Friday, August 19, 2011
BROOKS: LET THEM EAT KENYAN FARM-RAISED TILAPIA!
The world is in its worst economic crisis in nearly 80 years, and David Brooks, a political columnist with one of the most prominent platforms in the media, is responding to the parlous state of the world by writing columns like ... this:
We are born with what some psychologists call an "explanatory drive." You give a baby a strange object or something that doesn't make sense and she will become instantly absorbed; using all her abilities -- taste, smell, force -- to figure out how it fits in with the world.
I recently met someone who, though in his seventh decade, still seems to be gripped by this sort of compulsive curiosity. His name is Philip Leakey.
He is the third son of the famed paleoanthropologists Louis and Mary Leakey and the brother of the equally renowned scholar, Richard Leakey....
I met him at the remote mountain camp where he now lives, a bumpy 4-hour ride south of Nairobi near the Rift Valley....
The Leakeys live in a mountaintop tent....
Philip has experiments running up and down the mountainside. He's trying to build an irrigation system that doubles as a tilapia farm....
You read this and you think: What the hell relevance does this have when people all over America are reaching their 99th week of unemployment benefits with no hope of ever finding a job again, and when there's no sign that any politicians, anywhere in America or Europe, will ever figure out what needs to be done to reverse the situation?
I realize what this reminds me of. It reminds me of Nathanael West's Depression-era novella Miss Lonelyhearts (a better book, for my money, than The Day of the Locust). In one scene, Miss Lonelyhearts, a (male) writer of a newspaper advice column, is struggling to find a way to respond to letters from readers with serious problems. As he pores over one such letter, from the brother of a 13-year-old girl who's been raped, his editor, Shrike, dictates a response:
The difference is that Shrike is a cynic proposing what he thinks will mollify the rubes, while Brooks absolutely means what he's saying.
Look, I know that if you want to sell in tough economic times, you have to sell something that will appeal to people who have money to buy. But Brooks pretends to have lofty and noble ideals -- and yet, as the world goes to hell in a handbasket, what he's offering is as useless, as inadequate to the occasion, as the advice proffered by Shrike.
The world is in its worst economic crisis in nearly 80 years, and David Brooks, a political columnist with one of the most prominent platforms in the media, is responding to the parlous state of the world by writing columns like ... this:
We are born with what some psychologists call an "explanatory drive." You give a baby a strange object or something that doesn't make sense and she will become instantly absorbed; using all her abilities -- taste, smell, force -- to figure out how it fits in with the world.
I recently met someone who, though in his seventh decade, still seems to be gripped by this sort of compulsive curiosity. His name is Philip Leakey.
He is the third son of the famed paleoanthropologists Louis and Mary Leakey and the brother of the equally renowned scholar, Richard Leakey....
I met him at the remote mountain camp where he now lives, a bumpy 4-hour ride south of Nairobi near the Rift Valley....
The Leakeys live in a mountaintop tent....
Philip has experiments running up and down the mountainside. He's trying to build an irrigation system that doubles as a tilapia farm....
You read this and you think: What the hell relevance does this have when people all over America are reaching their 99th week of unemployment benefits with no hope of ever finding a job again, and when there's no sign that any politicians, anywhere in America or Europe, will ever figure out what needs to be done to reverse the situation?
I realize what this reminds me of. It reminds me of Nathanael West's Depression-era novella Miss Lonelyhearts (a better book, for my money, than The Day of the Locust). In one scene, Miss Lonelyhearts, a (male) writer of a newspaper advice column, is struggling to find a way to respond to letters from readers with serious problems. As he pores over one such letter, from the brother of a 13-year-old girl who's been raped, his editor, Shrike, dictates a response:
The difference is that Shrike is a cynic proposing what he thinks will mollify the rubes, while Brooks absolutely means what he's saying.
Look, I know that if you want to sell in tough economic times, you have to sell something that will appeal to people who have money to buy. But Brooks pretends to have lofty and noble ideals -- and yet, as the world goes to hell in a handbasket, what he's offering is as useless, as inadequate to the occasion, as the advice proffered by Shrike.
ALL IS VANITY, EVEN THE GOOD-OL'-BOY KIND
Please remember, the next time a Democrat gets chided for spending a little money on a haircut, that some vanity about appearance is politically unacceptable and some just means you're a regular Amurrican:
Rick Perry earns a $150,000 annual salary and has a blind trust. But he’s also received over 90 personal gifts -- many of them from top donors and political appointees -- during his 11 years as Texas governor, according to personal financial statements he filed with the state....
Perry's most prolific boot-giver by far is famed Houston bootmaker Rocky Carroll, who has given Perry at least 10 pairs of custom-made boots since 1991, according to the filings, including a 2008 pair bearing the insignia of the Republican Governors Association, which Perry chaired until stepping down to run for president.
Carroll -- who has made boots for everyone from Queen Elizabeth and Liz Taylor to former Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush (both 41 and 43) -- told POLITICO his boots start at $500 a pair....
Somehow I doubt that the custom-made boots Carroll made for Perry fall at the low end of the spectrum -- the ones he made for the elder President Bush were valued at $995 way back in 1990; earlier this year, the Palm Beach Post estimated that the ones Carroll makes for Florida governor Rick Scott "range in price from $500 to $2,500." This blogger offers an estimate of $1500 and $2500 a pair for Perry's gift boots.
I know, I know: manly men wear four-figure cowboy boots, while silly girls and silky-pony Democrat wussy men get three-figure haircuts. They're totally different kinds of vanity ... for some reason.
Please remember, the next time a Democrat gets chided for spending a little money on a haircut, that some vanity about appearance is politically unacceptable and some just means you're a regular Amurrican:
Rick Perry earns a $150,000 annual salary and has a blind trust. But he’s also received over 90 personal gifts -- many of them from top donors and political appointees -- during his 11 years as Texas governor, according to personal financial statements he filed with the state....
Perry's most prolific boot-giver by far is famed Houston bootmaker Rocky Carroll, who has given Perry at least 10 pairs of custom-made boots since 1991, according to the filings, including a 2008 pair bearing the insignia of the Republican Governors Association, which Perry chaired until stepping down to run for president.
Carroll -- who has made boots for everyone from Queen Elizabeth and Liz Taylor to former Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush (both 41 and 43) -- told POLITICO his boots start at $500 a pair....
Somehow I doubt that the custom-made boots Carroll made for Perry fall at the low end of the spectrum -- the ones he made for the elder President Bush were valued at $995 way back in 1990; earlier this year, the Palm Beach Post estimated that the ones Carroll makes for Florida governor Rick Scott "range in price from $500 to $2,500." This blogger offers an estimate of $1500 and $2500 a pair for Perry's gift boots.
I know, I know: manly men wear four-figure cowboy boots, while silly girls and silky-pony Democrat wussy men get three-figure haircuts. They're totally different kinds of vanity ... for some reason.
QUICK! WE NEED YET ANOTHER RICK PERRY CAMPAIGN NARRATIVE!
I love the fact that after Rick Perry made threatening remarks about Ben Bernanke, the press went out the next day and delivered a clearly spoon-fed story about how he was a new Rick Perry, subdued and on message -- see the stories from The New York Times and Bloomberg. Right after that, though, he told a child and his mother that evolution is "a theory that is out there -- and it's got some gaps in it," and accused climate-change researches of faking science for the money. Oops -- so much for subdued and on message.
What was deeply amusing to me was this CBS News story from that brief moment in the middle, in which reporter John Dickerson (yeah, the Slate guy) told anchor Scott Pelley that Perry's ability to tone it down is a sign of his political awesomeness just the way his Texas swagger is (emphasis added below):
DICKERSON: Well, today he found some of the restraint that was lacking yesterday. On Monday he campaigned in casual clothes and had lots of strong opinions about a variety of different things. Today he campaigned in a coat and tie and measured his words carefully. When he came to Iowa, he didn't read from his prepared speech. Today, at the end of his three-day swing, he read almost entirely, word for word, from that speech. What started as a swagger became more of a tiptoe.
PELLEY: What does that tell you?
DICKERSON: It tells us he's serious about campaigning. As a third-term governor, he could be pretty set in his ways. But he changed quickly to fix a mistake -- and this was a mistake. At worst, it suggested he didn't have the temperament to be president, these remarks. At best, it distracted from his effort to introduce himself to voters and to stay focused on his main message, which is President Obama's bad economic record. The challenge now for Perry is to make sure that he doesn't bury that energy that made him so compelling to voters in the first place.
I love the fact that after Rick Perry made threatening remarks about Ben Bernanke, the press went out the next day and delivered a clearly spoon-fed story about how he was a new Rick Perry, subdued and on message -- see the stories from The New York Times and Bloomberg. Right after that, though, he told a child and his mother that evolution is "a theory that is out there -- and it's got some gaps in it," and accused climate-change researches of faking science for the money. Oops -- so much for subdued and on message.
What was deeply amusing to me was this CBS News story from that brief moment in the middle, in which reporter John Dickerson (yeah, the Slate guy) told anchor Scott Pelley that Perry's ability to tone it down is a sign of his political awesomeness just the way his Texas swagger is (emphasis added below):
DICKERSON: Well, today he found some of the restraint that was lacking yesterday. On Monday he campaigned in casual clothes and had lots of strong opinions about a variety of different things. Today he campaigned in a coat and tie and measured his words carefully. When he came to Iowa, he didn't read from his prepared speech. Today, at the end of his three-day swing, he read almost entirely, word for word, from that speech. What started as a swagger became more of a tiptoe.
PELLEY: What does that tell you?
DICKERSON: It tells us he's serious about campaigning. As a third-term governor, he could be pretty set in his ways. But he changed quickly to fix a mistake -- and this was a mistake. At worst, it suggested he didn't have the temperament to be president, these remarks. At best, it distracted from his effort to introduce himself to voters and to stay focused on his main message, which is President Obama's bad economic record. The challenge now for Perry is to make sure that he doesn't bury that energy that made him so compelling to voters in the first place.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
YET ANOTHER WINGNUT JOINS THE RACE-BAITING FLASH MOB
I saw this story at Newsmax today, and also (naturally) at Fox Nation:
Fmr. HUD Secretary: Obama Still a Community Organizer
The key to understanding Barack Obama is that he was a community organizer, Alphonso Jackson, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bush, tells Newsmax....
"When you are a community organizer, what you get most of the time is people telling you what their problems are and why they don't succeed."
In many cases, they are blacks who blame their lack of achievement on whites.
"When I was running public housing in Dallas, blacks would come in and tell me, 'You know, we can't do this because the white man keeps us from doing this,' and I would always say, 'Well I did, and I came up in a segregated environment,'" Jackson says. "I said, 'You can do it, if you choose to do it.'" ...
"I'm not sure that Obama understands the fiscal and jobs issues that we are facing today," Jackson says. "His perspective is that the government can do everything." ...
Jackson has been completely out of the public eye since he left his Cabinet position -- what the hell inspired him to say this now? What the hell did Obama do to inspire this?
It's a silly question, I know. Obviously, since Jackson is African-American, he's out there giving cover to others, some black but mostly white, who are stepping up the racial attacks on President Obama, especially this week, as -- by astonishing coincidence -- a good-ol'-boy Texan becomes the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, and the GOP plans yet another push to persuade Americans that we really don't want benefits that are due to us. (Hey, maybe we whites really won't want them if we associate them with Negroes!)
Surely I don't have to tell you that the right cranked up the race-baiting this week. Rush Limbaugh described a new Oreo cookie as "biracial" and the "Or-Bam-Eo." Allen West, also providing African-American cover for the rest of his party, referred to the Democratic Party as a "plantation" for blacks. (I think some people believe West came up with this line all by himself, but this is an old chestnut on the right -- in fact, a reference to the "Democrat Party plantation" even appeared in the 1992 Republican platform.) And, of course, Tom Coburn -- saying more or less what Alphonso Jackson said -- attacked Obama as someone who seeks to "create dependency" because "As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them." (I'm told that the complete transcript of Coburn's remarks is supposed to clear him of racism charges, but it doesn't -- it just makes it obvious that he believes only black people avail themselves of social programs, and that all black people use them to excess.)
How does it happen that there's a sudden uptick in this sort of crap? Am I paranoid if I believe that there really is a decision made at some Wingnut High Command? (I don't know -- maybe at Grover Norquist's Wednesday meeting?) Whatever happens, these sudden bursts of high-profile racism don't seem spontaneous. I wonder how long this one will last -- another 15 months?
*****
I meant to add this when I wrote this post last night: Please note, once again, that while Democrats struggle to do effective messaging, even in response to events, Republicans are always messaging, even in response to nothing in particular. They relentlessly sell their messages to their base. Thus, they're always on offense, and the rest of us are always on defense.
I saw this story at Newsmax today, and also (naturally) at Fox Nation:
Fmr. HUD Secretary: Obama Still a Community Organizer
The key to understanding Barack Obama is that he was a community organizer, Alphonso Jackson, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bush, tells Newsmax....
"When you are a community organizer, what you get most of the time is people telling you what their problems are and why they don't succeed."
In many cases, they are blacks who blame their lack of achievement on whites.
"When I was running public housing in Dallas, blacks would come in and tell me, 'You know, we can't do this because the white man keeps us from doing this,' and I would always say, 'Well I did, and I came up in a segregated environment,'" Jackson says. "I said, 'You can do it, if you choose to do it.'" ...
"I'm not sure that Obama understands the fiscal and jobs issues that we are facing today," Jackson says. "His perspective is that the government can do everything." ...
Jackson has been completely out of the public eye since he left his Cabinet position -- what the hell inspired him to say this now? What the hell did Obama do to inspire this?
It's a silly question, I know. Obviously, since Jackson is African-American, he's out there giving cover to others, some black but mostly white, who are stepping up the racial attacks on President Obama, especially this week, as -- by astonishing coincidence -- a good-ol'-boy Texan becomes the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, and the GOP plans yet another push to persuade Americans that we really don't want benefits that are due to us. (Hey, maybe we whites really won't want them if we associate them with Negroes!)
Surely I don't have to tell you that the right cranked up the race-baiting this week. Rush Limbaugh described a new Oreo cookie as "biracial" and the "Or-Bam-Eo." Allen West, also providing African-American cover for the rest of his party, referred to the Democratic Party as a "plantation" for blacks. (I think some people believe West came up with this line all by himself, but this is an old chestnut on the right -- in fact, a reference to the "Democrat Party plantation" even appeared in the 1992 Republican platform.) And, of course, Tom Coburn -- saying more or less what Alphonso Jackson said -- attacked Obama as someone who seeks to "create dependency" because "As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them." (I'm told that the complete transcript of Coburn's remarks is supposed to clear him of racism charges, but it doesn't -- it just makes it obvious that he believes only black people avail themselves of social programs, and that all black people use them to excess.)
How does it happen that there's a sudden uptick in this sort of crap? Am I paranoid if I believe that there really is a decision made at some Wingnut High Command? (I don't know -- maybe at Grover Norquist's Wednesday meeting?) Whatever happens, these sudden bursts of high-profile racism don't seem spontaneous. I wonder how long this one will last -- another 15 months?
*****
I meant to add this when I wrote this post last night: Please note, once again, that while Democrats struggle to do effective messaging, even in response to events, Republicans are always messaging, even in response to nothing in particular. They relentlessly sell their messages to their base. Thus, they're always on offense, and the rest of us are always on defense.
AT THIS POINT, I THINK I'D SETTLE FOR REPUBLICANS CONCEDING THAT DEMOCRATS AREN'T SUBHUMAN
I've long since given up on the notion that Republicans will ever compromise with Democrats, and now I'm reminded that they refuse to do so for a simple reason: they don't think Democrats are human. Or at least they don't think Democrats have full human rights. I was reminded of this when I glanced at Jacob Weisberg's Jon Huntsman profile in Vogue and my eye fell on this this har-har-har good-ol'-boy anecdote about a Huntsman campaign appearance in Greer, South Carolina:
Henry McMaster, the state's silver-haired former attorney general, then makes the political tenor of the room explicit when he rises to introduce Jon Huntsman in his thick-as-gravy drawl. "Some of you folks may remembah that I made a pledge that I looked forward to the day Democrats in South Carolina were so rare we'd have to start huntin' em with dawgs," McMaster intones. "It's come true! You cay-ant find any!"
Good grief.
Now, some of you will read this as racism -- in reality, what's left of the Democratic Party in South Carolina is mostly black. McMaster would have no trouble finding African-American Democrats in the state, but they're irrelevant to him. The only population that counts for him is the white Democratic population.
Though I suppose he's just transferred his ancestors' dehumanization of blacks to (in his fantasy) white Democrats, or (if you don't interpret this the way I do) Democrats in general.
What's the matter, you'll say -- can't I take joke? Nope, not one like this.
I've long since given up on the notion that Republicans will ever compromise with Democrats, and now I'm reminded that they refuse to do so for a simple reason: they don't think Democrats are human. Or at least they don't think Democrats have full human rights. I was reminded of this when I glanced at Jacob Weisberg's Jon Huntsman profile in Vogue and my eye fell on this this har-har-har good-ol'-boy anecdote about a Huntsman campaign appearance in Greer, South Carolina:
Henry McMaster, the state's silver-haired former attorney general, then makes the political tenor of the room explicit when he rises to introduce Jon Huntsman in his thick-as-gravy drawl. "Some of you folks may remembah that I made a pledge that I looked forward to the day Democrats in South Carolina were so rare we'd have to start huntin' em with dawgs," McMaster intones. "It's come true! You cay-ant find any!"
Good grief.
Now, some of you will read this as racism -- in reality, what's left of the Democratic Party in South Carolina is mostly black. McMaster would have no trouble finding African-American Democrats in the state, but they're irrelevant to him. The only population that counts for him is the white Democratic population.
Though I suppose he's just transferred his ancestors' dehumanization of blacks to (in his fantasy) white Democrats, or (if you don't interpret this the way I do) Democrats in general.
What's the matter, you'll say -- can't I take joke? Nope, not one like this.
RICK PERRY SEX-AD GUY: HE LIVES FOR (MULTIPLE) CONSPIRACY THEORIES
A few days ago, in comments, c u n d gulag made note of a long online screed accusing Rick Perry of marital infidelity, primarily with women who work in strip clubs. Now Salon tells us that the author of this screed -- Robert Morrow of Austin, Texas, a Ron Paul supporter (online profile here) -- is running the following ad in the Austin Chronicle:
I'd love to think the guy is on to something, but his personal history doesn't offer much encouragement.
Regarding Morrow's past, Salon skims the surface:
This isn't the first time Morrow has engaged in this sort of one-man attack campaign. Back in 2008, he paid for (and personally voiced) an anti-Hillary robocall in South Carolina that made the unsubstantiated claim that "Hillary knew about and helped cover up Bill's rape of Juanita Broderick."
(Hear that ad and read the text here.)
But there's more. This is from a 2008 St. Petersburg Times story:
... "Chelsea is the seed of Web Hubbell and not Bill Clinton. Would I bet my life on it? No. I would bet my pickup truck," he declares between bites of salmon. "Hillary Clinton was sleeping with both of her law partners, Webb Hubbell and Vince Foster. And she's a lesbian, too."
...Morrow doesn't want to come off looking as reckless as those who say the Clintons have been involved in dozens of killings; he suspects they were only involved with maybe 5 percent of those alleged murders.
...With no job except occasional day trading of stocks, Morrow spends anywhere from one to 10 hours a day researching Clinton dirt or e-mailing and phoning reporters across the country about his conclusions....
In the first comment here, Morrow discusses one alleged Clinton murder:
Here is what I would like for Judd to research. How about researching the murder of Jerry Parks on 9-26-93 in Little Rock, AR? Of all the folks Hillary and Bill have been accused of murdering, the one they REALLY might have murdered is Jerry Parks, who Hillary and her boyfriend and emotional husband Vince Foster had hired for years to spy on Bill and his many women and drug use as governor of Arkansas. Jerry Parks was knew a LOT about the Clintons and I think that the same people who beat up and nearly killed Gary Johnson (6-26-92) are the SAMES ONES who murdered Jerry Parks on 9-26-93 in a gangland style execution with about 9 bullets being pumped into him in broad daylight by two men, as reported by witnesses. Any reasonable person would say that Hillary, Bill and Buddy Young are major suspects in the murder of Jerry Parks. ...
Morrow is also a history buff:
I am a self-employed investor who lives in Austin, TX. I have 200+ books relating to the JFK assassination. I have not read them all, but I have read the best ones and skimmed the others....
As for my views on the JFK assassination, I currently think that Lyndon Johnson made a dirty deal with CIA Republicans to murder John Kennedy for many reasons both personal and ideological.
Here he tries and fails to upload "my 'LBJ and CIA killed JFK' file," adding:
It is a 145 page Word document and I keep adding to and refining it.
Yikes. Yes, I'm sure he does.
Folks, this guy is not the one who's going to bring down Rick Perry. He needs professional help.
A few days ago, in comments, c u n d gulag made note of a long online screed accusing Rick Perry of marital infidelity, primarily with women who work in strip clubs. Now Salon tells us that the author of this screed -- Robert Morrow of Austin, Texas, a Ron Paul supporter (online profile here) -- is running the following ad in the Austin Chronicle:
I'd love to think the guy is on to something, but his personal history doesn't offer much encouragement.
Regarding Morrow's past, Salon skims the surface:
This isn't the first time Morrow has engaged in this sort of one-man attack campaign. Back in 2008, he paid for (and personally voiced) an anti-Hillary robocall in South Carolina that made the unsubstantiated claim that "Hillary knew about and helped cover up Bill's rape of Juanita Broderick."
(Hear that ad and read the text here.)
But there's more. This is from a 2008 St. Petersburg Times story:
... "Chelsea is the seed of Web Hubbell and not Bill Clinton. Would I bet my life on it? No. I would bet my pickup truck," he declares between bites of salmon. "Hillary Clinton was sleeping with both of her law partners, Webb Hubbell and Vince Foster. And she's a lesbian, too."
...Morrow doesn't want to come off looking as reckless as those who say the Clintons have been involved in dozens of killings; he suspects they were only involved with maybe 5 percent of those alleged murders.
...With no job except occasional day trading of stocks, Morrow spends anywhere from one to 10 hours a day researching Clinton dirt or e-mailing and phoning reporters across the country about his conclusions....
In the first comment here, Morrow discusses one alleged Clinton murder:
Here is what I would like for Judd to research. How about researching the murder of Jerry Parks on 9-26-93 in Little Rock, AR? Of all the folks Hillary and Bill have been accused of murdering, the one they REALLY might have murdered is Jerry Parks, who Hillary and her boyfriend and emotional husband Vince Foster had hired for years to spy on Bill and his many women and drug use as governor of Arkansas. Jerry Parks was knew a LOT about the Clintons and I think that the same people who beat up and nearly killed Gary Johnson (6-26-92) are the SAMES ONES who murdered Jerry Parks on 9-26-93 in a gangland style execution with about 9 bullets being pumped into him in broad daylight by two men, as reported by witnesses. Any reasonable person would say that Hillary, Bill and Buddy Young are major suspects in the murder of Jerry Parks. ...
Morrow is also a history buff:
I am a self-employed investor who lives in Austin, TX. I have 200+ books relating to the JFK assassination. I have not read them all, but I have read the best ones and skimmed the others....
As for my views on the JFK assassination, I currently think that Lyndon Johnson made a dirty deal with CIA Republicans to murder John Kennedy for many reasons both personal and ideological.
Here he tries and fails to upload "my 'LBJ and CIA killed JFK' file," adding:
It is a 145 page Word document and I keep adding to and refining it.
Yikes. Yes, I'm sure he does.
Folks, this guy is not the one who's going to bring down Rick Perry. He needs professional help.
WILL RICK PERRY ALIENATE THE CENTER? MAYBE, BUT PROBABLY NOT BY SAYING THIS.
It's tempting to think that Rick Perry will pay dearly for this -- not in a primary campaign within the ever-crazier GOP, but later, in a general election:
Reporting from Bedford, N.H.-- Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday reaffirmed his view that global warming is an unproven scientific theory that has been advanced, at least in part, by scientists who have "manipulated data," and he argued that programs intended to limit climate change are costing the nation "billions if not trillions" of dollars that he believes could be better spent elsewhere.
"We are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change," Perry told an audience of several hundred voters, business leaders and local officials who gathered for a breakfast in Bedford....
The New York Times, in an article about EPA-bashing by much of the GOP field, argues that cooler heads (as it were) could prevail in November 2012:
But while attacks on the E.P.A., climate-change science and environmental regulation more broadly are surefire applause lines with many Republican primary audiences, these views may prove a liability in the general election, pollsters and analysts say. The American people, by substantial majorities, are concerned about air and water pollution, and largely trust the E.P.A., national surveys say.
Yes, but have you seen Gallup's last survey on climate change, conducted last March? Americans are concerned about warming and think it's caused by pollution, but -- presumably as a result of a relentless messaging campaign by the Republican/corporate noise machine -- their feelings are trending the GOP's way:
Americans continue to express less concern about global warming than they have in the past, with 51% saying they worry a great deal or fair amount about the problem.... That current level of worry compares with 66% just three years ago, and is only one percentage point higher than the low Gallup measured in 1997....
More Than 4 in 10 Say Seriousness of Global Warming Is Exaggerated
The plurality of Americans continue to believe the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated in the news (43%) rather than generally correct (26%) or generally underestimated (29%). This is the third year in a row that a substantial plurality has believed global warming's effects are not as bad as they are portrayed...
And please note that 43% of independents think the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated in the news.
So what Perry says isn't going to be horrifying to nearly half the center -- and we know it's not going to be horrifying to the right. So I'm sure he'll slide on this.
****
I'd also direct your attention to this post by Jonathan Bernstein. In it he talks about Perry's radical ideas about Social Security, and argues that they won't hurt Perry even in a general election. I think this line of reasoning extends to Perry's climate talk as well:
... policy positions are just far more likely to matter at this stage than that one. Candidates, campaign, and policy positions are important during nomination battles because there's so little basis for distinguishing between candidates.
But once we get to the general election, most voters will choose on the basis of party, so it doesn't really matter what the candidates say. Even if you're a strongly pro-Social Security Republican, you're still probably going to support Perry if he's the nominee because you agree with him and disagree with Barack Obama on abortion, and guns, and foreign policy, and economic policy, and lots more. Besides, you probably will have a generally positive view of Perry as a person and a generally negative one of Obama.... Indeed, odds are that you'll simply not believe that Perry really means what he says about Social Security.
Odds are that many anti-Obama voters who nevertheless take climate change seriously will vote for Perry anyway, and simply not believe that Perry really means what he says about climate.
Some issue or pronouncement might be the one that marks Perry as nuts, but I think it's going to have to be in some real nerve-striking area -- race, religion -- or be off-the-charts loopy like Christine O'Donnell's witch talk. I think he's quite capable of crossing that line. But not on climate, because his views are, alas, within the pale.
It's tempting to think that Rick Perry will pay dearly for this -- not in a primary campaign within the ever-crazier GOP, but later, in a general election:
Reporting from Bedford, N.H.-- Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday reaffirmed his view that global warming is an unproven scientific theory that has been advanced, at least in part, by scientists who have "manipulated data," and he argued that programs intended to limit climate change are costing the nation "billions if not trillions" of dollars that he believes could be better spent elsewhere.
"We are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change," Perry told an audience of several hundred voters, business leaders and local officials who gathered for a breakfast in Bedford....
The New York Times, in an article about EPA-bashing by much of the GOP field, argues that cooler heads (as it were) could prevail in November 2012:
But while attacks on the E.P.A., climate-change science and environmental regulation more broadly are surefire applause lines with many Republican primary audiences, these views may prove a liability in the general election, pollsters and analysts say. The American people, by substantial majorities, are concerned about air and water pollution, and largely trust the E.P.A., national surveys say.
Yes, but have you seen Gallup's last survey on climate change, conducted last March? Americans are concerned about warming and think it's caused by pollution, but -- presumably as a result of a relentless messaging campaign by the Republican/corporate noise machine -- their feelings are trending the GOP's way:
Americans continue to express less concern about global warming than they have in the past, with 51% saying they worry a great deal or fair amount about the problem.... That current level of worry compares with 66% just three years ago, and is only one percentage point higher than the low Gallup measured in 1997....
More Than 4 in 10 Say Seriousness of Global Warming Is Exaggerated
The plurality of Americans continue to believe the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated in the news (43%) rather than generally correct (26%) or generally underestimated (29%). This is the third year in a row that a substantial plurality has believed global warming's effects are not as bad as they are portrayed...
And please note that 43% of independents think the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated in the news.
So what Perry says isn't going to be horrifying to nearly half the center -- and we know it's not going to be horrifying to the right. So I'm sure he'll slide on this.
****
I'd also direct your attention to this post by Jonathan Bernstein. In it he talks about Perry's radical ideas about Social Security, and argues that they won't hurt Perry even in a general election. I think this line of reasoning extends to Perry's climate talk as well:
... policy positions are just far more likely to matter at this stage than that one. Candidates, campaign, and policy positions are important during nomination battles because there's so little basis for distinguishing between candidates.
But once we get to the general election, most voters will choose on the basis of party, so it doesn't really matter what the candidates say. Even if you're a strongly pro-Social Security Republican, you're still probably going to support Perry if he's the nominee because you agree with him and disagree with Barack Obama on abortion, and guns, and foreign policy, and economic policy, and lots more. Besides, you probably will have a generally positive view of Perry as a person and a generally negative one of Obama.... Indeed, odds are that you'll simply not believe that Perry really means what he says about Social Security.
Odds are that many anti-Obama voters who nevertheless take climate change seriously will vote for Perry anyway, and simply not believe that Perry really means what he says about climate.
Some issue or pronouncement might be the one that marks Perry as nuts, but I think it's going to have to be in some real nerve-striking area -- race, religion -- or be off-the-charts loopy like Christine O'Donnell's witch talk. I think he's quite capable of crossing that line. But not on climate, because his views are, alas, within the pale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)