Month: August 2011

I agree with a lot of Peter Daou’s analysis. I especially agree on three points. First, the culture of Washington DC is absolutely toxic and really does resemble a bad movie about high school. Second, the political Establishment, including the Democratic Establishment, is not in tune with progressive politics. Third, if we’re ever going to stop losing ground to the radical right, the Democratic Establishment is going to have to learn to work with the activist base. Where I have a problem with Daou’s take on things is that he places all the blame for this less-than-ideal relationship on the Democratic Establishment and he gives the progressive blogosphere a complete pass.

Daou quotes Kevin Drum making sense.

Conservatives have just flat out won this debate in recent decades, and until that changes we’re not going to be able to make much progress.

This is why I blame the broad liberal community for our failures, not just President Obama. My biggest beef with Obama is the same one I had three years ago, namely that he’s never really even tried to move public opinion in a specifically progressive direction. But that hardly even matters unless all the rest of us have laid the groundwork. And we haven’t. Wonks, hacks, activists, all of us. We just haven’t persuaded the public to support our vision of government. Until we do, the tea party tendency will always be more powerful than we are.

But Daou rejects this blame, arguing that the problem is that the Democratic Establishment is responsible for our failures because they don’t work with their activist base. Daou offers up a fantasy alternate universe for our consideration:

Imagine a scenario where Democrats, instead of marginalizing the netroots, treated them with the same awe and respect the tea Party engenders on the GOP side. Imagine an Obama presidency where the health care debate started with a fierce fight for single-payer; where Gitmo had been closed; where gay rights were unequivocally supported; where Bush and Cheney were investigated for sanctioning torture; where climate change was a top priority; where Bush’s civil liberties violations were prosecuted rather than reinforced; where the Bush tax cuts expired; where the stimulus was much bigger; where programs for the poor, for research, jobs, infrastructure, science, education, were enhanced at the expense of war and profits for the wealthy; where the Republican assault on women’s rights was met with furious resistance. I could go on and on.

In short, imagine an America where the Democratic establishment loudly proclaimed that they were unshakable champions of core progressive values and that they would work hand in hand with their base to convince America that their ideas were superior to the right’s.

Of course, that’s a fantasy. The unwillingness of Democratic leaders and strategists to do anything remotely close to that has virtually guaranteed that the triangle isn’t formed on the left.

The first problem with this list is that Daou is asking us to imagine a Washington DC in which the Republicans have no power. The second problem is that the list is typical of the laziest kinds of criticisms the progressive left launches at the president. Let’s start at the top. The administration is supposed to treat the netroots with awe and respect? What if I asked Peter Daou to treat the office of the president with awe and respect? How would he respond to that? How would he respond if the White House press secretary spent every day issuing statements about how Peter Daou is useless and spineless and secretly a Republican? I point this out to highlight the silliness of asking for awe and respect from people you dump on for a living. There has to be some level of mutual respect to form a healthy relationship, and I agree we need to create a healthy relationship.

Now, let’s get into the meat of Daou’s list, starting with single-payer health care. There were eight serious candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008, and seven of them had health care plans that did not include single-payer. The exception was Dennis Kucinich, whose candidacy was basically based on keeping single-payer in the conversation. There are think tanks all over the capital that have been drafting health care reform proposals ever since HillaryCare failed to even get a vote. The entire premise of their efforts for fifteen years was that single-payer could never pass through the Senate. They were not incorrect in that assessment. The reason Obama didn’t run on single-payer is that no one would have taken him seriously and he wouldn’t have won the nomination. Kucinich took on the job of trying to keep the issue in the conversation, the rest of the candidates wanted to win and also to be able to deliver on their promises.

As for Gitmo, no one had the president’s back on Gitmo. No one. He made the effort. His erstwhile political allies ran for the hills.

On gay rights, the president has delivered and delivered and delivered. At this point, it is almost grotesque to continue to complain about the president’s record because it isn’t unequivocal enough.

I agree with Daou about the failure to hold Bush officials, and some military and intelligence officials responsible for the crimes of the Bush administration. I’d add banksters to the mix. But we should also acknowledge the high price he would have paid for doing so. Still, I think this is a fair criticism.

Obama traded an extension of unemployment benefits, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, an overhaul of the food safety system, and the passage of the START treaty for a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. Is there something wrong with that trade?

We can keep having a debate over the size of the stimulus, but it should be obvious by now that the president’s advisers misjudged how big the hole was that they needed to fill. His advisers have also explained ad nauseum that there was a limit to how much money they could push into the system. The hole was bigger than our ability, politically or pragmatically, to fill it.

As for the war on women’s rights, the president has appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court. He just announced that health care plans need to provide a range of free services for women. This is the greatest advance for women’s health since Roe v. Wade.

I mention all this to highlight the ungrateful and uncharitable nature of much of the pervasive progressive complaints we see repeated every day. I don’t know if you are familiar with Daou’s Triangle theory (you can read about it here and here). Basically, it’s about creating a counterweight to the right that can influence the media’s coverage of politics.

If the White House and Democratic leadership were in sync with the activist left rather than insulting them at every opportunity, the media would follow and the triangle would form.

I’ve already covered the irony of complaining about insults from people you insult for a living. But there’s something else wrong with this picture. Probably several things. First off, progressives can’t or won’t behave like Tea Partiers. Progressives are not the vanguard of a populist movement. We’re a combination of the poor, the powerless, the discriminated against, on the one hand, and the highly educated, science-minded, secular-oriented, intelligentsia on the other. Throw in the unionized working class and you have the progressive movement. Most of our opinion leaders are from the intelligentsia-wing of the party. A very high percentage of progressive bloggers have advanced degrees. We’re not about to take up pitchforks or start carrying firearms to political rallies, and we’re too committed to reason to resort to lies and distortions as matter of strategy or policy.

Another problem, it seems to me, is that the progressive blogosphere arose as an opponent of both the media and the political establishments, and we seem ill-suited and incapable of forming a partnership with power. Policies we opposed under Bush, we still oppose under Obama. Perhaps, we’re quieter in our criticisms, but we’re unwilling to just get on board and support whatever the Democratic Party or the White House wants to do. That’s not a bad thing, it’s just something we need to acknowledge. Because we’re different from conservatives, we can’t be expected to behave like them.

If what we need is a true counter to the pull of the Tea Partiers, the progressive blogosphere isn’t the right place to look.

But we can have a more productive relationship with the Establishment Left. It would start by getting clear where the line is between advocacy for issues and protecting our political position in Washington. We know we cannot afford to lose the presidential election in 2012. We could improve things considerably if we reserved our attacks on our own political leaders for areas where they at least have the freedom of acting otherwise. That would be a good start.

Can you believe that Jonah Goldberg is concerned about the tone? I’d like to tell Jonah Goldberg what I think about the “liberal media.” I think you can see liberal media if you watch Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. You used to see liberal media for an hour on Friday night when Bill Moyers had a show on PBS. I think it’s fair to say that MSNBC has a liberal nighttime lineup. If you want to find any other liberal media on your teevee, you’re going to have to start surfing the local programming channels because Donna Brazille and James Carville don’t count. Or, you can pay some extra money to get the cable company to turn on Current TV, where Keith Olbermann currently toils in anonymity. We have nothing to compare to Fox News.

You can tell me that that’s because no one wants to watch liberal television, and maybe that’s true in relative terms. That doesn’t do much for the argument that the broadcast media has a liberal bias, though, does it? And speaking of broadcast, no one is stupid enough to argue that radio has a liberal bias.

So, that leaves print journalism. And, here, people like Jonah Goldberg can at least make a plausible argument that liberals outnumber conservatives. But it’s worth noting that even ostensibly liberal newspapers like the Washington Post have three times as many conservative columnists as they have liberals. The Wall Street Journal is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. So, we’re left looking for liberal bias at the New York Times, but the Times is much more representative of the mainstream Democratic Party than its left-wing.

I think Republicans are simply wrong about there being a liberal bias in the media. Ninety-eight percent of the news people consume is created by huge corporations that have interests very much in conflict with liberals. If a liberal shrieker can make them some money, they’ll tolerate him or her for a while, but eventually they’ll have a little talk about what it means to work for the Establishment (see Phil Donahue, Ashley Banfield, Keith Olbermann, Cenk Uygur). Glenn Beck can tell you that there are limits on the right, as well.

What I think Goldberg means when he talks about liberal bias in the media (at least, when he’s being sincere) is that most reporters are not conservative in their personal lives. They went to college and learned about evolution and plate tectonics and economics and history, and they tend not to think magically about things like what will reduce unwanted pregnancies or whether or not the Book of Genesis is literally true. They think climate science skeptics are morons because reporters tend to defer to scientists on scientific questions, instead of Exxon’s astroturfed “experts.” If the definition of a liberal is that they’re not an evangelical Christian, then yes, we have a liberal media. But that’s the problem. We used to have conservatives in this country who didn’t believe six impossible things before breakfast. We no longer do.

.
Can’t quite agree with Booman’s fp story and most comments in Know Your Enemies.

Don’t blame the media or bloggers. The Obama administration has to make the case of policy put forward. When in the end the result doesn’t cover the views and position taken, the perception will be Obama caved. This has happened too often. Obama needs to take finite steps and make his priority clear. From his inauguration, policy should have been the state of the economy and JOBS!

The Cairo speech to the Muslim world community was wasted, the Israeli government escaped from engaging the peace process. The setback is grave for US foreign policy in the world.

The debt deal is not only a battle lost, this might just be Obama’s Waterloo on the economy and jobs. The Bush tax cuts should have been top priority for Democrats.

The US economy is in bad shape and there is no united front with the business community on job creation. No one gets re-elected in a deep recession and unemployment near 10%. Time wasted is opportunity lost.

Interesting that the housing policy in Israel has awakened the left minority and leading massive protests throughout the nation. Yet the economy is doing extremely well. This upsets Netanyahu and his right-wing regime that they may decide a distraction of war or peace! Interesting, yet the protests in the US from progressives are leading to accusations of treason to a sitting President? Odd.

• Dow has lost 858 points, or 6.7 percent

Update [2011-08-04 14:37:42 EST by Oui]:

US Stocks Continue Slide on Thursday: Dow Jones drops 512 points -4.3%

NEW YORK — Worries about the state of the economy in the U.S. and around the world slammed stocks on Thursday, driving the Dow Jones industrial average to close down more than 500 points. It was the Dow’s worst drop since October 2008.

Bonds soared as investors sought a safe place to park their money.

All three major indexes — the Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq — ended down more than 4 percent. They also are down more than 10 percent from their previous highs, putting them into correction territory. The market’s so-called “fear index,” the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), rose above 30 in its biggest daily percentage move since May 2010.

Index     Last         Change
DJIA     11383.8   -512.61   -4.31%
NASDAQ    2556.39  -120.01   -4.48%
S&P 500   1200.1    -60.24   -4.78%

Major Market Indices”People are throwing in the towel because they can’t find relief on any front. There are a lot of worries about the economy.”

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Here we go again. Robert Reich is making good points again, but also misfiring. This is a problem with blame assignment. Before I even look at Reich’s argument, let me clear one thing up from the start. How can the federal government create jobs? It can put more money in people’s pockets so that they’ll spend it on stuff and increase demand. It can give out contracts for people to do work. It can create tax incentives for companies to buy equipment or hire more workers this year rather than next. That’s about it. And what do all those things have in common?

They cost money. They lower revenues. They increase our debt and deficit, at least in the short term.

You know what else they have in common? The Republicans are opposed to doing any of them. Okay, they’ll consider cutting taxes, but only for people who don’t need tax cuts and who wouldn’t spend the money. They would not allow an extension of the payroll tax holiday in the debt ceiling bill, for example. And they opposed extending unemployment benefits, which is the single most efficient way we know of to stimulate the economy because all of that money gets spent almost immediately.

So, the problem we have is that even though we know how to use the federal government to stimulate the economy, we are not allowed to use any of those tools. Period.

That’s the problem. It’s not a problem that the president created. It’s a problem created by a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. It’s a problem exacerbated by the 60-vote rule in the Senate. The problem is that the Republicans are crazy, ruthlessly partisan, and too powerful in our system right now for anyone to overcome their effective veto power.

So, Reich’s correct that nothing can be done to improve the economy, but he’s wrong to attack the president over it, because you can replace the president with Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Al Gore, or Bernie Sanders and it isn’t going to make a lick of difference. The problem is the Republicans. And, no, it isn’t because the public is deluded into thinking the Republicans are right about anything. The problem is that they were deluded about that last November. The public didn’t appreciate the Ryan Plan. And they didn’t appreciate the hostage situation over the debt ceiling. But we’re stuck with these assholes. The solution is to get rid of the assholes. That doesn’t get easier when smart liberals like Robert Reich spend equal time undermining faith in the president and taking it to the real culprits.

The debt ceiling compromise didn’t hamstring the president’s ability to tackle joblessness. The Republicans hamstrung his ability to do that. The president is weak because our constitutional system makes him weak if the opposition party is united and crazy and bent on destroying his career. So, how is it in our interest to play up and even exaggerate his weakness? Why tell people that things would be different if only he banged the table or made a speech or called people names? It wouldn’t be different. He’s dealing with a party that put out the Ryan Plan as if it wouldn’t be instant poison and political suicide. They have no sense of self-preservation. If they did, they would have cut Bush loose or reined him in long before 2006 rolled around.

Meanwhile, the president churns along vastly improving women’s health and establishing new gasoline efficiency standards, to little appreciation or applause.

I’ll tell you what the president doesn’t need. He doesn’t need liberals nipping at his heels over shit he can’t control. Go ahead. Make the case for Keynesian economics. Lord knows, someone needs to talk some sense around here. But stop asking the president to do things he can’t do and blaming him for not spending all his time asking for things that will be simply and flatly denied.

It’s not only tiresome, it’s destructive.

I’m not too informed about the other hostage situation involving the Federal Aviation Administration. But I do know that we cannot continue to reward the Republicans for acting crazy. It’s one thing to bend in order to save the global economy. But it’s quite another to bend in order to keep the FAA from furloughing employees and postponing planned projects. If the Senate folds on this, Obama should veto it. In fact, Obama should throw a raging tantrum and ask the House to come back from their recess to deal with the problem. Now is a perfect time to take a stand. The public is already fed up with Republican intransigence. They’re primed to take the side of aviation workers over these thugs who are compromising the safety of air travel.

Let’s see. So far this summer, our dishwasher needed a new motor, our refrigerator needed a new fan and other parts, our air conditioner crapped out, and now one of our cars died. It’s probably the timing belt. So, now it towtruck time!! So awesome. Someone say a prayer for our washer and dryer. They must be feeling nervous.

Did I mention that Finny has hidden both my iPhone and my AAA Card where I can’t find them. This was quite helpful to me today.

The following Republicans voted no on raising the debt ceiling:

Kelly Ayotte (NH), Dan Coats (IN), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Tom Coburn (OK), Jim DeMint (SC), Lindsay Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Orrin Hatch (UT), James Inhofe (OK), Ron Johnson (WI), Dean Heller (NV), Mike Lee (UT), Jerry Moran (KS), Rand Paul (KY), Marco Rubio (FL), Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard Shelby (AL), Pat Toomey (PA), David Vitter (LA)

The following Democrats (including an independent) voted no on raising the debt ceiling:

Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tom Harkin (IA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Bob Menendez (NJ), Ben Nelson (NE),
Bernie Sanders (VT)

I don’t really consider there to be a right or wrong position on this vote. The debt ceiling had to be raised. Anyone who cast a deciding vote against it would be irresponsible. Since it passed easily, members were free to cast a protest vote. In an inverse of what happened in the House, a higher percentage of Republicans cast protest votes than Democrats. I don’t really care how people voted. It’s irrelevant. If you want to protest, that’s fine with me. If you want to help avert a global meltdown, that’s cool, too.

Now we move on to analyzing the bill.

He has since apologized profusely, but Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain went on Fox News and said he supported citizens in a Tennessee community that are trying to prevent the building of a mosque in their town. His reasoning was that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws. He didn’t explain how it was different from Judiasm in this respect. In fact, he denied that any other religion has a set of laws associated with it, which is odd considering things like this:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” – Matthew 5:17

“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.” – Luke 16:16-17

It was always a stupid argument that Islam should be treated differently from other religions because they have a set of laws that are followed to varying degrees depending on the country. In this, it isn’t different from Judaism’s split between the Ultraorthodox, the Orthodox, and the Reform movement. In any case, the First Amendment precludes government from making laws that impact one religion and not others. Fortunately, Cain finally recognized this and said he was sorry for betraying his commitment to the Constitution.

Now, someone put me on some far-right pro-Israeli mailing list that I can’t seem to cancel, and I occasionally look at their deranged offerings. Today, I got a treat.

Some conservatives are becoming just as big a problem as liberals when it comes to
discussions over islam. If speaking forthrightly about the threat of sharia is taboo even amongst conservatives, then we are in even greater danger than I thought. Herman Cain has been attacked for saying he would not appoint a muslim to his cabinet. Is it wrong to question whether one can be a devout muslim and at the same time protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America which is antithetical to islamic law? There is a very good reason why there are no free islamic countries. Sharia law is not compatible with freedom, individual liberty and human rights. Islam is not simply a personal faith but a totalitarian political ideology which seeks to dominate and subjugate us. This is an issue that must be discussed and shame on those conservatives who would silence any such discussion for fear of being called names and being accused of “racism” and bigotry. You are part of the problem and are doing damage to this country by succumbing to political correctness. All one has to do is look to Europe to see what can be our own future. Unfortunately Herman Cain seems to have caved.

Below that there’s the main article, which opens and closes with the following:

Herman Cain is being lynched for taking a stand. And the people doing it are Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives. Commentators who complain about the “race card” are eagerly laying down the “bigot card” because Cain did what few candidates are ready to do. He clearly spelled out the problem with Islamic involvement in American public life…

…What did Cain say that was so wrong? He questioned how Muslims could reconcile a theocracy with participation in American public life. And he came out on the side of communities fighting back against mosque projects. And that’s bigotry. Don’t ask why it’s bigotry. It is. And if you don’t believe me, go ask CNN or the Washington Post.

It’s offensive to suggest that Herman Cain is being lynched. But to answer the question about what Cain did wrong, it’s pretty simple. He lent support for an effort to do something that is plainly unconstitutional on its face…passing a law or ordinance that bans mosques but not churches, temples, synagogues, or any other buildings where people gather to worship together.

And that doesn’t even get into what’s wrong with the idea itself, which is that Muslims are secretly plotting to impose Shariah Law on the American people. It doesn’t get dumber than worrying about people undermining the Constitution and then gutting the First Amendment in response.

I’m also kind of sickened by the way far-right supporters of Israel are pushing these theories on the rest of us. Whether it’s Pam Geller or IsraPundit, they may think they’re protecting Israel’s interests, but go ask Norwegians whether they’re more supportive of Israel than they were a month ago. I’m more likely to get gunned down at a political meeting by one of IsraPundit’s less stable readers than I am to die in some Islamist terror attack.

So, should I deny them their right to pray in their synagogue?

This is no way to advocate for Israel.

I’m much happier reading about Lou Gehrig than American politics. There’s no crying in baseball. Meanwhile, it seems like everyone wants to write some kind of sob-story. If people were a little smarter, they’d internalize political defeat when it occurs and not have to be surprised when it manifests in shitty outcomes nine months later.

The hard part is over. The stupid crazy ridiculous pathetic disgusting House of Representatives passed the debt ceiling hike by a 269-161 margin (Dems 95-95, GOP 174-66). The highlight was the mid-vote return of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to the House floor where she cast her vote in favor of the compromise. It was a moving gesture, although I’ve never felt quite so ambivalent about a vote before. I’m actually surprised that the vote was so lop-sided. The Dems held their votes back to force as many Republicans to buck their nutty base as possible. But once Giffords arrived, they joined her in support and the numbers shot way past the 216 or 217 they needed to assure passage of the bill.

It moves now to the Senate where Majority Leader Reid has announced they will hold the vote at noon tomorrow. So, technically, we will have blown past the deadline. Hopefully, the strong House vote will prevent any panic or downgrading of our credit rating. Reid will need 60 votes, but he’ll have no problem getting that number. The debt ceiling crisis has been averted.

At what cost, you ask? We’ll find out, won’t we?