Month: November 2012

I name David Gergen my Wanker of the Day based on the totality of his ridiculous column, but one part of it stood out and made me laugh out loud. He was discussing the tendency of political parties to over-interpret their victories, but he overreached with his analysis. Watch.

What we are seeing, I regret to say, looks very much like a movie we have seen before: The side that wins an election thinks the public has given them permission to steamroll the other side, pushing through their favorite ideas willy-nilly. Sometimes, they partially succeed, but before long, there is a backlash, and Washington comes to another grinding halt.

We saw that back in the early ’90s, when first the Clinton White House overreached, going too far left, and then after winning the midterms, the Gingrich Republicans overreached to the right. In the second Clinton term, they learned how to get along better and accomplished big things for the country.

If you say that the Republicans and the Clinton administration learned to get along during his second term, you deserve to be flogged in a public square.

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in 1998 (in his second term)…over a blow job.

Just use the oil Our Loving, Sensitive Creator gave us and quit whining about global warming why don’t you.

That’s my shorter version of the message of Brian Fischer of the American Family Association, a Christian Fundamentalist organization, mostly known for its anti-gay crusades that led to it being labeled a a hate group by the Southern Poverty law Center. Well , now they have a new issue they are burned up about and it is all because we aren’t burning enough – oil, gas and coal. In fact, we’re giving our Lord and Savior a sad when we don’t use dirty black energy sources that he put in the ground for us. It’s as if we are flipping God the bird when we even consider clean renewable energy instead of using more coal, oil and natural gas.

Until now, I never knew God was so sensitive because we weren’t burning enough fossil fuels. Watch the video and be prepared to weep (either from laughter or from the realization that there are millions of Americans who actually believe the crap he’s promoting):

Who knew that developing clean energy was all a part of the war on Christmas/Christians? Or that buying an electric car or installing solar panels was a sin? The things you learn …

Remember when health care reform was going to be the president’s Waterloo?

Those were good times.

The editors at the National Review are urging surrender. Total surrender. They say it would be “better to pass legislation extending the middle-class tax cuts and to allow the top rates to rise” than it would be to accept anything approaching what Tim Geithner offered them. After advising senators to keep their yaps shut about capitulation in order to avoid undermining the House’s negotiating position, they give up on linking the tax hikes to entitlement reform:

We have more sympathy for those Republicans who are urging the White House to show some leadership on restraining the growth of Medicare and Social Security — but they too are making a mistake. Republicans cannot politically sustain a public position of being willing to raise taxes on the rich only if popular benefits are cut. If they come across as being willing to shield the middle class from tax increases only if entitlements are cut, that position will hurt them still worse. Entitlement reform is a possible result of this deal only if Obama leads on it publicly. Since he does not seem inclined to do that, Republicans should stop expecting entitlement reform as a likely outcome of negotiations.

What they are saying is unambiguous. They want the House to pass an extension of the middle-class tax cuts without preserving the cuts for the top two percent, and without getting anything in return.

However, they recognize that the base must be appeased somewhat, so they have a proposed script for some Kabuki theatre:

House Republicans need to prepare for the possibility that taxes are indeed going to go up across the board and that Obama, the Democrats, and the media will blame them for it. Their first order of business should be to pass an extension of all the tax cuts. It may soon prove marginally helpful to be able to say that they passed a bill to block tax increases on the middle class, and are ready to do it again.

This part needs some translation. They want John Boehner to have the House pass an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including on the top two percent. The Republicans will then attempt to argue that they tried and failed to protect the middle class tax cuts. But this advice only makes sense if the Republicans don’t follow the editors first piece of advice, which was to give the president precisely what he wants. It’s not really about assigning blame after we go over the cliff. It’s about avoiding going over the cliff by capitulating, but making it look to the base like you made an honest attempt to stand on your principles.

With advice like this, I don’t see much fight left on the right.

Michael Tomasky’s a terrific writer, an interesting thinker and I agree with lots of what he writes.  But he’s either thinking too much or too little in response to President Obama’s opening proposal for dealing with the “Gentle Fiscal Incline” coming at the end of the year:

“Nothing validates a politician’s sense of self like being reelected. Once could have been a fluke, the pol secretly thinks to himself. Especially for Obama, especially under 2008’s highly unique circumstances. Did I, he had to wonder sometimes at 3 am, just somehow pull the wool over people’s eyes?

But then the people had four years to take his measure, four years during which the other side threw everything it had at him. Then came a campaign against an opponent who looked central-casting presidential, was obviously qualified, was well-financed, and ran a pretty good campaign all in all. And Obama beat him clearly and decisively.

That can make a fella say, “All right. The people want me. They want my agenda and my ideas. So let’s roll.””

You know what else getting reelected does?  It gives a politician more power.

That’s especially true if you’re the first president in a half century to win over 50% of the popular vote in both races, and your party gained seats in the House and Senate.

Then add in the fact that Barack Obama is a gifted political counterpuncher who spent the past two years staging tactical retreats and taking body blows from his opponents, all the while setting up precisely the scenario we know face:  massive tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans combined with significant defense spending cuts while Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are held harmless unless Republicans in Congress now compromise with him.

In The New New Deal Michael Grunwald recounts with some amazement the degree to which the Obama administration did not politicize the 2009 Recovery Act—instead leaving much of the drafting of the bill and structuring of the programs it funded to policy wonks and technocrats.  Grunwald also concludes that most of the mistakes Obama and his team made were political mistakes—underestimating and fundamentally misunderstanding the degree to which Republicans were unalterably opposed to anything and everything Obama proposed.

After the 2010 election in which Republicans retook the House, Speaker Boehner and his caucus used their newly won power and their ideological unity to force—and win—a series of showdowns with President Obama in the spring and summer of 2011.

The young Barack Obama’s community organizing mentors in the 1980s would have taught him the importance of making evaluation a habit—every meeting he had, every action he and his leaders took, Obama would have learned to reflect dispassionately on the emotions generated by that encounter, and the lessons to be learned from it.  What went well?  What didn’t? What did we win or lose? Why? What do I do differently next time?

Using the razor of that great Franciscan friar William of Ockham, the simpler explanation for what Tomasky sees as Obama’s newfound confidence and assertiveness is not a change in the president’s self-understanding, but 1) a change in his political power and 2) the political growth in someone new to executive power but with 25 years of using the mental habit of evaluation to improve his performance.

Crossposted at: http://masscommons.wordpress.com/

Here’s the thoroughly dishonest Conn Carroll’s fairly accurate depiction of Tim Geithner’s proposal to the Republican leadership:

1. An immediate $1 trillion tax hike through higher top marginal income tax rates as well as higher taxes on both capital gains and dividends.
2. An agreement to raise $600 billion more in taxes later this year by limiting tax deductions for top earners.
3. $50 billion in new infrastructure stimulus spending.
4. Another “emergency” extension of unemployment benefits.
5. An extension of either the payroll tax cut or the reinstatement of Obama’s stimulus Making Work Pay tax credit.
6. A mortgage refinancing program.
7. Billions in new spending to prevent cuts to Medicare reimbursement payments for doctors.
8. An infinite debt limit hike.

Mr. Carroll says that the Republicans should respond by simply giving up on any pretense of trying to avoid the fiscal cliff. They should just go home, enjoy the holidays, and wait for the Obama administration to grow up. Charles Krauthammer basically concurs, comparing Geithner’s terms to General Grant’s at Appomattox. Of course, General Lee didn’t have the option of walking away at Appomattox. Much like Mitt Romney and the Republicans, General Lee and his Confederate Army were defeated.

It doesn’t sound like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell plans on following Carroll and Krauthammer’s advice, however. He wants to lock in cuts to entitlements.

On spending cuts, [McConnell] called changes in entitlement eligibility — things like increases in the retirement age, changes in the CPI, means-testing in Medicare — “the most important thing that could be achieved.” He believes those are “the only credible spending reductions” because levels of discretionary spending are set every year…

…Are the entitlement-eligibility changes his price for any deal? “There’s a nexus,” he says, “between my willingness to raise revenue and their willingness to make serious entitlement-eligibility reforms.” Does he worry that Republicans will be attacked for refusing to raise taxes on the rich without entitlement cuts? “They’ve talked about our reluctance to raise taxes on high-income people incessantly for a generation.” The main point is that he wants to lock in entitlement changes right away. He wants to “do something other than set up some process where we promise to do something later and it doesn’t happen.” He worries setting up another commission to debate entitlements will give the “AARP and the unions a whole year to beat everybody up so we don’t ever get an outcome.” He emphasizes, “We ought to do it now, right now.”

So, McConnell should probably start a tour of the country so he can take his case for raising the eligibility age of Social Security and Medicare to the people. While he’s at it, he can explain how “changes in CPI” means smaller Social Security checks for everyone.

It’s time for the Republicans to sell their plan to the people. They might like it better than gonorrhea!!

McConnell had an observation about filibuster reform, too.

On the possibility of ending the filibuster, he says, “Harry Reid trying to throw a bomb into the Senate chamber is a curious way to try to set the stage for bringing both sides together to do something important for the country.” He thinks Democrats are “feeling their oats. They just can’t turn off the celebration.” He calls the potential filibuster gambit “breaking the rules to change the rules.” It is “a truly, truly radical thing,” and “not only is it stupid, it’s inflammatory.”

No one is talking about “ending” the filibuster. But McConnell is right that the Democrats are feeling their oats.

The GOP is up a creek without a paddle.

I’m trying not to think too hard about this. Is it double reverse psychology? If the Republicans truly want John Kerry to leave the Senate to serve as the next Secretary of State, surely they know that saying as much only makes that outcome less likely, right? This is especially true when it is coupled with unfair attacks against UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Speaking just for me, I originally wanted Kerry to get the job, but I am now feeling like it should go to Rice. The only reason I feel that way is because I don’t want the Republicans to be rewarded for their bad behavior or for Rice to lose out on a post she’s earned and that she was otherwise going to get. Are the Republicans smart enough to know that Democrats will respond to their antics in this way? Are we being played into abandoning Kerry? Despite all their words of support, are the Republicans looking to screw their colleague from Massachusetts?

No. I don’t think they are that clever. I think they just don’t like Susan Rice. Why ever could that be?

Beginning yesterday morning, all internet communication with Syria was cut off.  According to internet monitoring firm Renesys:

Starting at 10:26 UTC on Thursday, 29 November (12:26pm in Damascus), Syria’s international Internet connectivity shut down. In the global routing table, all 84 of Syria’s IP address blocks have become unreachable, effectively removing the country from the Internet.

Multiple sources are also reporting that mobile phone service has been disrupted as well.

In an effort to work around this blackout, Google has set up a way for Syrians with access to landlines to speak into the phone, which will then be set out via twitter:

More below the fold.
In addition to the communications blackout, most flights in, out, and over Syria have been canceled.  This is as of about 7:35am Eastern Time in the United States:

Flights to Syrian Airport Canceled Amid Reports of Rebel Clashes

There are reports that Syrian jets bombed rebel targets near the airport, which led to the closure.

There is also a video of the aftermath of a bombing in Aleppo, Syria.  Footage is on Live Leak : WARNING – this is graphic and disturbing.

To be honest, I have not been following the news in Syria much lately.  I am hoping that someone with more knowledge can chime in on the situation.  I just saw that there wasn’t a story on this yet, and wanted to aggregate some information to raise awareness.  A country going into a communications vacuum in the midst of rampant military violence is a recipe for disaster.

Paul Ryan is listed as Number 8 on Foreign Policy’s list of the top 100 Global Thinkers. Barack Obama is listed at Number 7. Both Clintons and the two Gates (Bill and Melinda) are listed ahead of them. For some other comparisons Netanyahu is listed at 13th, Ben Bernanke at 15th, Dick Cheney is 38th (tied with his daughter Liz), Charles Murray writer of “The Bell Curve is 43rd (though Salman Rushdie beats him out by ten spots), Bjorn Lomborg, a well known climate denialist (until he changed his mind – sort of – in 2010) is 58th, Rand Paul (yes, that Rand Paul) is listed at 71st, and (ahem) journalist and Iraq war supporter (until he wasn’t) Peter Beinert is at 99th.

Not sure what criteria Foreign Policy, a very “Inside the Beltway” publication, used to compile this list (e.g., the Opposition leader in Burma and Nobel Peace prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Burma’s current president, Thein Sein, are tied for the top spot) but please feel free to peruse it yourself and discuss the idiocy, laziness boot-licking tendencies, wisdom or lack thereof, of our so-called elite public policy intellectuals.

Read this and try not to laugh your ass off:

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday rejected a White House offer to avoid the “fiscal cliff” that would include $1.6 trillion in tax increases, $400 billion in spending cuts and a more permanent increase in the debt ceiling, Republican aides said.

Aides said the offer was made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Rob Nabors, a top White House adviser, during their meeting with Republican leaders in the Capitol.

While the Obama administration described the offer as reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, Republicans told The Hill its tax increases amount to $600 billion more than what the Democratic-led Senate passed earlier this year when it approved legislation that would allow tax rates on top earners to rise.
“We’ve offered a balanced approach to deal with the fiscal cliff: raising revenue in a way that protects jobs while cutting spending,” said a Republican congressional aide familiar with the proposal. “But, after two weeks of discussions, the offer the White House made today is completely unbalanced and unreasonable, and amounts to little more than reiterating the president’s budget request — which failed to get a single vote in the House or Senate.”

House Democrats backed the White House for putting forward an offer based on Obama’s 2013 budget.

House Budget Committee ranking member Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), emerging from a meeting with Geithner where leaders were briefed on the offer, said it is House GOP leaders who must now put forth their plan.

“The Republicans have made some nice, positive noises but they haven’t put a plan on the table,” Van Hollen added.

Republicans said the administration is demanding the $1.6 trillion in tax increases upfront, while the smaller amount of spending cuts would come later. The White House also wants $50 billion in new stimulus spending, according to published reports, and to make permanent a change in the way the debt ceiling is raised so that Congress can only block it with a two-thirds majority.

“This offer represents a complete break from reality,” the Republican aide said.

Au contraire, mon frère, that is precisely the “reality” that the Republicans are facing. The administration is threatening to weaken their ability to obstruct in the Senate or to blow up the economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, while also demanding their tax hikes on the rich and refusing to offer anything remotely satisfactory (from the Republicans’ point of view) in spending cuts.

Give the president what he wants or over the cliff we go. And the GOP gets the blame no matter what happens. Maybe you shouldn’t have fucked with the president so much.