WELL, PERHAPS I'M STUNNINGLY NAIVE, THEN
I'm pleased to see this post critical of Standard & Poor's, from a New York finance lawyer posting under the pseudonym Economics of Contempt; the post is getting a fair amount of attention. Yes, I believe that, as EofC says, the folks at S&P may not be the brightest bulbs on the tree, and yes, I know the initial downgrade announcement included a massive math error -- however, I'm not sure EofC is correct to critique S&P for one particular assumption:
S&P’s assessment is only remotely serious if you assume that this particular Congress, with its huge contingent of crazy Tea Partiers, is going to serve in perpetuity. But this Congress isn’t going to serve in perpetuity -- there are elections next year, and many of the Tea Party freshmen are likely to lose. They won in 2010 because it was a "wave election" in the middle of a very severe economic slump. But 2012 is a presidential election cycle with an incumbent Democratic president. A lot of these Tea Partiers who won in traditionally Democratic districts (and swing districts) are going to lose. In fact, it’s probably even odds that the Dems take back the House.
It is? I don't think so. Let's look back at congressional elections since 1980. Voters deprived the sitting president's party of control of one or both houses of Congress five times -- in 1980, 1986, 1994, 2006, and 2010. Only once in that time did the party that didn't control the White House lose control of a house of Congress -- in 1982. That happened when Democrats barely controlled the Senate (as a result of a party switch by Jim Jeffords of Vermont); the president's party gained back the Senate in large part because the president was very popular (67% approval just before Election Day 2002, according to the ABC/Washington Post poll). And, of course, this was a little more than a year after 9/11. George W. Bush had wrapped himself in the mantle of anti-terrorism, and he and Karl Rove had engineered votes on Iraq designed to portray war-skeptic Democrats, and thus, by extension, the entire party, as terrorist sympathizers.
I don't think Barack Obama has any advantages that compare to these. He's not going to have a good economy to run on. (Unemployment just before those '02 midterms was 5.7%.) You'll say he's running against people who've been proved to be demonstrably crazy and extreme, but (a) the polls show that voters blame congressional Democrats almost as much as they blame congressional Republicans and (b) voters had three shots at depriving demonstrably crazy, extreme Republicans of control of part or all of Congress during the Bill Clinton years -- in 1996, 1998, and 2000 -- and they never did it. (The closest they came was getting the Senate to 50-50 in the 2000 elections, but it was still under GOP control until the Jeffords switch.)
Low-information voters identify the government with the president; in addition, Republicans are usually very good at convincing voters that they're the outsider party, even when they actually run much of the government. (Reagan was a master at this; the boilerplate message is that Democrats control the media and the universities and "the culture" in general.) So I'm telling you that the vast majority of the congressional teabaggers are safe, and I'd predict that their tribe will actually increase.
*****
I'm not sure about this, either, from EofC's post:
And no, the debt ceiling debate doesn’t reflect some sort of secular change in US policymaking -- the next time there’s a Republican president, House Republicans will be all about raising the debt ceiling, and Democrats won’t engage in the same kind of political brinksmanship. You'd have to be stunningly naive not to believe this.
Well, call me stunningly naive, because, while I've always thought that was true, now I'm not so sure. I'm not saying that a GOP-majority Congress (or House) is going to fight President Romney or Perry or Bachmann on this -- I'm saying that the Republicans, working in concert, may decide not to allow a debt ceiling vote because they're practicing shock-doctrine politics in response to the ongoing economic downturn. I'm saying they may decide we're going to have balanced budgets from now on, dammit, and, sorry, grandma, but there is no alternative to massive entitlement cuts, as well as huge cuts in other government programs, especially in regulation. (And don't even think about tax increases on the wealthy.) I don't see why this is any more unthinkable in the nation as a whole than in Wisconsin or Florida or Ohio or Michigan. Modern-day Republicans (well, maybe not Romney) seem to believe quite sincerely that neo-Randianism will produce prosperity, so they do this stuff thinking voters will eventually thank them; and if the voters balk, well, just pass a national voter ID law, shut down ID centers and DMNV offices in Democratic districts, and wait for salvation from Citizens United money in 2014 and 2016. Really, why shouldn't we think this will happen?
Monday, August 08, 2011
COULD WE GET DOUBLE THE CRAZY ON THE GOP TICKET?
ABC's Note:
Michele Bachmann Doubles Down On Tim Geithner: He 'Must Resign Immediately For The Sake Of Our Country'
The Hill:
Rep. West: Geithner 'should move on' from Treasury job
I agree with Bachmann and West that we'd be well rid of Geithner, though a replacement who could get approved by the Senate would be infinitely more terrifying, and West and Bachmann's dream choice would be more terrifying than a minimally confirmable choice. But the reason I'm drawing attention to these headlines is that, while I'm 95% certain that Mitt Romney will pick Marco Rubio as a running mate if he gets the nomination, I absolutely don't believe Bachmann will play it safe if she triumphs -- she'll think she's trumped the entire Establishment, Democratic and Republican, and she'll believe she's free to do as she pleases. So I could easily imagine her running with the war criminal and verbal bomb-thrower from Florida. That's one more reason to root for her in the primaries, and (if you're a Democratic-leaning but unaffiliated New Hampshire voter) to go vote in the GOP contest for Bachmann.
And, by the way, I hope someone asks her (and West) for some replacement suggestions. Ron Paul? Rick Santelli? John Stossel? What names would they cough up?
ABC's Note:
Michele Bachmann Doubles Down On Tim Geithner: He 'Must Resign Immediately For The Sake Of Our Country'
The Hill:
Rep. West: Geithner 'should move on' from Treasury job
I agree with Bachmann and West that we'd be well rid of Geithner, though a replacement who could get approved by the Senate would be infinitely more terrifying, and West and Bachmann's dream choice would be more terrifying than a minimally confirmable choice. But the reason I'm drawing attention to these headlines is that, while I'm 95% certain that Mitt Romney will pick Marco Rubio as a running mate if he gets the nomination, I absolutely don't believe Bachmann will play it safe if she triumphs -- she'll think she's trumped the entire Establishment, Democratic and Republican, and she'll believe she's free to do as she pleases. So I could easily imagine her running with the war criminal and verbal bomb-thrower from Florida. That's one more reason to root for her in the primaries, and (if you're a Democratic-leaning but unaffiliated New Hampshire voter) to go vote in the GOP contest for Bachmann.
And, by the way, I hope someone asks her (and West) for some replacement suggestions. Ron Paul? Rick Santelli? John Stossel? What names would they cough up?
TINA BROWN RESCUES FALTERING BACHMANN CAMPAIGN WITH SELF-PITY-INDUCING MAGAZINE COVER
Michele Bachmann was the obvious anti-Romney until, according to the polls, Rick Perry stole her thunder. (And I must say that I respectfully disagree with Zandar -- I think both his weekend revival meeting and his bad college grades are going to make him more appealing to GOP primary voters, and thus reaffirm his will to run.) But now Tina Brown has saved Bachmann's campaign with this cover, which, in the victimization sweepstakes, puts her right back in the running with Perry (they hate him because he loves Jesus!) and Palin (they tried to destroy her movie!) in the eyes of right-wing voters:
Hot Air's Ed Morrissey snivels:
Memo to conservative women: When approached by Newsweek or Time for a cover story, always bring your own photographer....
Um, really, Ed? Because when I go to Bachmann's own campaign site, I'm directed to her Flickr page, where I see equally crazy-eyed photo like this one:
And this one:
But what Ed really doesn't like is the headline on the cover:
... Newsweek perches a blank-looking Bachmann over block letters calling her “THE QUEEN OF RAGE” ...
Rage? I've certainly heard Bachmann talk tough about encroaching government and the avalanche of spending and debt, but in all the years I've known and covered Bachmann, I've never heard her rage at anyone. It seems as though Newsweek has a double standard in effect for conservatives, women, and especially conservative women. When Barack Obama told an audience in June 2008 that "if they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun," did Newsweek crown him the King of Rage -- or at any time in his class-warfare-based presidential campaign? ...
Stop, Ed, you're killing me. Calling Obama the King of Rage would be like calling Rick Perry the King of Nuance, or Mitt Romney the King of Authenticity.
But, since Bachmann is a conservative, a woman, and a conservative woman -- duh, a three-fer! -- she may actually have taken the victimization lead right now. Quick, Sarah! Go inspire some late-night comic to make a sex joke about some member of your family! And Rick, I don't know what you can do, much less Mitt: we liberals will apparently never hate you enough -- you'd think we would because you're a white male, but apparently we hate you less because of that! I'm confused as to why that's so, and about how our liberal evil works in general, but there you have it. Bachmann for the win!
Michele Bachmann was the obvious anti-Romney until, according to the polls, Rick Perry stole her thunder. (And I must say that I respectfully disagree with Zandar -- I think both his weekend revival meeting and his bad college grades are going to make him more appealing to GOP primary voters, and thus reaffirm his will to run.) But now Tina Brown has saved Bachmann's campaign with this cover, which, in the victimization sweepstakes, puts her right back in the running with Perry (they hate him because he loves Jesus!) and Palin (they tried to destroy her movie!) in the eyes of right-wing voters:
Hot Air's Ed Morrissey snivels:
Memo to conservative women: When approached by Newsweek or Time for a cover story, always bring your own photographer....
Um, really, Ed? Because when I go to Bachmann's own campaign site, I'm directed to her Flickr page, where I see equally crazy-eyed photo like this one:
And this one:
But what Ed really doesn't like is the headline on the cover:
... Newsweek perches a blank-looking Bachmann over block letters calling her “THE QUEEN OF RAGE” ...
Rage? I've certainly heard Bachmann talk tough about encroaching government and the avalanche of spending and debt, but in all the years I've known and covered Bachmann, I've never heard her rage at anyone. It seems as though Newsweek has a double standard in effect for conservatives, women, and especially conservative women. When Barack Obama told an audience in June 2008 that "if they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun," did Newsweek crown him the King of Rage -- or at any time in his class-warfare-based presidential campaign? ...
Stop, Ed, you're killing me. Calling Obama the King of Rage would be like calling Rick Perry the King of Nuance, or Mitt Romney the King of Authenticity.
But, since Bachmann is a conservative, a woman, and a conservative woman -- duh, a three-fer! -- she may actually have taken the victimization lead right now. Quick, Sarah! Go inspire some late-night comic to make a sex joke about some member of your family! And Rick, I don't know what you can do, much less Mitt: we liberals will apparently never hate you enough -- you'd think we would because you're a white male, but apparently we hate you less because of that! I'm confused as to why that's so, and about how our liberal evil works in general, but there you have it. Bachmann for the win!
OBAMA: AN UNINSPIRING DEMOCRAT, AND THUS A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRAT
As I read Drew Westen's "What Happened to Obama?" in The New York Times over the weekend, I was extremely grateful -- finally someone was writing precisely what I've been feeling about the president. I recommended the piece to several people over the weekend. If you haven't read it yet, I recommend it to you.
And yet:
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse....
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety.
... it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.
But there was no story -- and there has been none since....
Yes, I hoped that Barack Obama would find a way to put America on a non-Reaganist course, and to eloquently explain why it was a good idea to do that. He didn't. But the problem is, I voted for the last Democratic president in the hope that, silver-tongued devil that he was, he'd do the same thing. And he didn't. He came into office in a much milder recession, talking about putting people back to work; he mentioned infrastructure spending ... and I thought policies rooted in liberal-leaning economics might would be applied and explained to the American people, in direct, patriotic language. Never happened.
A few Democrats have talked that way -- the most prominent after the rise of Reagan were Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson -- but nobody ever talked the talk and then walked the walk at a national level. Cuomo wasn't even a transformative governor, and neither he nor Jackson ever became president; Democratic congressional leaders may fight the good fight sometimes -- hello, Nancy Pelosi -- but those that do at a prominent level don't sell the ideas very well.
We thought Obama was different, but he's just a product of the modern Democratic Party. He talks New Deal language, but modern Democrats are afraid to cross their big contributors by acting the way FDR did. (Republicans don't have this problem: they can give their base precisely what they promise -- wars, Jesus, tax cuts, deregulation -- and the party's big contributors, obviously, don't complain.)
Skittishness about angering the economic elites has gotten worse over the past thirty years -- in the Reagan, Poppy Bush, and Clinton years, it was acceptable to raise taxes sometimes; after the S&L crisis and Enron, it was acceptable to prosecute wrongdoers. But, as far as I can tell, Obama isn't failing to live up to traditional Democratic values so much as he's embodying modern Democratic values all too well. Modern Democrats fear losing elections so much that they won't lay a finger on the rich, even if that means alienating so many actual voters that they lose elections anyway. That's how most people operate in the Democratic Congress from which Obama emerged. Obama's just one of them.
As I read Drew Westen's "What Happened to Obama?" in The New York Times over the weekend, I was extremely grateful -- finally someone was writing precisely what I've been feeling about the president. I recommended the piece to several people over the weekend. If you haven't read it yet, I recommend it to you.
And yet:
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse....
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety.
... it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.
But there was no story -- and there has been none since....
Yes, I hoped that Barack Obama would find a way to put America on a non-Reaganist course, and to eloquently explain why it was a good idea to do that. He didn't. But the problem is, I voted for the last Democratic president in the hope that, silver-tongued devil that he was, he'd do the same thing. And he didn't. He came into office in a much milder recession, talking about putting people back to work; he mentioned infrastructure spending ... and I thought policies rooted in liberal-leaning economics might would be applied and explained to the American people, in direct, patriotic language. Never happened.
A few Democrats have talked that way -- the most prominent after the rise of Reagan were Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson -- but nobody ever talked the talk and then walked the walk at a national level. Cuomo wasn't even a transformative governor, and neither he nor Jackson ever became president; Democratic congressional leaders may fight the good fight sometimes -- hello, Nancy Pelosi -- but those that do at a prominent level don't sell the ideas very well.
We thought Obama was different, but he's just a product of the modern Democratic Party. He talks New Deal language, but modern Democrats are afraid to cross their big contributors by acting the way FDR did. (Republicans don't have this problem: they can give their base precisely what they promise -- wars, Jesus, tax cuts, deregulation -- and the party's big contributors, obviously, don't complain.)
Skittishness about angering the economic elites has gotten worse over the past thirty years -- in the Reagan, Poppy Bush, and Clinton years, it was acceptable to raise taxes sometimes; after the S&L crisis and Enron, it was acceptable to prosecute wrongdoers. But, as far as I can tell, Obama isn't failing to live up to traditional Democratic values so much as he's embodying modern Democratic values all too well. Modern Democrats fear losing elections so much that they won't lay a finger on the rich, even if that means alienating so many actual voters that they lose elections anyway. That's how most people operate in the Democratic Congress from which Obama emerged. Obama's just one of them.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
And speaking of union-busting, 45,000 Verizon employees belonging to the Communications Workers of American union are on strike as their contract expired over the weekend. Verizon apparently could care less.
Pretty much a sign of the times that Verizon is simply able to find and train 40,000 contractors in this economy and tell its union workforce to go to hell, but that's how far unions have fallen. The bone of contention is of course health care:
If the first thing that went through your mind was "Why shouldn't they pay health care premiums, I do" instead of "Why shouldn't Verizon invest in keeping their trained workforce healthy?" then congratulations, you understand exactly why Verizon will almost certainly win this fight, and why Republicans are doing everything they can to dismantle collective bargaining for everyone in America to our collective yawn.
And speaking of union-busting, 45,000 Verizon employees belonging to the Communications Workers of American union are on strike as their contract expired over the weekend. Verizon apparently could care less.
The strike, which began when the old contract expired yesterday at midnight, may delay service calls and disrupt installations for telephone and Internet service. The company has trained more than 40,000 managers and contractors to step into the roles of union workers, said Richard Young, a Verizon spokesman.
“We are confident that we have the talent and resources in place to meet the needs and demands of our customers,” Mark Reed, Verizon’s executive vice president of human resources, said in a statement.
Pretty much a sign of the times that Verizon is simply able to find and train 40,000 contractors in this economy and tell its union workforce to go to hell, but that's how far unions have fallen. The bone of contention is of course health care:
Verizon wants workers to contribute more for health insurance, including paying monthly premiums for the first time, while the unions say their members can’t accept the financial burden, given the current economy.
If the first thing that went through your mind was "Why shouldn't they pay health care premiums, I do" instead of "Why shouldn't Verizon invest in keeping their trained workforce healthy?" then congratulations, you understand exactly why Verizon will almost certainly win this fight, and why Republicans are doing everything they can to dismantle collective bargaining for everyone in America to our collective yawn.
ALL OUT IN WISCONSIN
The Tea Party is absolutely terrified of the Wisconsin state senate recalls of the GOP who went to bat for union-busting GOP Gov. Scott Walker, and they are going all out with the hate speech.
The defense of the union-busting record of Wisconsin Republicans? It doesn't matter cause Nazi Liberal terrorists cause genocide! Don't think the Tea Party guys have gotten their scorched earth tactical orders from the Koch machine and will do anything and everything to disrupt, distort, depress and disenfranchise voters on Tuesday in Wisconsin? Pay attention, please.
They know that if they win here, they have the means and the method to take over every state in the nation with the same tactics and boilerplate ALEC legislation as in Wisconsin. They know that all they have to do is refer to their opponents as genocidal terrorists and they win because the public will become too disgusted to even care enough to participate in the system. 2010 proved that can work.
"There's no point in fighting the Tea Party, give them what they want and let's salvage what we can" is exactly what they are playing for. We have a chance to stop them in Wisconsin on Tuesday.
The Tea Party is absolutely terrified of the Wisconsin state senate recalls of the GOP who went to bat for union-busting GOP Gov. Scott Walker, and they are going all out with the hate speech.
The founder of Tea Party Nation claimed liberal ideology is responsible for "a billion" deaths over the last century during a raucous rally here Saturday in support of one of the six Republican state senators facing a recall election Tuesday.
"I will tell you ladies and gentlemen, I detest and despise everything the left stands for. How anybody can endorse and embrace an ideology that has killed a billion people in the last century is beyond me," said Tea Party Nation CEO Judson Phillips.
Phillips, who a day prior likened protesters of Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi storm troopers, urged a few hundred tea party supporters to turn out for State Sen. Alberta Darling, who is in a ferocious battle with Rep. Sandy Pasch to hold onto her suburban Milwaukee seat.
But he wasn't the only speaker to use loaded language to gin up the crowd.
Vince Schmuki, a leader of the Ozaukee Patriot tea party group compared the recall effort to a terrorist attack.
"This is ground zero," said Schmuki. "You remember what the term ground zero means? We have been attacked."
The defense of the union-busting record of Wisconsin Republicans? It doesn't matter cause Nazi Liberal terrorists cause genocide! Don't think the Tea Party guys have gotten their scorched earth tactical orders from the Koch machine and will do anything and everything to disrupt, distort, depress and disenfranchise voters on Tuesday in Wisconsin? Pay attention, please.
They know that if they win here, they have the means and the method to take over every state in the nation with the same tactics and boilerplate ALEC legislation as in Wisconsin. They know that all they have to do is refer to their opponents as genocidal terrorists and they win because the public will become too disgusted to even care enough to participate in the system. 2010 proved that can work.
"There's no point in fighting the Tea Party, give them what they want and let's salvage what we can" is exactly what they are playing for. We have a chance to stop them in Wisconsin on Tuesday.
LONDON CALLING VERY VERY LOUDLY
A community vigil for a man slain by police in the north London neighborhood of Tottenham turned bloody last night as rioting broke out and dozens were arrested.
The Duggan shooting has set off what has already been a rough stretch for London in recent months. Tottenham is part of London's black communities and relations between the people and police haven't been good. Duggan's shooting on Thursday came as a shock to many in the neighborhood as he was pulled over for what London Metro police were calling a "pre-planned" arrest as part of Operation Trident, the city's anti-gun task force.
The main problem is that the police have yet to give a clear answer as to why Duggan was shot, only that shots were fired. All we know for sure is that the weekend vigil for Duggan's death turned violent last night.
There are a lot of unanswered questions here.
A community vigil for a man slain by police in the north London neighborhood of Tottenham turned bloody last night as rioting broke out and dozens were arrested.
Rioters took advantage of a vigil for a man killed by police and turned violent Saturday night, tossing petrol bombs and "missiles" at officers and looting stores, London's Metropolitan Police said Sunday.
"The behavior by a criminal minority put police officers, fire brigade personnel and the public at significant risk," Cmdr. Adrian Hanstock said in a statement.
At least 42 people were arrested and 26 officers were injured, police said.
The violence came amid protests over the killing of Mark Duggan, who was riding in a cab when he was killed Thursday. Police stopped the cab in an attempted arrest, and soon shots were fired, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said.
The commission did not say who shot the 29-year-old, nor why the cab was stopped.
"The death of Mr. Duggan is extremely regrettable," Hanstock said. "It is absolutely tragic that someone has died, but that does not give a criminal minority the right to destroy businesses" and "steal from their local community."
The Duggan shooting has set off what has already been a rough stretch for London in recent months. Tottenham is part of London's black communities and relations between the people and police haven't been good. Duggan's shooting on Thursday came as a shock to many in the neighborhood as he was pulled over for what London Metro police were calling a "pre-planned" arrest as part of Operation Trident, the city's anti-gun task force.
The main problem is that the police have yet to give a clear answer as to why Duggan was shot, only that shots were fired. All we know for sure is that the weekend vigil for Duggan's death turned violent last night.
There are a lot of unanswered questions here.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
GEITHNER THEE HENCE!
A number of Republicans are calling for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's head in the midst of this downgrade disaster, and if it weren't for the fact a new Treasury Secretary worth a damn would be immediately and permanently blocked by the Senate GOP, I'd be agreeing with them.
GOP Sen. Jim DeMint is of course one of those in Congress who would basically assure any confirmation fight would last well into 2012.
A number of Republicans are calling for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's head in the midst of this downgrade disaster, and if it weren't for the fact a new Treasury Secretary worth a damn would be immediately and permanently blocked by the Senate GOP, I'd be agreeing with them.
GOP Sen. Jim DeMint is of course one of those in Congress who would basically assure any confirmation fight would last well into 2012.
"The president should demand that Secretary Geithner resign and immediately replace him with someone who will help Washington focus on balancing our budget and allowing the private sector to create jobs," DeMint said in a report Saturday in The Hill.
"For months he opposed all efforts to reduce the debt in return for a debt ceiling increase. His opposition to serious spending and debt reforms has been reckless and now the American people will pay the price," said DeMint, a Tea Party favorite.
WALKER-ING IT BACK
With Wisconsin GOP state senators facing recalls next week and Gov. Scott Walker facing his own recall effort, Walker is scrambling to shore up his defenses as the recall election is absolutely seen as a referendum on his policies. For now, that means Gov. Walker is giving up on his indefensible and controversial plan to close DMV offices in Democratic strongholds in the wake of the state's new Voter ID law.
Walker and the state's GOP senators have been getting hit hard on this and with the election expected to be very close on Tuesday, the damage control is on. Of course, should enough GOP state senators survive the recall vote in order to keep control with the Republicans, I'm betting this plan will be changed back very quietly.
The bigger picture of course is that Wisconsin is the new battleground for the country. The Club For Growth/ALEC/Koch Brothers machine has all but bought the state's Republicans and taken completely over the state with the intent to wipe out unions, disenfranchise voters, and lock the state down as a permanent Republican outpost. If the Democrats can win the state senate back next week and recall Walker next year, there still may be fight left in the country.
If not, expect ALEC legislative franchising to come to your state, if it's not there already.
With Wisconsin GOP state senators facing recalls next week and Gov. Scott Walker facing his own recall effort, Walker is scrambling to shore up his defenses as the recall election is absolutely seen as a referendum on his policies. For now, that means Gov. Walker is giving up on his indefensible and controversial plan to close DMV offices in Democratic strongholds in the wake of the state's new Voter ID law.
In a sharp reversal, the state of Wisconsin announced yesterday it will expand Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) services to accommodate the increased demand for photo identification in the wake of a controversial new Voter ID law. As ThinkProgress reported last week, after signing a Voter ID law earlier this year that disenfranchises tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters, Gov. Scott Walker (R) then called for closing as many as 16 DMV offices across the state, making it even more difficult for residents to obtain the ID they needed to regain their electoral voice.
Walker and the state's GOP senators have been getting hit hard on this and with the election expected to be very close on Tuesday, the damage control is on. Of course, should enough GOP state senators survive the recall vote in order to keep control with the Republicans, I'm betting this plan will be changed back very quietly.
The bigger picture of course is that Wisconsin is the new battleground for the country. The Club For Growth/ALEC/Koch Brothers machine has all but bought the state's Republicans and taken completely over the state with the intent to wipe out unions, disenfranchise voters, and lock the state down as a permanent Republican outpost. If the Democrats can win the state senate back next week and recall Walker next year, there still may be fight left in the country.
If not, expect ALEC legislative franchising to come to your state, if it's not there already.
GRADING THE DOWNGRADE
Last night Standard & Poor's dropped a bombshell, downgrading the country's credit rating from AAA to AA+ and imposing a negative outlook on the economy over the next 18 months.
The downgrade makes little sense as a fiscal move, but lots of sense politically. S&P specifically went after the Tea Party for refusing to raise revenues in any way, and that could very well be the key to getting some real reaction out of the so-called "Super Committee" that the debt deal created. Republicans are expecting to appoint people who will never allow revenue fixes, but this downgrade and the fact all Democrats have to do is simply let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich at the end of next year means there's lots of leverage...if the Dems use it.
But that's the trick, isn't it. Meanwhile, let's not forget S&P is one of the credit agencies that assigned AAA ratings to subprime loans, helping very much to enable the financial crisis that created this mess in the first place. It's not like they have a lot of objective credibility right now, especially since the other two credit agencies, Fitch and Moody's, are sticking with the AAA rating on the US for now.
We'll see where this goes on the Monday bond markets, but we're in uncharted waters here. Full S&P statement (pdf) here.
Last night Standard & Poor's dropped a bombshell, downgrading the country's credit rating from AAA to AA+ and imposing a negative outlook on the economy over the next 18 months.
In its report Friday, S&P ruled that the U.S. fell short: "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the ... plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics."
S&P also cited dysfunctional policymaking in Washington as a factor in the downgrade. "The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."
The downgrade makes little sense as a fiscal move, but lots of sense politically. S&P specifically went after the Tea Party for refusing to raise revenues in any way, and that could very well be the key to getting some real reaction out of the so-called "Super Committee" that the debt deal created. Republicans are expecting to appoint people who will never allow revenue fixes, but this downgrade and the fact all Democrats have to do is simply let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich at the end of next year means there's lots of leverage...if the Dems use it.
But that's the trick, isn't it. Meanwhile, let's not forget S&P is one of the credit agencies that assigned AAA ratings to subprime loans, helping very much to enable the financial crisis that created this mess in the first place. It's not like they have a lot of objective credibility right now, especially since the other two credit agencies, Fitch and Moody's, are sticking with the AAA rating on the US for now.
We'll see where this goes on the Monday bond markets, but we're in uncharted waters here. Full S&P statement (pdf) here.
Friday, August 05, 2011
AND A MESS OF BAM'S BARBECUE
And Fox Nation leaves this in a bag on America's doorstep, lights it on fire, rings the bell and runs. (h/t Oliver Willis)
Time
to both fire up the base and take the higher ground at the same time
while Eric Cantor blames the extension of federal unemployment benefits
for causing unemployment itself, and vows to hold it hostage next. Always onwards to the next Pyrrhic victory, our GOP friends...
And Fox Nation leaves this in a bag on America's doorstep, lights it on fire, rings the bell and runs. (h/t Oliver Willis)
Ahh,
the President's birthday celebration had black people at it, and
didn't create jobs! This is where we are right now, it's a brutally
long campaign season, folks...and the rampant, ugly, and now massively
overt racism by the GOP and their enablers is only beginning. People
ask me how President Obama can put up with such drooling idiocy, and I
remind them that the President is never the true audience for shock
jock racism like this.
In
a sick way, you have to admire the blue steel hatred Fox has for the
man. When the dog whistles are put away and the megaphones are brought
out instead, it's proof that the President's most recent maneuver has
demoralized the Tea Party faithful and that it's time to throw the red
meat into the pit to get some action going (and gives more "moderate"
conservative pundits the chance to pretend to disavow the bomb-throwing
to look "centrist and principled.")
It
must mean then that the rank and file Tea Party disagree with John
"Orange Julius" Boehner's assessment that the GOP got 98% of what they
wanted in the debt deal. Indeed, many Americans are furious at the Republicans in the wake of this week's deal and the weeks of hostage-taking that preceded it.
DRINKING THE PERRY AIDES
Rick Perry's not running for President because the millisecond he does, the opposition research guys are going to have a carnival with him. Things are falling apart for Perry's religious coming-out party this weekend in Texas, for instance. MoJo's Tim Murphy:
This would be akin to Candidate Obama having Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers run his campaign stops, and that's only if Ayers or Wright were as absolutely insane as possible to openly say stuff like the 9/11 attacks were punishment for allowing homosexuality and same-sex marriage in the US, that groups of birds dying last summer was because of DADT, that invisible things live in your clothing to remind you of your sinning, that Democrats are the "network of wicked forces" working for Satan, that gays are just like Nazis, that Glee is evil, that orcas and grizzlies should be destroyed(!), that the gay Illuminati are running America, that the feds are trying to mind-control the country with implanted RFID chips, that Muslims are too inbred and stupid to serve in our military, that Oprah Winfrey is the herald of the Antichrist, that secession from America is a good idea, that the Statue of Liberty is a graven idol, and that Japan was smote due to their weird sun goddess worship.
And all of those insane things are documented in Murphy's article in the link there at the top.
So no, I don't think Rick Perry is running for President. (But if he does, it's going to be a hoot, especially with a college transcript that makes Dubya look like Dr. Stephen Hawking.)
Rick Perry's not running for President because the millisecond he does, the opposition research guys are going to have a carnival with him. Things are falling apart for Perry's religious coming-out party this weekend in Texas, for instance. MoJo's Tim Murphy:
Although stadium-packing rallies are nothing new for the Religious Right, the pushback to Perry's gathering—dubbed "The Response"—has been fierce. The problem isn't with separation of church and state; Perry's faith is no secret, and he's made it clear that he will be attending the event as a private citizen and not in his official capacity as governor. The controversy, magnified by the governor's escalating flirtation with a presidential bid, stems mostly from the company he's keeping. Perry has left the organization and the funding for the prayer rally up to a handful of key sponsors—groups like the American Family Association (which the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a "hate group") and the International House of Prayer (the other IHOP). Those organizations created a monster: In interviews, the event's planners have conceded that the non-Christians will not be allowed on stage, and that the event—which Perry says is open to everyone—is intended in part to convert people to Christianity.
Although Perry and his defenders say he's the victim of guilt by association ("Just because you endorse me doesn't mean I endorse everything that you say or do," he told the Dallas Morning-News) they're missing a key point: By tasking these groups with running the event, Perry endorsed them.
This would be akin to Candidate Obama having Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers run his campaign stops, and that's only if Ayers or Wright were as absolutely insane as possible to openly say stuff like the 9/11 attacks were punishment for allowing homosexuality and same-sex marriage in the US, that groups of birds dying last summer was because of DADT, that invisible things live in your clothing to remind you of your sinning, that Democrats are the "network of wicked forces" working for Satan, that gays are just like Nazis, that Glee is evil, that orcas and grizzlies should be destroyed(!), that the gay Illuminati are running America, that the feds are trying to mind-control the country with implanted RFID chips, that Muslims are too inbred and stupid to serve in our military, that Oprah Winfrey is the herald of the Antichrist, that secession from America is a good idea, that the Statue of Liberty is a graven idol, and that Japan was smote due to their weird sun goddess worship.
And all of those insane things are documented in Murphy's article in the link there at the top.
So no, I don't think Rick Perry is running for President. (But if he does, it's going to be a hoot, especially with a college transcript that makes Dubya look like Dr. Stephen Hawking.)
THE NADIR OF THE NADERITES
Here's an absolute shocker, that given the debt ceiling deal this week the right is looking to the disgruntled left for help. Pajamas Media head Roger Simon is more than happy to concern troll the left with unsolicited advice:
It's telling that the wingers understand disgruntled Democrats better than Democrats themselves do, as evidenced by the master of disaster himself, Ralph Nader. Nader took to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller to get his "message" out and gosh, they were more than glad to run with it.
Excellent. Nader, the Daily Caller, and Pajamas Media all know who their audience is for stuff like this and plenty will oblige them. But if you believe that Carlson, Simon, and especially Ralph Nader have the interests of the Democratic party at heart, I've got some Gore 2000 posters to sell you.
Expect a hell of a lot more of this.
Here's an absolute shocker, that given the debt ceiling deal this week the right is looking to the disgruntled left for help. Pajamas Media head Roger Simon is more than happy to concern troll the left with unsolicited advice:
Nevertheless, Obama is ensuring his own failure. Should he resign? If you were a Democrat, you might want that, even with daffy Joe Biden waiting in the wings. Better yet, you would want Obama, in the grand tradition of LBJ, to decline a second term. No such luck. The man is evidently an (increasingly) bitter clinger...
It's telling that the wingers understand disgruntled Democrats better than Democrats themselves do, as evidenced by the master of disaster himself, Ralph Nader. Nader took to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller to get his "message" out and gosh, they were more than glad to run with it.
“What [Obama] did this week is just going to energize that effort,” Nader promised in an interview with The Daily Caller. “I would guess that the chances of there being a challenge to Obama in the primary are almost 100 percent.”
The only question, he said, is the stature of that opponent and whether it will be either “an ex-senator or an ex-governor” or “an intellectual leader or an environmental leader.”
In approximately a week and a half there will be “another chapter of this effort,” Nader predicted.
Excellent. Nader, the Daily Caller, and Pajamas Media all know who their audience is for stuff like this and plenty will oblige them. But if you believe that Carlson, Simon, and especially Ralph Nader have the interests of the Democratic party at heart, I've got some Gore 2000 posters to sell you.
Expect a hell of a lot more of this.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
SEE YOU IN A FEW DAYS
I'm gone for the weekend -- but Zandar will be here, so stop by. See you Sunday night or Mobday morning.
I'm gone for the weekend -- but Zandar will be here, so stop by. See you Sunday night or Mobday morning.
SEPARATED AT BIRTH: JON HUNTSMAN AND SPINAL TAP?
Huntsman: Joined a band in the 1970s.
Spinal Tap: Formed band in the 1960s.
Huntsman: Was ambassador to China.
Spinal Tap: "Sex Farm" is a top ten single in Japan.
Huntsman:
A blistering internal feud in the Jon Huntsman presidential campaign is erupting into public view, with dueling camps trading charges and an exodus of campaign officials.
And now, a longtime family friend tells POLITICO that Huntsman's wife and father fret that his presidential prospects have been threatened by the turmoil -- and he places the blame on John Weaver, Huntsman's controversial chief strategist....
"I look forward to a future of less drama, more money and increasing contrasts with my opponents. We can win this thing," Huntsman wrote in an email to the friend just hours after the resignation of his first campaign manager, Susie Wiles, became public July 21.
"Goodness will overcome the temporary difficulties and early turf-protecting within the campaign," Huntsman wrote, adding: "I love you like a brother."
The recipient of that email -- David Fischer, who has known Huntsman since the 1980s and has worked for his father -- shared with POLITICO behind-the-scenes details about Huntsman's stumbling start.
He described Huntsman's campaign as disorganized and full of staff tension, disclosed new facts about the candidate’s announcement day mishaps, recounted tearful conversations with the recently departed Wiles and revealed other previously undisclosed resignations.
Fischer himself recently left the campaign....
Spinal Tap:
As the tour starts, concert appearances are repeatedly canceled due to low ticket sales. Tensions continue to increase when several major retailers refuse to sell Smell the Glove because of its sexist cover art and there is growing resentment shown towards the group's manager Ian Faith (Tony Hendra). Tufnel becomes even more perturbed when St. Hubbins' girlfriend Jeanine (June Chadwick) -- a manipulative yoga and astrology devotee -- joins the group on tour and begins to participate in band meetings and attempts to influence their costumes and stage presentation....
In order to rekindle interest, Tufnel suggests staging a performance of "Stonehenge," an epic song that is to be accompanied in concert by a lavish stage show, and asks Ian to order a giant Stonehenge megalith for the show. However, Tufnel, rushing a sketch on a napkin, mislabels its dimensions, using a double prime symbol instead of single prime. The resulting prop, seen for the first time by the group during a show, ends up only 18 inches high (instead of the intended 18 feet), making the group a laughing stock on stage. The group accuses Faith of mismanagement, and when St. Hubbins suggests Jeanine should co-manage the group, Faith quits in disgust.
The tour continues, rescheduled into smaller and smaller venues. Tufnel becomes marginalized by Jeanine and St. Hubbins....
Nigel and David ultimately decide they love each other like brothers, just like Jonny Boy and his old pal Fischer, so I'm sure there'll be a tearful reunion and they can go on pursuing pathetic, futile dreams of political excellence and world domination just like Tap's dreams of musical excellence and world domination. I wonder if Jonny Boy's motorcycle goes to 11....
Huntsman: Joined a band in the 1970s.
Spinal Tap: Formed band in the 1960s.
Huntsman: Was ambassador to China.
Spinal Tap: "Sex Farm" is a top ten single in Japan.
Huntsman:
A blistering internal feud in the Jon Huntsman presidential campaign is erupting into public view, with dueling camps trading charges and an exodus of campaign officials.
And now, a longtime family friend tells POLITICO that Huntsman's wife and father fret that his presidential prospects have been threatened by the turmoil -- and he places the blame on John Weaver, Huntsman's controversial chief strategist....
"I look forward to a future of less drama, more money and increasing contrasts with my opponents. We can win this thing," Huntsman wrote in an email to the friend just hours after the resignation of his first campaign manager, Susie Wiles, became public July 21.
"Goodness will overcome the temporary difficulties and early turf-protecting within the campaign," Huntsman wrote, adding: "I love you like a brother."
The recipient of that email -- David Fischer, who has known Huntsman since the 1980s and has worked for his father -- shared with POLITICO behind-the-scenes details about Huntsman's stumbling start.
He described Huntsman's campaign as disorganized and full of staff tension, disclosed new facts about the candidate’s announcement day mishaps, recounted tearful conversations with the recently departed Wiles and revealed other previously undisclosed resignations.
Fischer himself recently left the campaign....
Spinal Tap:
As the tour starts, concert appearances are repeatedly canceled due to low ticket sales. Tensions continue to increase when several major retailers refuse to sell Smell the Glove because of its sexist cover art and there is growing resentment shown towards the group's manager Ian Faith (Tony Hendra). Tufnel becomes even more perturbed when St. Hubbins' girlfriend Jeanine (June Chadwick) -- a manipulative yoga and astrology devotee -- joins the group on tour and begins to participate in band meetings and attempts to influence their costumes and stage presentation....
In order to rekindle interest, Tufnel suggests staging a performance of "Stonehenge," an epic song that is to be accompanied in concert by a lavish stage show, and asks Ian to order a giant Stonehenge megalith for the show. However, Tufnel, rushing a sketch on a napkin, mislabels its dimensions, using a double prime symbol instead of single prime. The resulting prop, seen for the first time by the group during a show, ends up only 18 inches high (instead of the intended 18 feet), making the group a laughing stock on stage. The group accuses Faith of mismanagement, and when St. Hubbins suggests Jeanine should co-manage the group, Faith quits in disgust.
The tour continues, rescheduled into smaller and smaller venues. Tufnel becomes marginalized by Jeanine and St. Hubbins....
Nigel and David ultimately decide they love each other like brothers, just like Jonny Boy and his old pal Fischer, so I'm sure there'll be a tearful reunion and they can go on pursuing pathetic, futile dreams of political excellence and world domination just like Tap's dreams of musical excellence and world domination. I wonder if Jonny Boy's motorcycle goes to 11....
RICK PERRY'S DEATH PENALTY NON-LIABILITY
Well, I guess the Romney campaign deserves a lot of credit for spoon-feeding Politico this compendium of reasons why Rick Perry would be a lousy presidential candidate in a general election. Excellent work, guys, even if I'm not rooting for you. (Recently I've actually been hoping for a Perry candidacy, on the assumption that, yes, he would be a tough sell in a general election, but Obama seems so weakened right now that I think only Bachmann or Palin as an opponent gives him a better-than-even chance of reelection. As for Romney, I think he's a mortal lock to win if he's the candidate, so, while I admire his campaign's spin work, I'm not happy if it's working.)
We're told that Perry can't possibly win non-Southern states and big swing states (which doesn't explain why he's only 6 points behind Obama in Pennsylvania, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll). And we're told that certain incidents in his past will be easy to use against him -- one in particular:
Veterans of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's unsuccessful 2010 primary challenge to Perry recalled being stunned at the way attacks bounced off the governor in a strongly conservative state gripped by tea party fever. Multiple former Hutchison advisers recalled asking a focus group about the charge that Perry may have presided over the execution of an innocent man -- Cameron Todd Willingham -- and got this response from a primary voter: "It takes balls to execute an innocent man."
The Willingham case is just one episode in Perry's gubernatorial tenure that could be revived against him in the very different context of a national race, potentially compromising him in a general election.
Oh, please. I think the American public is far less conservative than current insider conventional wisdom would tell you it is, but compassion for the wrongly incarcerated -- and executed -- has never, ever penetrated the national consciousness. I used to think that was because of widespread fear of crime, but crime dropped in the last twenty years and the indifference to abuses of the criminal justice system persists. I assume it's a just-world-theory thing -- even reasonable, non-rage-junkie (i.e., non-Republican) Americans can't really believe that people convicted of felonies did nothing to deserve their fate.
Americans didn't care about Ricky Ray Rector. They won't care about Cameron Todd Willingham.
Well, I guess the Romney campaign deserves a lot of credit for spoon-feeding Politico this compendium of reasons why Rick Perry would be a lousy presidential candidate in a general election. Excellent work, guys, even if I'm not rooting for you. (Recently I've actually been hoping for a Perry candidacy, on the assumption that, yes, he would be a tough sell in a general election, but Obama seems so weakened right now that I think only Bachmann or Palin as an opponent gives him a better-than-even chance of reelection. As for Romney, I think he's a mortal lock to win if he's the candidate, so, while I admire his campaign's spin work, I'm not happy if it's working.)
We're told that Perry can't possibly win non-Southern states and big swing states (which doesn't explain why he's only 6 points behind Obama in Pennsylvania, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll). And we're told that certain incidents in his past will be easy to use against him -- one in particular:
Veterans of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's unsuccessful 2010 primary challenge to Perry recalled being stunned at the way attacks bounced off the governor in a strongly conservative state gripped by tea party fever. Multiple former Hutchison advisers recalled asking a focus group about the charge that Perry may have presided over the execution of an innocent man -- Cameron Todd Willingham -- and got this response from a primary voter: "It takes balls to execute an innocent man."
The Willingham case is just one episode in Perry's gubernatorial tenure that could be revived against him in the very different context of a national race, potentially compromising him in a general election.
Oh, please. I think the American public is far less conservative than current insider conventional wisdom would tell you it is, but compassion for the wrongly incarcerated -- and executed -- has never, ever penetrated the national consciousness. I used to think that was because of widespread fear of crime, but crime dropped in the last twenty years and the indifference to abuses of the criminal justice system persists. I assume it's a just-world-theory thing -- even reasonable, non-rage-junkie (i.e., non-Republican) Americans can't really believe that people convicted of felonies did nothing to deserve their fate.
Americans didn't care about Ricky Ray Rector. They won't care about Cameron Todd Willingham.
ACTUALLY, NON-WINGNUT AMERICANS AREN'T ALL THAT NEGATIVE ABOUT THE DEBT DEAL (but the misperception helps wingnuts)
Look, I was furious at the debt-ceiling hostage crisis, I'm disgusted at the outcome, and I'm appalled that hostage-taking is going to be a template for Washington's future attempts to deal with this and other issues. But an agreement was reached, right-wingers got 98% of what they wanted rather than 100%, and the public is much more content with the result than you're being told: apart from right-wingers, the public isn't all that horrified by the outcome.
Why does that matter?
This is a confusing point I'm trying to make. Bear with me.
It matters because once again, as in the fight over the health care law, Republicans made the battle extremely ugly; then, after the fight was over, polls were taken, Republicans expressed near-universal opposition, everyone else expressed a combination of support, opposition, and befuddlement -- yet the common perception is that everyone hates the result.
****
I'm saying all this is response to a USA Today/Gallup poll. Here's USA Today on the results:
The hard-won, last-minute agreement to raise the debt ceiling and cut the deficit gets low ratings from Americans, who by more than 2-1 predict it will make the nation's fragile economy worse rather than better.
Actually, neither of those statements is quite accurate. If you look at Gallup's write-up of the poll, you see that approval/disapproval is 39%/46%, with 15% offering no opinion. I'd say 39%/46% is reasonably close to par. I'm surprised that that's the case, but that's the case.
And everyone but conservatives approves of the deal -- liberals by 51%-35%, moderates by 48%-32%. Only conservatives reject it, 64%-26%. (Those numbers are bizarre, I know, but there they are.)
And as for that prediction -- "Americans ... by more than 2-1 predict it will make the nation's fragile economy worse rather than better" -- well, no, they don't, really. A total of 41% say it will make the economy worse, 17% say it will make the economy better, and 33% say it will have no effect. So 50% say it will help or do nothing.
****
Non-conservative voters are confused -- but they're relieved that some sort of agreement was reached and that Democrats and Republicans managed to come together. They don't think it'll help the economy, but voters in general don't think anything ever helps the economy anymore. (I can't say I blame them.)
The spin of this poll as overwhelmingly negative helps Republicans and the right because Republicans invariably run for office as people outside the process -- they invariably run against Washington. I wish voters understood the debt deal better -- I wish they were disgusted, for the right reasons -- but the fact is, they're not all that put off by the outcome. They're as put off as they were by the outcome of the health care fight -- not thrilled, far from positive, but far from universally negative. Saying that "everyone hates Washington," however, plays into the GOP's carefully crafted outsider-party image. So this poll helps Republicans.
Look, I was furious at the debt-ceiling hostage crisis, I'm disgusted at the outcome, and I'm appalled that hostage-taking is going to be a template for Washington's future attempts to deal with this and other issues. But an agreement was reached, right-wingers got 98% of what they wanted rather than 100%, and the public is much more content with the result than you're being told: apart from right-wingers, the public isn't all that horrified by the outcome.
Why does that matter?
This is a confusing point I'm trying to make. Bear with me.
It matters because once again, as in the fight over the health care law, Republicans made the battle extremely ugly; then, after the fight was over, polls were taken, Republicans expressed near-universal opposition, everyone else expressed a combination of support, opposition, and befuddlement -- yet the common perception is that everyone hates the result.
****
I'm saying all this is response to a USA Today/Gallup poll. Here's USA Today on the results:
The hard-won, last-minute agreement to raise the debt ceiling and cut the deficit gets low ratings from Americans, who by more than 2-1 predict it will make the nation's fragile economy worse rather than better.
Actually, neither of those statements is quite accurate. If you look at Gallup's write-up of the poll, you see that approval/disapproval is 39%/46%, with 15% offering no opinion. I'd say 39%/46% is reasonably close to par. I'm surprised that that's the case, but that's the case.
And everyone but conservatives approves of the deal -- liberals by 51%-35%, moderates by 48%-32%. Only conservatives reject it, 64%-26%. (Those numbers are bizarre, I know, but there they are.)
And as for that prediction -- "Americans ... by more than 2-1 predict it will make the nation's fragile economy worse rather than better" -- well, no, they don't, really. A total of 41% say it will make the economy worse, 17% say it will make the economy better, and 33% say it will have no effect. So 50% say it will help or do nothing.
****
Non-conservative voters are confused -- but they're relieved that some sort of agreement was reached and that Democrats and Republicans managed to come together. They don't think it'll help the economy, but voters in general don't think anything ever helps the economy anymore. (I can't say I blame them.)
The spin of this poll as overwhelmingly negative helps Republicans and the right because Republicans invariably run for office as people outside the process -- they invariably run against Washington. I wish voters understood the debt deal better -- I wish they were disgusted, for the right reasons -- but the fact is, they're not all that put off by the outcome. They're as put off as they were by the outcome of the health care fight -- not thrilled, far from positive, but far from universally negative. Saying that "everyone hates Washington," however, plays into the GOP's carefully crafted outsider-party image. So this poll helps Republicans.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
TEABAGGERS ATTEMPT TO SET ALL-TIME HUMAN SHAMELESSNESS RECORD
If they can get away with this, after what they spent 2009 and 2010 bitching about, then their ability to gull the public is limitless:
Tea Party To Push Paul Ryan Medicare Plan In Town Halls
... Thousands of Tea Party movement activists are expected to descend this month on town hall meetings across key battleground states as part of an intensifying campaign ahead of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.
Their priority is a plan to slash Medicare costs proposed by House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, which could gain momentum now that a debt-limit deal between President Barack Obama and Congress has made potential Medicare cuts a centerpiece of the deficit debate....
"The August town halls are going to be, potentially, a referendum on Democrats who don't care and Republicans who've dared to offer real policy solutions, particularly on things like entitlements," said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks....
The unbelievable chutzpah. They whine for a couple of years about how Obama better keep his filthy Kenyan hands off their Medicare, and now their Koch masters are going to try to trot them out as an Astroturf army, no doubt arguing (as Ryan and other Republicans already have) that the Ryan plan is the plan that saves Medicare, while not doing what Ryan wants will destroy it.
Will the rank-and-file 'baggers actually do as their bid? I won't be surprised if they do.
And if they do, they probably don't need a complete PR triumph to have a pro-GOP impact at the polls in 2012 -- they just need to sow doubt:
Robert Blendon, who teaches health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, says elderly voters fear the Ryan plan could undermine support for Medicare among younger taxpayers by denying current benefits to future retirees.
But the current Democratic edge might disappear quickly if elderly voters associated Obama with program cuts that could come under the deficit-cutting deal.
"If their take-away is that neither party stood up for us, Medicare won't play a big role," said Blendon....
Exactly. The debt-ceiling deal undermines the Democrats' advantage, and now here come the Kochistas to confuse us about whose plans gut Medicare more. The Republicans are still the bigger Medicare-gutters by far, but as long as the public is in a state of uncertainty about that, the Kochsters have us just where they want us.
If they can get away with this, after what they spent 2009 and 2010 bitching about, then their ability to gull the public is limitless:
Tea Party To Push Paul Ryan Medicare Plan In Town Halls
... Thousands of Tea Party movement activists are expected to descend this month on town hall meetings across key battleground states as part of an intensifying campaign ahead of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.
Their priority is a plan to slash Medicare costs proposed by House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, which could gain momentum now that a debt-limit deal between President Barack Obama and Congress has made potential Medicare cuts a centerpiece of the deficit debate....
"The August town halls are going to be, potentially, a referendum on Democrats who don't care and Republicans who've dared to offer real policy solutions, particularly on things like entitlements," said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks....
The unbelievable chutzpah. They whine for a couple of years about how Obama better keep his filthy Kenyan hands off their Medicare, and now their Koch masters are going to try to trot them out as an Astroturf army, no doubt arguing (as Ryan and other Republicans already have) that the Ryan plan is the plan that saves Medicare, while not doing what Ryan wants will destroy it.
Will the rank-and-file 'baggers actually do as their bid? I won't be surprised if they do.
And if they do, they probably don't need a complete PR triumph to have a pro-GOP impact at the polls in 2012 -- they just need to sow doubt:
Robert Blendon, who teaches health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, says elderly voters fear the Ryan plan could undermine support for Medicare among younger taxpayers by denying current benefits to future retirees.
But the current Democratic edge might disappear quickly if elderly voters associated Obama with program cuts that could come under the deficit-cutting deal.
"If their take-away is that neither party stood up for us, Medicare won't play a big role," said Blendon....
Exactly. The debt-ceiling deal undermines the Democrats' advantage, and now here come the Kochistas to confuse us about whose plans gut Medicare more. The Republicans are still the bigger Medicare-gutters by far, but as long as the public is in a state of uncertainty about that, the Kochsters have us just where they want us.
I HEAR SHE ALSO INVENTED THE REMIX
You've gotta love the brazenness of this, from Fox Nation:
The Foxsters are so sure their fanboys and fangirls won't question anything they say, ever, that they feel comfortable arguing that Obama stole Palin's idea of a bus tour, which she conducted early this year, while illustrating it with a photo of Obama's bus tour of three years ago, with an "Obama '08" poster to prove the date. Hey, the Kenyan trickster is so devious he not only ripped Palin off, he went back in time to do it! And now he's doing it again, in normal time! Is there no limit to his fiendishness?
Never mind the fact that the guy who plucked Palin from obscurity did a bus tour eleven years ago, or that Bill Clinton and Al Gore did one eight years before that. They all went back in time to rip Palin off! Yeah, really!
You've gotta love the brazenness of this, from Fox Nation:
The Foxsters are so sure their fanboys and fangirls won't question anything they say, ever, that they feel comfortable arguing that Obama stole Palin's idea of a bus tour, which she conducted early this year, while illustrating it with a photo of Obama's bus tour of three years ago, with an "Obama '08" poster to prove the date. Hey, the Kenyan trickster is so devious he not only ripped Palin off, he went back in time to do it! And now he's doing it again, in normal time! Is there no limit to his fiendishness?
Never mind the fact that the guy who plucked Palin from obscurity did a bus tour eleven years ago, or that Bill Clinton and Al Gore did one eight years before that. They all went back in time to rip Palin off! Yeah, really!
WHAT PLANET IS MICHAEL SHEAR LIVING ON?
Michael Shear, writing for The New York Times:
If there was any doubt that Washington's acrimonious debt fight created a new political reality, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky dashed it on Tuesday....
"Never again will any president, from either party, be allowed to raise the debt ceiling without being held accountable for it by the American people and without having to engage in the kind of debate we’ve just come through," Mr. McConnell said moments before the Senate vote on the deal he worked out to raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion.
... it's not only Republican members of Congress who might take advantage of the debt ceiling.
Given the proven power of the issue, it is not hard to imagine a future in which a Democratic minority finds it in their interests to advance a top priority by threatening to hold up a debt ceiling increase for a Republican president....
It's not hard to imagine a future in which Democrats play hardball? Ridiculous. It's incredibly hard to imagine a future in which Democrats play hardball. In fact, it's impossible to imagine such a future, unless we someday have a Democratic Party so different from the current one that we can't even recognize it as a descendant.
Over what? A war? Sure, we finally established, in 2006 and 2008, that opposing a war wasn't instant political suicide for Democrats, but use the debt ceiling to try to end a war and you'll be met by cries of You're not supporting the troops!!! (Even if that means you're not supporting the right of the troops to die in a military exercise that's pointless.)
To save Social Security and Medicare? Every Deeply Serious Person in America will just tell you they're unsustainable. Half of your own party will abandon such an effort if it's linked to debt.
Oh, and besides, the public still thinks all debt problems can be solved by cutting waste. So it'll never happen.
Michael Shear, writing for The New York Times:
If there was any doubt that Washington's acrimonious debt fight created a new political reality, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky dashed it on Tuesday....
"Never again will any president, from either party, be allowed to raise the debt ceiling without being held accountable for it by the American people and without having to engage in the kind of debate we’ve just come through," Mr. McConnell said moments before the Senate vote on the deal he worked out to raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion.
... it's not only Republican members of Congress who might take advantage of the debt ceiling.
Given the proven power of the issue, it is not hard to imagine a future in which a Democratic minority finds it in their interests to advance a top priority by threatening to hold up a debt ceiling increase for a Republican president....
It's not hard to imagine a future in which Democrats play hardball? Ridiculous. It's incredibly hard to imagine a future in which Democrats play hardball. In fact, it's impossible to imagine such a future, unless we someday have a Democratic Party so different from the current one that we can't even recognize it as a descendant.
Over what? A war? Sure, we finally established, in 2006 and 2008, that opposing a war wasn't instant political suicide for Democrats, but use the debt ceiling to try to end a war and you'll be met by cries of You're not supporting the troops!!! (Even if that means you're not supporting the right of the troops to die in a military exercise that's pointless.)
To save Social Security and Medicare? Every Deeply Serious Person in America will just tell you they're unsustainable. Half of your own party will abandon such an effort if it's linked to debt.
Oh, and besides, the public still thinks all debt problems can be solved by cutting waste. So it'll never happen.
FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME: THERE IS MORE TO POLITICS THAN ELECTIONS
David Atkins writes this over at Digby's place (emphasis added):
Certainly, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the President, like President Clinton before him, actively wants to bring about policies that span from neoliberal to downright conservative. There is also a great deal of evidence to suggest that the modern GOP is a uniquely destructive force in the history of modern American politics, forcing Presidents Obama and Clinton both to make a series of Hobson's choices. While the latter theory increasingly strains credibility in the face of mounting evidence for the former, both theories are probably correct to at least a certain degree.
But ultimately this argument that consumes so much energy and passion within progressive circles both online and offline is irrelevant. Because in the end it matters little if conservative policies are brought about under Democratic administrations through weakness or ill intent. The end result is the same, as are the difficult decisions faced by progressives: attempt to change the Democratic Party both from within and without, or attempt to destroy it and subvert the two-party system.
What irks me is that last sentence, because it suggests that nothing can possibly happen in American politics except via elections, and so there's no point in doing anything politically except focus on pols. That's a fundamental mistake lefties are making right now.
I've said this before -- repeatedly, I think -- but I'll say it again: the most successful progressive movement of the last 60 years was the civil rights movement, and it didn't focus obsessively on elections. Get JFK elected and we'll be free! Primary JFK because he's not moving fast enough! That's not what the civil rights movement did. The civil rights movement focused on issues -- voting rights, desegregation of schools and lunch counters and buses and bus terminals, and on and on. Any interest in elections was in the service of the movement's goals; it wasn't the other way around, the way it always seems to be with lefties today. And there were great successes.
And the most successful progressive movement of the past thirty years is the gay rights movement -- which, again, focused primarily on issues (AIDS awareness and funding, equal access to military service, marriage equality) and only secondarily on electing or primarying pols.
We need to raise the issues. We need to make what we do about issues. We need to make the political political establishment sit up and take notice.
(Atkins link via They Gave Us a Republic...)
David Atkins writes this over at Digby's place (emphasis added):
Certainly, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the President, like President Clinton before him, actively wants to bring about policies that span from neoliberal to downright conservative. There is also a great deal of evidence to suggest that the modern GOP is a uniquely destructive force in the history of modern American politics, forcing Presidents Obama and Clinton both to make a series of Hobson's choices. While the latter theory increasingly strains credibility in the face of mounting evidence for the former, both theories are probably correct to at least a certain degree.
But ultimately this argument that consumes so much energy and passion within progressive circles both online and offline is irrelevant. Because in the end it matters little if conservative policies are brought about under Democratic administrations through weakness or ill intent. The end result is the same, as are the difficult decisions faced by progressives: attempt to change the Democratic Party both from within and without, or attempt to destroy it and subvert the two-party system.
What irks me is that last sentence, because it suggests that nothing can possibly happen in American politics except via elections, and so there's no point in doing anything politically except focus on pols. That's a fundamental mistake lefties are making right now.
I've said this before -- repeatedly, I think -- but I'll say it again: the most successful progressive movement of the last 60 years was the civil rights movement, and it didn't focus obsessively on elections. Get JFK elected and we'll be free! Primary JFK because he's not moving fast enough! That's not what the civil rights movement did. The civil rights movement focused on issues -- voting rights, desegregation of schools and lunch counters and buses and bus terminals, and on and on. Any interest in elections was in the service of the movement's goals; it wasn't the other way around, the way it always seems to be with lefties today. And there were great successes.
And the most successful progressive movement of the past thirty years is the gay rights movement -- which, again, focused primarily on issues (AIDS awareness and funding, equal access to military service, marriage equality) and only secondarily on electing or primarying pols.
We need to raise the issues. We need to make what we do about issues. We need to make the political political establishment sit up and take notice.
(Atkins link via They Gave Us a Republic...)
A PARTY FULL OF OBAMAS
Barack Obama has been widely criticized for being a lousy negotiator and for giving away far more to the Republicans in the debt-ceiling fight than a shrewder person would have conceded, often preemptively.
But why are we ascribing this fault to Obama when the preemptive-concession disease is rampant in his party?
Yesterday, you may recall, Jonathan Bernstein was blogging over at The Washington Post, and he wrote this about Republicans:
Rather than caring about policy, they appear to care more about symbolism, such as a Balanced Budget Amendment, than about actual policy.
Symbolism? Well, guess what: symbolism just took one step closer to becoming policy, thanks to Stockholm Syndrome Democrats:
Moderate Senate Dems prepare a balanced budget amendment
One of the big victories by tea-party Republicans in the debt-ceiling measure signed into law Tuesday was securing a requirement that Congress vote later this year on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
The measure would need a two-thirds vote in each chamber, and then ratification by 38 states, to succeed. And most observers believe passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate is all but impossible.
Enter Sen. Mark Udall, the centrist Democrat from Colorado, who has introduced an amendment proposal and said Tuesday that Democratic leaders have chosen his legislation to be considered in the fall....
Udall's bill has a Social Security "lockbox" (which will inspire a billion "Algore" jokes from the wingnut right) and a provision that "prohibits Congress from providing income tax breaks for people earning over $1 million a year unless the country is enjoying budget surpluses" (which will be declared a tax increase), so it will be mocked as hopelessly "liberal" -- and yet its very existence, and Democratic pedigree, moves the discussion on balanced budgets to the right at the worst possible time to start balancing budgets, and thus moves the far more draconian GOP approach a few steps closer to enactment. Thanks, centrist Dems -- and Senate Democratic leaders -- for the preemptive surrender.
****
But it's always like this, isn't it? David Dayen points out at Firedoglake that in 2009, long before Republicans tried to burn down the country by tying a debt-ceiling increase to huge spending cuts, a group of senators -- three Republicans and four Democrats, plus Joe Lieberman -- announced that they wouldn't vote for a debt-ceiling increase unless a deficit commission was also formed. President Obama eventually created a commission by executive order, and a clean debt-ceiling increase was enacted -- but that was the template for the recent GOP terrorist incident in D.C., and it came, in part, from Senators Conrad, Lieberman, Bayh, Warner, and Feinstein. Preemptive surrender -- again.
****
But why shouldn't the Democratic Party be our other Republican Party? It's not as if we in the public are giving elected Democrats any indication that we want progressive change -- at least not in proportions that match those of our enemies:
A telephone poll by the Pew Research Center for People and Press found that Republicans and Tea Party-affiliated respondents both paid more attention to the debt negotiations and were more likely to take action to influence the outcome.
Some 66% of the two groups followed news on the issue closely versus only 34% of those who had different views or did not offer a political opinion. Nor were they passive observers: some 66% of Republicans and Tea Partiers contacted an elected official during the standoff while only 5% of the rest did the same. This despite a direct appeal from President Obama to do exactly that.
As was the case in the midterm election, age was a crucial factor. Only 19% of 18-29 year-olds followed the story closely and 1% contacted an official versus 54% of those over 50 who followed the debate and 16% who contacted an official.
So maybe we're getting the Democratic Party we deserve.
Barack Obama has been widely criticized for being a lousy negotiator and for giving away far more to the Republicans in the debt-ceiling fight than a shrewder person would have conceded, often preemptively.
But why are we ascribing this fault to Obama when the preemptive-concession disease is rampant in his party?
Yesterday, you may recall, Jonathan Bernstein was blogging over at The Washington Post, and he wrote this about Republicans:
Rather than caring about policy, they appear to care more about symbolism, such as a Balanced Budget Amendment, than about actual policy.
Symbolism? Well, guess what: symbolism just took one step closer to becoming policy, thanks to Stockholm Syndrome Democrats:
Moderate Senate Dems prepare a balanced budget amendment
One of the big victories by tea-party Republicans in the debt-ceiling measure signed into law Tuesday was securing a requirement that Congress vote later this year on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
The measure would need a two-thirds vote in each chamber, and then ratification by 38 states, to succeed. And most observers believe passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate is all but impossible.
Enter Sen. Mark Udall, the centrist Democrat from Colorado, who has introduced an amendment proposal and said Tuesday that Democratic leaders have chosen his legislation to be considered in the fall....
Udall's bill has a Social Security "lockbox" (which will inspire a billion "Algore" jokes from the wingnut right) and a provision that "prohibits Congress from providing income tax breaks for people earning over $1 million a year unless the country is enjoying budget surpluses" (which will be declared a tax increase), so it will be mocked as hopelessly "liberal" -- and yet its very existence, and Democratic pedigree, moves the discussion on balanced budgets to the right at the worst possible time to start balancing budgets, and thus moves the far more draconian GOP approach a few steps closer to enactment. Thanks, centrist Dems -- and Senate Democratic leaders -- for the preemptive surrender.
****
But it's always like this, isn't it? David Dayen points out at Firedoglake that in 2009, long before Republicans tried to burn down the country by tying a debt-ceiling increase to huge spending cuts, a group of senators -- three Republicans and four Democrats, plus Joe Lieberman -- announced that they wouldn't vote for a debt-ceiling increase unless a deficit commission was also formed. President Obama eventually created a commission by executive order, and a clean debt-ceiling increase was enacted -- but that was the template for the recent GOP terrorist incident in D.C., and it came, in part, from Senators Conrad, Lieberman, Bayh, Warner, and Feinstein. Preemptive surrender -- again.
****
But why shouldn't the Democratic Party be our other Republican Party? It's not as if we in the public are giving elected Democrats any indication that we want progressive change -- at least not in proportions that match those of our enemies:
A telephone poll by the Pew Research Center for People and Press found that Republicans and Tea Party-affiliated respondents both paid more attention to the debt negotiations and were more likely to take action to influence the outcome.
Some 66% of the two groups followed news on the issue closely versus only 34% of those who had different views or did not offer a political opinion. Nor were they passive observers: some 66% of Republicans and Tea Partiers contacted an elected official during the standoff while only 5% of the rest did the same. This despite a direct appeal from President Obama to do exactly that.
As was the case in the midterm election, age was a crucial factor. Only 19% of 18-29 year-olds followed the story closely and 1% contacted an official versus 54% of those over 50 who followed the debate and 16% who contacted an official.
So maybe we're getting the Democratic Party we deserve.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
MAYBE NOW LIBERALS WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT ORDINARY PEOPLE THINK, AND TAILOR THEIR MESSAGE ACCORDINGLY
Greg Sargent seems appalled at the polling on the debt deal (from a CNN survey; PDF of results here):
Sixty five percent approve of deal's spending cuts. But it gets worse. Of the 30 percent who disapprove, 13 percent think the cuts haven’t gotten far enough, and only 15 percent think the cuts go too far. One sixth of Americans agree with the liberal argument about the deal.
Yes, the poll also found that 60 percent disapprove of the deal’s lack of high-end tax hikes. Yes, approval of the GOP is lower than that of Obama or Dems. Such findings have led many, myself included, to conclude that Dems were winning the P.R war in this fight in particular.
But the public disapproves of everyone's handling of this mess. And while the public wanted the rich to kick in more, the poll finds that a plurality (49-42) believes the deal will help the economy, meaning a plurality believes the Republican argument that spending cuts are good economic policy.
But this isn't surprising at all. Anyone who pays any attention to ordinary people's opinions about government spending knows that they think there's massive, massive waste. And of course they think that. For years they've been told that government spending is done wastefully -- not just by the tea party or Fox or Limbaugh or Reagan, but even before Reagan. Anyone out there old enough to remember Senator William Proxmire and his "Golden Fleece Awards," which he announced regularly starting in the 1970s? He helped set the template for how most Americans think about government spending, highlighting programs that weren't the big government expenditures but were easily mocked. And now there are Proxmires everywhere you look. So naturally the public thinks government money is spent wastefully.
If you poll Americans on actual big-ticket government programs, they generally say they want them retained. So what you have to do to swing voters around to liberalism is to persuade them that the percentage of waste in government spending really isn't anywhere near what they think it is.
You'd also have to explain that government shouldn't manage its finances the way a family does -- it really should spend more, and run deficits, in tough times, in a prudent fashion. But that would entail explaining why Keynesianism actually works.
It might be better to demonstrate that by example. We wouldn't be having this anti-Keynesian moment right now if the public believed that the programs started by the current Democratic president actually worked. Did they see much infrastructure being repaired? Did a significant number of people get mortgage modifications? Are jobs being created as a result of government incentives? Has the health care bill done anything for the vast majority of Americans?
Liberals of the wonkish persuasion, both in government (especially in the White House) and outside of government, think that if they and their friends understand intellectually that a government program works, then most non-tea party America also understands that. Bollocks -- the public needs to see results. Failing that, the public needs to have results pointed out. (The auto bailout worked, right? Does most of America have any idea how well?)
Defend government. Do government better. Then you won't get poll results like this.
Greg Sargent seems appalled at the polling on the debt deal (from a CNN survey; PDF of results here):
Sixty five percent approve of deal's spending cuts. But it gets worse. Of the 30 percent who disapprove, 13 percent think the cuts haven’t gotten far enough, and only 15 percent think the cuts go too far. One sixth of Americans agree with the liberal argument about the deal.
Yes, the poll also found that 60 percent disapprove of the deal’s lack of high-end tax hikes. Yes, approval of the GOP is lower than that of Obama or Dems. Such findings have led many, myself included, to conclude that Dems were winning the P.R war in this fight in particular.
But the public disapproves of everyone's handling of this mess. And while the public wanted the rich to kick in more, the poll finds that a plurality (49-42) believes the deal will help the economy, meaning a plurality believes the Republican argument that spending cuts are good economic policy.
But this isn't surprising at all. Anyone who pays any attention to ordinary people's opinions about government spending knows that they think there's massive, massive waste. And of course they think that. For years they've been told that government spending is done wastefully -- not just by the tea party or Fox or Limbaugh or Reagan, but even before Reagan. Anyone out there old enough to remember Senator William Proxmire and his "Golden Fleece Awards," which he announced regularly starting in the 1970s? He helped set the template for how most Americans think about government spending, highlighting programs that weren't the big government expenditures but were easily mocked. And now there are Proxmires everywhere you look. So naturally the public thinks government money is spent wastefully.
If you poll Americans on actual big-ticket government programs, they generally say they want them retained. So what you have to do to swing voters around to liberalism is to persuade them that the percentage of waste in government spending really isn't anywhere near what they think it is.
You'd also have to explain that government shouldn't manage its finances the way a family does -- it really should spend more, and run deficits, in tough times, in a prudent fashion. But that would entail explaining why Keynesianism actually works.
It might be better to demonstrate that by example. We wouldn't be having this anti-Keynesian moment right now if the public believed that the programs started by the current Democratic president actually worked. Did they see much infrastructure being repaired? Did a significant number of people get mortgage modifications? Are jobs being created as a result of government incentives? Has the health care bill done anything for the vast majority of Americans?
Liberals of the wonkish persuasion, both in government (especially in the White House) and outside of government, think that if they and their friends understand intellectually that a government program works, then most non-tea party America also understands that. Bollocks -- the public needs to see results. Failing that, the public needs to have results pointed out. (The auto bailout worked, right? Does most of America have any idea how well?)
Defend government. Do government better. Then you won't get poll results like this.
BUT ... BUT ... THAT KINDLY, CIRCUMSPECT DICK CHENEY WOULD NEVER SAY SUCH A THING!
Jonah Goldberg whines:
Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.
... imagine if this was Dick Cheney calling the Progressive Caucus (or whatever they’re called) a “bunch of terrorists” on the day Giffords returned to the Congress.
Yes, try really, really hard to imagine that -- even though it's almost impossible to conceive of such an unlikely event:
Vice President Cheney [said] the domestic debate over the [Iraq] war is emboldening adversaries who believe they can undermine the resolve of the American people....
The vice president said U.S. allies in Afghanistan and Iraq "have doubts" the United States will finish the job there. "And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we've had in the United States," he said. "Suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists." ...
Ah, but the timing. What's so galling about Biden's remark (or alleged remark, because it was reported secondhand, and Biden denies saying it) is the timing. So, um, when was it that Cheney uttered this blood libel, accusing every critic of the Bush foreign policy of giving aid and comfort to terrorist mass murderers and forces hostile to U.S. troops?
Cheney's appearance came on the eve of the five-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks....
I'm looking in vain for a Goldberg denunciation of this strikingly timed accusation of treason. Hey, where's your single standard of outrage, Jonah?
Jonah Goldberg whines:
Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.
... imagine if this was Dick Cheney calling the Progressive Caucus (or whatever they’re called) a “bunch of terrorists” on the day Giffords returned to the Congress.
Yes, try really, really hard to imagine that -- even though it's almost impossible to conceive of such an unlikely event:
Vice President Cheney [said] the domestic debate over the [Iraq] war is emboldening adversaries who believe they can undermine the resolve of the American people....
The vice president said U.S. allies in Afghanistan and Iraq "have doubts" the United States will finish the job there. "And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we've had in the United States," he said. "Suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists." ...
Ah, but the timing. What's so galling about Biden's remark (or alleged remark, because it was reported secondhand, and Biden denies saying it) is the timing. So, um, when was it that Cheney uttered this blood libel, accusing every critic of the Bush foreign policy of giving aid and comfort to terrorist mass murderers and forces hostile to U.S. troops?
Cheney's appearance came on the eve of the five-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks....
I'm looking in vain for a Goldberg denunciation of this strikingly timed accusation of treason. Hey, where's your single standard of outrage, Jonah?
RENDERING THE COUNTRY UNGOVERNABLE ISN'T WHAT CRAZY PEOPLE DO -- IT'S WHAT TERRORISTS DO
Steve Benen directs us to this post from Jonathan Bernstein:
... One of the things that you’re going to be reading plenty of, particularly when the budget battles kick in again this fall, is that the American democratic system is broken.
... I do think there’s something broken, and it isn’t the system: it's the GOP. The problem isn’t that they're very conservative. Even a party with policy preferences to the right of Rand Paul could, in theory, manage to bargain with even a very liberal Democratic Party. The problem, rather, is that the GOP's incentives are skewed. Rather than caring about policy, they appear to care more about symbolism, such as a Balanced Budget Amendment, than about actual policy. Rather than caring about cutting the best deal they can get, they appear to care more about proving their loyalty to the cause (they refused to deal on health care even though so doing might have gotten them more of what they wanted). This requires them to oppose Democratic presidents regardless of what it means in substantive gains or losses.
The result is that Republicans wind up following the lead of hucksters and talk show hosts, even when it leads them to strange places....
In his post, Steve agrees, adds a few examples, and arrives at a conclusion:
... Our federal courts are a mess because new judges can't be confirmed. Our Senate is a mess because of procedural abuses with no modern precedent. Our House is a mess because it's been overrun by mad men. Our executive branch is struggling with a series of hostage strategies, in which the president would rather pay the ransom than watch the country burn.
... the system breaks down when one of the parties goes berserk. We’re not in a broken-down car; we're in a perfectly good car with a crazy person in the passenger seat recklessly grabbing the steering wheel at inopportune times....
But this isn't crazy. It's strategic. (And it works, by the way.)
This strategy accomplishes two things, which work in tandem: it renders the country ungovernable whenever Democrats are seen as the people doing the governing (which is what terrorists try to do to legitimate governments) and it pushes unthinkable ideas, such as enacting a Balanced Budget Amendment or effectively dismantling the social safety net in a period of severe recession, into the mainstream (which can then be acted upon when the voters react to chaos under Democratic rule by electing Republicans).
It wouldn't work if the voters understood that Republicans are the problem, but saying that has long been taboo -- the mainstream press would much rather say that the dysfunction is everyone's fault, and Democrats never simply say, It's the Republican Party, stupid.
Republicans know they're never blamed for the chaos they create -- in fact, they know they're rewarded for it -- so they keep creating it. That's not crazy, that's savvy -- if you're a canny, calculating, high-functioning psychopath, or a terrorist.
Steve Benen directs us to this post from Jonathan Bernstein:
... One of the things that you’re going to be reading plenty of, particularly when the budget battles kick in again this fall, is that the American democratic system is broken.
... I do think there’s something broken, and it isn’t the system: it's the GOP. The problem isn’t that they're very conservative. Even a party with policy preferences to the right of Rand Paul could, in theory, manage to bargain with even a very liberal Democratic Party. The problem, rather, is that the GOP's incentives are skewed. Rather than caring about policy, they appear to care more about symbolism, such as a Balanced Budget Amendment, than about actual policy. Rather than caring about cutting the best deal they can get, they appear to care more about proving their loyalty to the cause (they refused to deal on health care even though so doing might have gotten them more of what they wanted). This requires them to oppose Democratic presidents regardless of what it means in substantive gains or losses.
The result is that Republicans wind up following the lead of hucksters and talk show hosts, even when it leads them to strange places....
In his post, Steve agrees, adds a few examples, and arrives at a conclusion:
... Our federal courts are a mess because new judges can't be confirmed. Our Senate is a mess because of procedural abuses with no modern precedent. Our House is a mess because it's been overrun by mad men. Our executive branch is struggling with a series of hostage strategies, in which the president would rather pay the ransom than watch the country burn.
... the system breaks down when one of the parties goes berserk. We’re not in a broken-down car; we're in a perfectly good car with a crazy person in the passenger seat recklessly grabbing the steering wheel at inopportune times....
But this isn't crazy. It's strategic. (And it works, by the way.)
This strategy accomplishes two things, which work in tandem: it renders the country ungovernable whenever Democrats are seen as the people doing the governing (which is what terrorists try to do to legitimate governments) and it pushes unthinkable ideas, such as enacting a Balanced Budget Amendment or effectively dismantling the social safety net in a period of severe recession, into the mainstream (which can then be acted upon when the voters react to chaos under Democratic rule by electing Republicans).
It wouldn't work if the voters understood that Republicans are the problem, but saying that has long been taboo -- the mainstream press would much rather say that the dysfunction is everyone's fault, and Democrats never simply say, It's the Republican Party, stupid.
Republicans know they're never blamed for the chaos they create -- in fact, they know they're rewarded for it -- so they keep creating it. That's not crazy, that's savvy -- if you're a canny, calculating, high-functioning psychopath, or a terrorist.
THE DEBT CRISIS IS THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE GOP PRESIDENTIAL FIELD
If all of America is like the swing state of Pennsylvania, as depicted in Quinnipiac's polling, then the debt hostage crisis worked out just as well as could be expected for the GOP presidential candidates: President Obama is diminished; voters blame both parties -- in almost exactly the same proportions -- rather than one party over the other; and the GOP presidential candidates, who were mostly in hiding as the crisis went on, are surging:
The protracted slugfest over raising the national debt limit leaves President Barack Obama with a 54 - 43 percent disapproval among Pennsylvania voters....
Looking at the other players in the national debt debate, Pennsylvania voters:
* Disapprove 68 - 28 percent of the job Republicans in Congress are doing;
* Disapprove 67 - 28 percent of Democrats in Congress.
Pennsylvania voters say 52 - 42 percent that Obama does not deserve to be reelected. Matching the president against possible Republican challengers shows:
* Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 44 percent to Obama's 42 percent;
* Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with 43 percent to Obama's 45 percent;
* Obama leads Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann 47 - 39 percent;
* Obama tops Texas Gov. Rick Perry 45 - 39 percent.
... A June 15 Quinnipiac University survey showed Obama topping Romney 47 - 40 percent in Pennsylvania and leading Santorum 49 - 38 percent....
So Romney and local boy Santorum have eached gained 9 points on Obama in 7 weeks. (Matchups of Obama-Bachmann and Obama-Perry weren't included in the June 15 poll.)
Yeah, I suppose this debt-crisis effect will be transitory. But it's a reminder of how easy it's going to be for the GOP to beat Obama: just keep creating legislative stalemates, keep voters disgusted with Washington (because Democrats, of course, will never succeed in focusing the anger on Republicans), and then watch the perceived "outsiders" -- Romney, Perry, probably even Bachmann -- clean up.
If all of America is like the swing state of Pennsylvania, as depicted in Quinnipiac's polling, then the debt hostage crisis worked out just as well as could be expected for the GOP presidential candidates: President Obama is diminished; voters blame both parties -- in almost exactly the same proportions -- rather than one party over the other; and the GOP presidential candidates, who were mostly in hiding as the crisis went on, are surging:
The protracted slugfest over raising the national debt limit leaves President Barack Obama with a 54 - 43 percent disapproval among Pennsylvania voters....
Looking at the other players in the national debt debate, Pennsylvania voters:
* Disapprove 68 - 28 percent of the job Republicans in Congress are doing;
* Disapprove 67 - 28 percent of Democrats in Congress.
Pennsylvania voters say 52 - 42 percent that Obama does not deserve to be reelected. Matching the president against possible Republican challengers shows:
* Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 44 percent to Obama's 42 percent;
* Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with 43 percent to Obama's 45 percent;
* Obama leads Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann 47 - 39 percent;
* Obama tops Texas Gov. Rick Perry 45 - 39 percent.
... A June 15 Quinnipiac University survey showed Obama topping Romney 47 - 40 percent in Pennsylvania and leading Santorum 49 - 38 percent....
So Romney and local boy Santorum have eached gained 9 points on Obama in 7 weeks. (Matchups of Obama-Bachmann and Obama-Perry weren't included in the June 15 poll.)
Yeah, I suppose this debt-crisis effect will be transitory. But it's a reminder of how easy it's going to be for the GOP to beat Obama: just keep creating legislative stalemates, keep voters disgusted with Washington (because Democrats, of course, will never succeed in focusing the anger on Republicans), and then watch the perceived "outsiders" -- Romney, Perry, probably even Bachmann -- clean up.
SO WHAT ARE THE USUAL INFANTILE TROUBLEMAKERS DOING IN THE BACK OF THE CLASS?
Weasel Zippers and the Lonely Conservative, following the lead of the stupidest person in the blogosphere, Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit, are guffawing and throwing paper and belching the alphabet in the back row of the class because they think this is hilarious:
You just can't make this up.
Oaf Joe Biden told reporters he joked with shooting victim about "cracked heads."
"She's now a member of the cracked head club like me."
ABC reported:
Apparently our little hooligans are unaware that Biden nearly died a couple of decades ago:
We often hear the term brain aneurysm. Joe Biden had two of them twenty years ago. Doctors saved his life....
The Mayo Clinic in Minnesota says as many as fifteen million people in the United States, or five percent, have a [brain] aneurysm....
The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke estimates that forty percent of victims die within twenty-four hours. Another twenty-five percent die within six months....
In Joe Biden's case, his neck hurt for several weeks. Doctors thought he had a pinched nerve and a virus. But in February of nineteen eighty-eight, tests showed a leaking artery at the base of his brain. Doctors operated successfully, and again three months later for an aneurysm in another area....
Does that give Biden the right to joke about a shooting victim? Look, I'm in my fifties -- younger than Biden was when he had a condition that could have killed him. I've never had a medical condition that could have killed me. I've never had surgery on or near my brain. I'm going to cut the guy a break here. (Hoft and his pals, needless to say, don't tell you anything about Biden's medical history.)
Well, it doesn't matter what I think. Class clown Hoft will probably get the latest of his many Fox Nation links for this. In Wingnuttia, the class troublemaker is the teacher's pet.
*****
UPDATE: Well, Fox Nation linked directly to the original ABC story, but with Hoft's spin ("Biden Makes Giffords Gaffe"). To be fair, the ABC story doesn't offer any explanation for Biden's remark, either.
Weasel Zippers and the Lonely Conservative, following the lead of the stupidest person in the blogosphere, Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit, are guffawing and throwing paper and belching the alphabet in the back row of the class because they think this is hilarious:
You just can't make this up.
Oaf Joe Biden told reporters he joked with shooting victim about "cracked heads."
"She's now a member of the cracked head club like me."
ABC reported:
Vice President Joe Biden, with a big smile on his face, walked to the House floor and said, "I came to see Gabby, that's why I’m here."
When Biden was asked about what he spoke with Giffords about, he joked, "She's now a member of the cracked head club like me." ...
Apparently our little hooligans are unaware that Biden nearly died a couple of decades ago:
We often hear the term brain aneurysm. Joe Biden had two of them twenty years ago. Doctors saved his life....
The Mayo Clinic in Minnesota says as many as fifteen million people in the United States, or five percent, have a [brain] aneurysm....
The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke estimates that forty percent of victims die within twenty-four hours. Another twenty-five percent die within six months....
In Joe Biden's case, his neck hurt for several weeks. Doctors thought he had a pinched nerve and a virus. But in February of nineteen eighty-eight, tests showed a leaking artery at the base of his brain. Doctors operated successfully, and again three months later for an aneurysm in another area....
Does that give Biden the right to joke about a shooting victim? Look, I'm in my fifties -- younger than Biden was when he had a condition that could have killed him. I've never had a medical condition that could have killed me. I've never had surgery on or near my brain. I'm going to cut the guy a break here. (Hoft and his pals, needless to say, don't tell you anything about Biden's medical history.)
Well, it doesn't matter what I think. Class clown Hoft will probably get the latest of his many Fox Nation links for this. In Wingnuttia, the class troublemaker is the teacher's pet.
*****
UPDATE: Well, Fox Nation linked directly to the original ABC story, but with Hoft's spin ("Biden Makes Giffords Gaffe"). To be fair, the ABC story doesn't offer any explanation for Biden's remark, either.
Monday, August 01, 2011
MORE EVIDENCE (AS IF ANY MORE WERE NEEDED) THAT OUR CENTRIST WOULD-BE SAVIORS ARE RIDICULOUS AND IRRELEVANT
A Pew/Washington Post poll comes to the utterly unsurprising conclusion that voters have a less favorable opinion of all the participants in the debt-ceiling debate:
... 37 percent in the new poll say they now see President Obama less favorably, about double the number (18 percent) seeing him in a more positive light....
For House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the split is even worse, with about three times as many saying their opinion of him has deteriorated rather than improved over the past few weeks (34 percent less favorable; 11 percent more so)....
To the extent that both sides were trying to appeal to political independents, the past few weeks appear to have had little positive effect. Just 13 percent of independents say they now view Obama more favorably (38 percent say less); fewer, only 7 percent, now see Boehner in a more positive light.
Nor has the spotlight in the past few weeks helped Congress: Nearly one in five independents say they think less of both congressional Democrats and Republicans as a result of the budget negotiations. Not a single one of the independents interviewed now thinks more highly of both sides.
There would seem to be a golden opportunity here for the No Labels/Americans Elect crowd, whatever you may think of them: wouldn't they theoretically have a pretty good shot at success if they ran some third-party candidates in congressional races?
But, obviously, there's no sign that anything of the sort is coming from these groups. It's clear that no one in any of the groups has any interest in building an alternative party from the ground up, despite the availability of Mike Bloomberg's billions and various other sources of money.
That's because these movements aren't about anything other than the hero fantasies of Bloomberg, Evan Bayh, etc., and the entourage fantasies of people like Tom Friedman and Doug Schoen. It's all about one guy becoming a superstar and everyone else getting to be a hanger-on, with everyone fantasizing about the hero just fixing everything all by himself, the way "turnaround artist" CEOs do in business-magazine cover stories. I know you all probably had that figured out a long time ago, but none of the people involved in these organizations have any idea what they're really seeking. They just want to be in the posse, or lead it.
A Pew/Washington Post poll comes to the utterly unsurprising conclusion that voters have a less favorable opinion of all the participants in the debt-ceiling debate:
... 37 percent in the new poll say they now see President Obama less favorably, about double the number (18 percent) seeing him in a more positive light....
For House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the split is even worse, with about three times as many saying their opinion of him has deteriorated rather than improved over the past few weeks (34 percent less favorable; 11 percent more so)....
To the extent that both sides were trying to appeal to political independents, the past few weeks appear to have had little positive effect. Just 13 percent of independents say they now view Obama more favorably (38 percent say less); fewer, only 7 percent, now see Boehner in a more positive light.
Nor has the spotlight in the past few weeks helped Congress: Nearly one in five independents say they think less of both congressional Democrats and Republicans as a result of the budget negotiations. Not a single one of the independents interviewed now thinks more highly of both sides.
There would seem to be a golden opportunity here for the No Labels/Americans Elect crowd, whatever you may think of them: wouldn't they theoretically have a pretty good shot at success if they ran some third-party candidates in congressional races?
But, obviously, there's no sign that anything of the sort is coming from these groups. It's clear that no one in any of the groups has any interest in building an alternative party from the ground up, despite the availability of Mike Bloomberg's billions and various other sources of money.
That's because these movements aren't about anything other than the hero fantasies of Bloomberg, Evan Bayh, etc., and the entourage fantasies of people like Tom Friedman and Doug Schoen. It's all about one guy becoming a superstar and everyone else getting to be a hanger-on, with everyone fantasizing about the hero just fixing everything all by himself, the way "turnaround artist" CEOs do in business-magazine cover stories. I know you all probably had that figured out a long time ago, but none of the people involved in these organizations have any idea what they're really seeking. They just want to be in the posse, or lead it.
ROMNEY'S CRAVENNESS SCARES ME AS MUCH AS THE ZEALOTS' CERTITUDE
The main response to Mitt Romney's comments on the budget deal has been to accuse him of cravenness. That's fair, obviously: he didn't have the guts to take a firm position while the issue was being debated.
But please think about the implications of the fact that Romney wouldn't take a stand and then covered his ass by positioning himself to the right of Grover Norquist:
After sitting almost silently on the sidelines for weeks, Mitt Romney on Monday declared that he was opposed to the debt ceiling compromise....
"As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced -- not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table," Mr. Romney said....
I think it can be argued that a wannabe-tough-guy coward is potentially more dangerous than an ideologue. Consider the fact that George W. Bush actually was an ideologue for the most part, but even as he pursued a horrendous foreign policy, he was able to blunt calls for demonization of Muslims, and he did make an effort to get an immigration bill through Congress, despite his base's visceral hatred of illegal immigrants.
On Islam, of course, Romney has also been a coward trying to look tough: back in 2007 his campaign categorically ruled out having any Muslims in his Cabinet, although he later tried to walk this back.
Now, think about the kind of Congress Romney will probably have if he becomes president -- in all likelihood it'll be two GOP-majority houses with the tea party as the ideological driver in both. Is Romney going to have the courage to stand up to anything these people want? Internment camps for Muslim U.S. citizens? Loyalty oaths for liberals and moderates? Nuclear war against Iran or North Korea? Is he even going to have the minimal courage George W. Bush had to stand up once in a while to people on his right?
I fear he won't. Which means, if he's president, the angriest zealots will be driving policy, and he'll rubber-stamp it no matter what it is. His cravenness could make him the most dangerous top-tier candidate in the Republican field.
The main response to Mitt Romney's comments on the budget deal has been to accuse him of cravenness. That's fair, obviously: he didn't have the guts to take a firm position while the issue was being debated.
But please think about the implications of the fact that Romney wouldn't take a stand and then covered his ass by positioning himself to the right of Grover Norquist:
After sitting almost silently on the sidelines for weeks, Mitt Romney on Monday declared that he was opposed to the debt ceiling compromise....
"As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced -- not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table," Mr. Romney said....
I think it can be argued that a wannabe-tough-guy coward is potentially more dangerous than an ideologue. Consider the fact that George W. Bush actually was an ideologue for the most part, but even as he pursued a horrendous foreign policy, he was able to blunt calls for demonization of Muslims, and he did make an effort to get an immigration bill through Congress, despite his base's visceral hatred of illegal immigrants.
On Islam, of course, Romney has also been a coward trying to look tough: back in 2007 his campaign categorically ruled out having any Muslims in his Cabinet, although he later tried to walk this back.
Now, think about the kind of Congress Romney will probably have if he becomes president -- in all likelihood it'll be two GOP-majority houses with the tea party as the ideological driver in both. Is Romney going to have the courage to stand up to anything these people want? Internment camps for Muslim U.S. citizens? Loyalty oaths for liberals and moderates? Nuclear war against Iran or North Korea? Is he even going to have the minimal courage George W. Bush had to stand up once in a while to people on his right?
I fear he won't. Which means, if he's president, the angriest zealots will be driving policy, and he'll rubber-stamp it no matter what it is. His cravenness could make him the most dangerous top-tier candidate in the Republican field.
WOULD I VOTE NO? IT DEPENDS
Atrios would apparently vote no on the debt deal if he were in Congress, and Paul Krugman says for certain that he'd vote no. Me, I might cast a no vote; I might not.
Atrios says:
I'd be happy for the deal to fail. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think that either a last minute clean debt ceiling would pass or the administration would give those Libyan Hostility lawyers the task of coming up with the rationale for why they can just do whatever the hell they want. Or the Fed would find some new exciting emergency powers and backstop everything. Whatever.
Krugman says,
...those legal options are still there. Obama can move now; and even if he eventually loses in the courts, that gives him time.
I loathe the deal, but I wouldn't want to be part of killing it. Why? The outcome I predicted over the weekend may not be what we have, but I still say it's what we'll get if this deal goes down: Cut, Cap & Balance, with a requirement that a balanced budget amendment has to pass, not just be voted on, before the debt ceiling can be raised again. (If the current bill fails, it'll be because a lot of Republicans voted no; most Republicans will vote yes on CC&B, as will most Democrats if we've passed the deadline.)
I'm shocked that both Atrios and Krugman can still imagine Obama pulling the 14th Amendment or some other legal means of finessing the situation out of his hat. Could he? Sure. Is there even an 0.000001% chance that he would? If we don't know him well enough to know the answer to that by now....
I'd vote no if the thing were assured of either passage or failure. Anywhere in between, I'd withhold my vote, as I think all progressives should, until very late in the process. Let the teabaggers cast the votes that put it over the top, to the disgust of their fanboys and fangirls, or let them kill it, so Wall Street can see whose fingerprints are on the murder weapon.
Atrios would apparently vote no on the debt deal if he were in Congress, and Paul Krugman says for certain that he'd vote no. Me, I might cast a no vote; I might not.
Atrios says:
I'd be happy for the deal to fail. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think that either a last minute clean debt ceiling would pass or the administration would give those Libyan Hostility lawyers the task of coming up with the rationale for why they can just do whatever the hell they want. Or the Fed would find some new exciting emergency powers and backstop everything. Whatever.
Krugman says,
...those legal options are still there. Obama can move now; and even if he eventually loses in the courts, that gives him time.
I loathe the deal, but I wouldn't want to be part of killing it. Why? The outcome I predicted over the weekend may not be what we have, but I still say it's what we'll get if this deal goes down: Cut, Cap & Balance, with a requirement that a balanced budget amendment has to pass, not just be voted on, before the debt ceiling can be raised again. (If the current bill fails, it'll be because a lot of Republicans voted no; most Republicans will vote yes on CC&B, as will most Democrats if we've passed the deadline.)
I'm shocked that both Atrios and Krugman can still imagine Obama pulling the 14th Amendment or some other legal means of finessing the situation out of his hat. Could he? Sure. Is there even an 0.000001% chance that he would? If we don't know him well enough to know the answer to that by now....
I'd vote no if the thing were assured of either passage or failure. Anywhere in between, I'd withhold my vote, as I think all progressives should, until very late in the process. Let the teabaggers cast the votes that put it over the top, to the disgust of their fanboys and fangirls, or let them kill it, so Wall Street can see whose fingerprints are on the murder weapon.
FOR RIGHT-WINGERS, MATH IS HARD!
Gallup:
Americans' political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41% self-identifying as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.
Fox Nation's interpretation of Gallup:
Hmmm ... let's do this extremely difficult math:
36% moderate + 21% liberal = 57%.
57% is greater than the percentage of conservatives (41%).
Therefore, America is not a conservative country.
Should I run that by you again a bit more slowly, Foxsters?
Gallup:
Americans' political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41% self-identifying as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.
Fox Nation's interpretation of Gallup:
Hmmm ... let's do this extremely difficult math:
36% moderate + 21% liberal = 57%.
57% is greater than the percentage of conservatives (41%).
Therefore, America is not a conservative country.
Should I run that by you again a bit more slowly, Foxsters?
WOULDA-COULDA-SHOULDA PREVENTED THOSE MONOMANIACAL PSYCHOPATHS FROM BEING MONOMANIACALLY PSYCHOPATHIC
I'm extremely grateful for the presence of Paul Krugman -- on TV and at The New York Times, he's the guy who's been absolutely right about the consequences of our godawful response to the financial crisis, and I'm sure he's 100% correct now about the dire consequences of the debt hostage deal.
But I disagree with him about this:
Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.
First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.
The president was naive if he thought everything would work out, but that doesn't mean he could have gotten a debt ceiling increase back then. Republicans always have an eye for the main chance -- do you really think they didn't know at that time what a trump card they had?
There are two possibilities. The more likely possibility is that they simply would have refused to address the issue in the lame-duck session under any circumstances, because they knew how much leverage it gave them going into 2011. The less likely possibility is that they could have been persuaded to bargain, but the price would have been steep. Remember how they threatened to block everything else in the lame-duck session if Democrats tried to decouple Bush tax cuts for the wealthy from the cuts for everyone else? Do you think they would have just shrugged and said, "Oh, yeah, sure" on this?
I assume the cost of getting a debt-ceiling increase in the lame duck would have been, at minimum, no extension of unemployment benefits, no New START, no repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, no 9/11 first responders' bill, and no food safety bill -- and an extension of all the Bush tax cuts. That's how Republicans roll. Total war, all the time.
What was Obama's leverage? Even if he were a lot better at using the bully pulpit than he obviously is, there was no urgency then -- there were months to go before the debt ceiling had to be increased. Republicans would have said, "What's your hurry?," and they would have gone all Eddie Haskell and said they certainly wouldn't dream of threatening the full faith and credit of the United States, so what was the president worried about?
And appealing to the public wouldn't have helped -- all through the current hostage crisis, the public was extremely skeptical about the advisability of raising the debt ceiling at all.
So even if he'd been a good card player, I think he always had a weak hand on this. In 20/20 hindsight, the time to raise the debt ceiling was before Scott Brown got elected -- and even then, who knows if Blue Dogs in the Senate would have united with other Dems to prevent a filibuster?
I'm extremely grateful for the presence of Paul Krugman -- on TV and at The New York Times, he's the guy who's been absolutely right about the consequences of our godawful response to the financial crisis, and I'm sure he's 100% correct now about the dire consequences of the debt hostage deal.
But I disagree with him about this:
Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.
First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.
The president was naive if he thought everything would work out, but that doesn't mean he could have gotten a debt ceiling increase back then. Republicans always have an eye for the main chance -- do you really think they didn't know at that time what a trump card they had?
There are two possibilities. The more likely possibility is that they simply would have refused to address the issue in the lame-duck session under any circumstances, because they knew how much leverage it gave them going into 2011. The less likely possibility is that they could have been persuaded to bargain, but the price would have been steep. Remember how they threatened to block everything else in the lame-duck session if Democrats tried to decouple Bush tax cuts for the wealthy from the cuts for everyone else? Do you think they would have just shrugged and said, "Oh, yeah, sure" on this?
I assume the cost of getting a debt-ceiling increase in the lame duck would have been, at minimum, no extension of unemployment benefits, no New START, no repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, no 9/11 first responders' bill, and no food safety bill -- and an extension of all the Bush tax cuts. That's how Republicans roll. Total war, all the time.
What was Obama's leverage? Even if he were a lot better at using the bully pulpit than he obviously is, there was no urgency then -- there were months to go before the debt ceiling had to be increased. Republicans would have said, "What's your hurry?," and they would have gone all Eddie Haskell and said they certainly wouldn't dream of threatening the full faith and credit of the United States, so what was the president worried about?
And appealing to the public wouldn't have helped -- all through the current hostage crisis, the public was extremely skeptical about the advisability of raising the debt ceiling at all.
So even if he'd been a good card player, I think he always had a weak hand on this. In 20/20 hindsight, the time to raise the debt ceiling was before Scott Brown got elected -- and even then, who knows if Blue Dogs in the Senate would have united with other Dems to prevent a filibuster?
ALL THAT'S LEFT OF THE DEMOCRATS' BRAND -- AND THEY WON'T USE IT
Here's The Washington Post on the prospect that Barack Obama (and, by implication, congresssional Democrats) will run on the issue of the GOP's refusal to raise taxes on the rich:
The trouble for Obama is that presidents generally do not want to turn their reelection campaigns into crusades for higher taxes. Polling data may show voters siding with Obama on the details, but in general Democrats lose when Republicans paint them as tax-and-spend liberals....
Look, this is all the Democrats have left -- they haven't signed a blood oath never to raise taxes on stinking-rich people, and the Republicans have.
According to this page and this PDF, 234 out of 240 Republican House members have signed Grover Norquist's pledge never to raise taxes on anyone -- but only 2 of 193 Democrats. In the Senate, 40 of 47 Republican Senators have signed the pledge; only 1 of 53 Democrats-plus-independents, Ben Nelson, has signed.
So here's your ad campaign:
You buy billboards and put up a picture of a rich, smug, J. Wellington Worthington III sort of guy. He stands before his mansion and his Bentley. He reeks of wealth and privilege. Maybe his pockets literally bulge with cash.
The caption reads:
95% OF ALL REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS
HAVE VOWED NEVER TO RAISE MY TAXES!
And, under that:
VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS
Look, there aren't going to be any jobs between now and November 2012. There isn't going to be a recovery. There isn't going to be any reason for hope.
All the Democrats have is the potential to tap into the genuine, deep-seated, spontaneous, and entirely justified class resentment of the American people. They can't offer FDR-style Keyensianism anymore -- that's now as taboo as gun control. All they can offer is, maybe, a return to Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy.
They should run on that. They should run primarily on that. They've got nothing to lose. And they've got nothing else.
Here's The Washington Post on the prospect that Barack Obama (and, by implication, congresssional Democrats) will run on the issue of the GOP's refusal to raise taxes on the rich:
The trouble for Obama is that presidents generally do not want to turn their reelection campaigns into crusades for higher taxes. Polling data may show voters siding with Obama on the details, but in general Democrats lose when Republicans paint them as tax-and-spend liberals....
Look, this is all the Democrats have left -- they haven't signed a blood oath never to raise taxes on stinking-rich people, and the Republicans have.
According to this page and this PDF, 234 out of 240 Republican House members have signed Grover Norquist's pledge never to raise taxes on anyone -- but only 2 of 193 Democrats. In the Senate, 40 of 47 Republican Senators have signed the pledge; only 1 of 53 Democrats-plus-independents, Ben Nelson, has signed.
So here's your ad campaign:
You buy billboards and put up a picture of a rich, smug, J. Wellington Worthington III sort of guy. He stands before his mansion and his Bentley. He reeks of wealth and privilege. Maybe his pockets literally bulge with cash.
The caption reads:
95% OF ALL REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS
HAVE VOWED NEVER TO RAISE MY TAXES!
And, under that:
VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS
Look, there aren't going to be any jobs between now and November 2012. There isn't going to be a recovery. There isn't going to be any reason for hope.
All the Democrats have is the potential to tap into the genuine, deep-seated, spontaneous, and entirely justified class resentment of the American people. They can't offer FDR-style Keyensianism anymore -- that's now as taboo as gun control. All they can offer is, maybe, a return to Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy.
They should run on that. They should run primarily on that. They've got nothing to lose. And they've got nothing else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)