Latino voters are still with Obama

By Richard K. Barry

Maybe not surprising, but a Univision News/Latino Decisions poll released recently made clear the strength President Obama continues to have with Latino voters.

According to the poll released Tuesday - one year before Election day 2012 - registered Latino voters in the 21 states with the largest Latino populations prefer Obama over the top three GOP presidential candidates, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry by a two-to-one margin. The president is up 65 percent to 22 percent on Cain, 67 percent to 24 on Romney, and a whopping 68 percent to 21 on Perry.

That is certainly good news for Obama, and this is good news too:

If demographic trends are an indication, Latinos could play an even greater roll in 2012 than they did in the 2008. Last election, 6.6 million Latinos voted, but next year a record 12.2 Latinos are set to vole, a 26 percent increase from 2008, according to projections from the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund. Simply put, they are the fastest-growing voting group in the nation.

One other number worth noting is the very high percentage of Latino voters who are not blaming Obama for the struggling economy.

Sixty-seven percent believe that President George W. Bush is most responsible for the nation's economic woes (including 25 percent of Latino Republicans) and only 19 percent say Obama shoulders most of the blame. Those numbers track significantly higher than the sample of the general population, which split 50-33 percent between Bush and Obama.

Clearly the president will not want to take any constituency for granted, but this is a pretty good point from which to start making a pitch with this particular voting community.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Gov. Christie, still unpopular in his home state

By Richard K. Barry

Just because I like to point to anything that counts as bad news for that pompous bully governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, I note a recent Public Policy Polling survey on how Christie would fair against Obama head-to-head in the state. The results were 56 percent for the president, 39 percent for the pompous bully.

It is true that Obama won New Jersey by 15 points in 2008, and the state hasn't gone Republican since 1988, as Daily Kos points out, but isn't Christie supposed to be a cut above?

His current approval rating? 43 percent approve of the job he's doing and 53 disapprove, so maybe not.

I know that a lot of people think Christie could win the White House for the GOP if he would only run, but if the guy can't even come close to carrying his own state, that might be an overly optimistic assessment.

For the record, Obama beats all comers in "The Garden State" with the following breakdown: Romney (53-39); Bachmann (55-35); Pawlenty (54-32); Cain (55-29); and Palin (59-33).

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Would someone please tell Chris Matthews what American exceptionalism means?

By Richard K. Barry

We hear a lot from the right about American exceptionalism, which they seem to think means that America is and Americans are simply better by virtue of identity. Failing to comprehend the genesis of the term they seem to understand it as a matter of common language as in, "Hey, America sure is exceptional."

I don't really care to get into a long treatise on why that is a facile understanding of the term. But in short, it's really an idea used by social and political philosophers to explain aspects of America's development as a nation that are different than, say, aspects of the development of European states. It doesn't mean better, it mean different.

Professor Louis Hartz, for example, emphasized the lack of a feudal tradition in America. He argued that this helped to explain the lack of significant left/socialist tendencies on the one hand and aristocratic tendencies on the other, which, it's been suggested, helps to explain the origins of a sort of centrist, liberal consensus in America.

Like I said, I'm not trying to get into it, only to say that it's a theory, or a set of theories, that explains difference. I'm not denying, however, that some writers have interpreted the term to suggest superiority, only that it would be giving too much credit to the current mis-users of "American exceptionalism" to believe that this is the origin of their interpretation.

The problem for me is when progressives start throwing the idea around. It's like they feel they have to do conservatives one better by agreeing that great things are only possible in the USA and other countries are second best by the simple fact of not being America.

You may have seen Chris Matthews on MSNBC doing a little segment about how Obama once commented that his story would not be possible in any other country and that America was exceptional in this way.

I can only say that for anyone who believes this, you really should get out more.

America has had more than its fair share of challenges as a leader in securing racial equality for its people and Obama's rise to the presidency should be seen as the extraordinary event we all know it to be, not an opportunity for blind self-congratulations. Obama was and is swimming against the current, not with it.

Anyway, if you haven't seen the clip to which I refer, here it is:

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Organizing to beat Republicans, one freshman at a time

By Richard K. Barry

One of my favourite political stories of the year thus far has been about the letter that House GOP freshmen sent to President Obama encouraging him to reject "playing politics with key issues facing the country." This was code language for asking that the President not draw attention to the fact that Paul Ryan's budget plan will destroy Medicare as we know it -- that he not "use it" against Republicans in a partisan way.

The fact is that House Republicans voted almost unanimously last month in favour of the Ryan budget that would reform entitlement programs, including creating a voucher program for Medicare recipients to buy private insurance. As we know, all hell broke loose from there. Public opinion polls are showing that most Americans are not impressed with this approach to the point that Democrats may steal a special election in New York's 26th Congressional District at the end of the month, an otherwise strong Republican seat, mostly on the strength of voter concerns about this proposed 'restructuring' of Medicare.

In other words, House GOP freshmen, many of whom owe their seats to wild misrepresentations of Obama's own health care plan, are begging the president not to make partisan hay out of the precise and undisputed meaning of this unpopular Republican plan.

Are they out of their fucking minds?

I must say that I was pleased to see that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has been targeting Republican members of Congress, who are back in their home districts this week, on this very point.

According to The New York Times, the Committee:

has 20 Republican-held Congressional districts in its sights this week, hitting voters with automated phone calls denouncing the House Republican plan to revamp the nation's Medicare program and arming those who want with signs to protest at town hall meetings across the country. 

A web site sponsored by the campaign committee lists town hall meetings scheduled to be held by Republicans, mostly freshman, during the week. The group encourages voters to show up -- as many did during the Easter recess -- to protest or ask pointed questions of the members about their plan for Medicare, which would convert the program into one that subsidizes future retirees in private insurance plans.

This is in fact my favourite kind of politics -- organizing people to show up and ask questions of the other side in a good-faith exercise intended to elicit only the truth. If forcing new Republican members of Congress to speak the truth to their own constituents on their plans for Medicare reform is what this new class thinks of as "playing politics," I am at a loss for words.

Good on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. More of this please.

(By the way, the picture above is of newly-elected Republican Representative Nan Hayworth from NY-19, the district where I was born and raised. Democrat John Hall lost the seat to Hayworth in November. I'd like to get it back.)

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Let us again speak of the limits of civility in political discourse

By R.K. Barry

Yesterday Paul Krugman wrote about the hurt feelings the Republican leadership claimed upon listening to President Obama's speech on the economy last week. They seemed not to like, as Krugman points out, Obama's assertion that the Paul Ryan plan is cruel nonsense and should be exposed as such.

It was richly ironic to be reading about Republican hurt feelings on a day when right-wingers across the country were gathering to listen to the likes of Donald Trump, Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin, who have drawn serious attention to themselves by calling our president all manner of nasty names like "socialist, "the guy who wants to off grandma," and the "worst president ever," etc., etc.

In that context, having Republicans claim insult was a little odd.

Don't get me wrong. Civility has its place but not, perhaps, so much in the current context in which, as Krugman writes, "the two parties have both utterly different goals and utterly different views about how the world works."

Krugman continues:

It’s not nice to say this (but the truth is rarely nice): whatever they may say, Republicans are not concerned, above all, about the deficit. In fact, it’s not clear that they care about the deficit at all; they’re trying to use deficit concerns to push through their goal of dismantling the Great Society and if possible the New Deal; they have stated explicitly that they want to reduce taxes on high incomes to pre-New-Deal levels. And it’s an article of faith on their part that low taxes have magical effects on the economy.

Obama and Democrats generally tend to believe that major social programs are worth protecting, having extended them with health care reform. They tend to accept the fact, and the research to support it, that tax cuts for the wealthy are not the cure-all for what ails us.

So, the battle lines seem to be drawn. If civility means that we sit around politely chatting while Republicans tell lies about their true intentions, I want no part of it. While I hope we would all reject violence, I see no downside to taking to the streets to scream at the top of our lungs if necessary that we will not calmly debate the contours of a new economic regime that sees the rich get richer and the rest of us fight over the scraps.

Civility is all too often code language for passivity - and passivity always works in the interest of those who already have the power.

When it has been necessary to stand up for justice, fairness and equality, Americans have frequently found the strength to do so, whether for civil rights, women's right, gay rights or to oppose the war in Vietnam. In each instance, those who were being challenged could be heard bemoaning the lack of civility shown by protestors. You could always count on that.

The reshaping of our society proposed by Republican lawmakers and activists certainly requires the kind of push-back we saw in these earlier movements. If it doesn't happen in a way that is civil enough for them, I don't really care.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)

Thank you, President Obama

By Creature

You gave a speech the country needed.

The Fine Print of the Obama Tax Cuts

by Distributorcap

There was a lot of high-fiving in Congress during December. For a legislative body that is suppose to administer the direction of the country - the past year was filled with a lot of purposeful dissemination of misleading (or wrong) information, partisan fighting (not bickering) and downright GOP obstruction. But somehow after the Democrats suffered a complete thrashing in November, this Congress, much to the chagrin of assholes like Steve King and Jim Demint, managed to pass a bunch of important bills and laws.

The hateful and bigoted DADT - gone. The 9/11 rescue workers are finally getting some long overdue (but not nearly enough) compensation. The START nuclear treaty approved and in place. But no bill was as controversial as the gargantuan tax bill that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. By signing this bill, Obama reneged on his promise of reversing those poorly-timed, ill-conceived and ultimately destructive Bush tax cuts for the uber-wealthy. But the Republicans were in-transient, holding hostage all tax cuts by requiring that the uber-rich continue to receive those favored brackets. As ransom for this tactic, Obama added a couple of breaks and packages for the not-so-wealthy (aka as the people the GOP could care less about). This way the middle class would continue to benefit from the lower rates and everyone could share in the pain of increasing the deficit another $800 billion. All this was done [allegedly] for just two more years.

Be careful what you negotiate for.

The continuation of lower marginal tax rates will bring a lot of smiles to those with high incomes. In addition, the Obama tax cuts (they no longer belong to Bush) also changed some business accounting rules to encourage investment. For those currently on unemployment - a lifeline was extended. And for the middle class, the lower tax brackets will continue to put a few extra shekels into their purses (if they don't get eaten up by the fees the banks will now charge to compensate for limitations in the Financial reform bill).

What is barely discussed anywhere in the media is that this massive treasury give-away (remember we are still paying for an endless, useless and aimless war) does nothing for the long-term unemployed. Those folks - the ones who have used up their 99 weeks of benefits - did not receive one iota of help. Buried in the fine print of the bill is the mathematical certainty that the working poor - those families making under $40,000, the ones that needed this break the most - will actually will pay more in taxes. And finally that the payroll tax holiday for FICA (social security) is most definitely the first nail in the coffin to the end of Social Security as we know it. As the cherry on the sundae - let's not forget that we get to do this all over again in 2012.

I have said from the beginning that I believe this was a really, really bad bill. After reading the tea bags for this bill - we should only hope that is it just bad - my gut is now telling me it will be catastrophic.

First, the unemployment insurance extension is only for 14 months, while the tax breaks are for two years - ain't that a peach for those living on the edge. After 99 weeks of government benefits expires - you are on your own - it's time to find your inner Ayn Rand. And all this has to be renegotiated in 2012 - during the Presidential and Congressional election season. Try talking about higher taxes to a population that thinks every tax increase is just a code word for wealth transfer to Cadillac driving unemployment queens (not for the useless wars, snow removal or police protection). And if the teabag movement gathers anymore steam (aided and abetted by the media, which loves the drama they bring to the screen) - forget about anyone talking higher taxes.

Worse is what this bill does to the lower classes, working poor and Social Security. Part of this bill was a payroll "tax holiday" for those contributing to FICA. The current rate was 6.2% of your pay, up to an income cap of $106,800 (or a max of $6621). For 2011, that rate drops to 4.2% (or $4485). Everyone gets some sort of break, but those earning over the cap will get the full $2136. Let's take a look at the math of this.

Around 12% of the country earns more than $106,800 - so those people will get the full benefit of the holiday. Let's assume 26 paychecks (bi-weekly pay) - that means anyone over the cap gets an additional $82/check. For those making over the "magic" number of $250,000 (the level the tax debate kept deferring to) - they already come home with well over $4500 per check.  That $82 starts to look like a rounding error.

I am not minimizing this amount - for people on the bottom end of the pay scale, every dollar counts. Let's look at it from the perspective of your "average Joe-the-Plumber." The median annual income in the US is just below $50,000. That means this tax holiday will save those families (yes I realize it depends on one/two income families - but I am just trying to simplify things) around $1000 - not chump change. Again at 26 paychecks - those families will see a bump of $38 per check. I am no psychologist - but there is definitely a different mentality in spending/saving when someone receives one check for $1000 versus a stream of payments of $38 over 12 months. My fear is that the $38 (which won't even fill up a car today) - will get lost on lunch, Starbucks, clothing and other assorted non income generating savings. It is easy to deposit $1000 in a savings account/mutual. It is even easier to spend $38 on unnecessary things.

But the administration tell us that the idea of the payroll "holiday" is to get people to buy shit - even if it is only $38. On the macro level it all sounds well and good. The Government estimates that 2% drop in the FICA rate is worth $120 billion - and they also tell us those dollars will go straight into the economy and help create jobs. Keep dreaming. If people use it to pay down debt - (and many people in the lower brackets have way too high debt loads) - well that generates ZERO economic growth. They are just paying for crap they already used. And if we continue to buy cheap crap from overseas - well it will help the unemployment rate -- in India or Taiwan.  Remember the "pre-paid refunds" Congress gave 3 years ago - that $250 check - where was all the benefit?  Until confidence is restored, and people pump up demand naturally and start spending for real reasons (not by plopping $38 into a paycheck) - this payroll tax holiday is nothing more than macro-bubble economics and window dressing.

There is a deep dark side to this payroll holiday. Remember that Americans are like Pavlov's dogs when the bell is rung for tax increases - they bark, complain and vote out the ones who supported an increase.  Let's see how quiet the teabaggers are when this cut is about to expire. Want to bet it gets extended - indefinitely. Which of course means payments into the Social Security trust fund (the one with all the IOUs signed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) will start to be underfunded even quicker. Guess what can of orange pekoe tea worms is being opened? You don't have to be an economist to combine an aging (65+) population, a growing income disparity, an economy that is NOT going to return to pre-2000 employment levels anytime soon and an underfunded Social Security system to see you are creating teabagger paradise - the end of the New Deal - and a lot sooner than they ever dreamed of.

What people should do is take that payroll holiday bonus (whatever amount it is) and automatically invest it in some sort of savings/retirement account - knowing that Social Security is not the third rail anymore. Want to bet that doesn't happen?

Finally - lets look at those working poor. In 2010 any single person earning between $6450 and $75,000 (or two-income family earning between $12,900 and $150,000) was eligible for a $400 ($800) Making Work Pay tax credit. That break is now gone - replaced by the payroll tax holiday. Let's say you are a two-income family that earns $38,000 (which 40% of the households in the country top out at!). Your $800 Making Work Pay credit is gone in 2011, but you now get (thanks to the great negotiating skills of President Obama) the FICA tax holiday - which is worth $760. So at the end of the year - you have a net tax increase of $40! Anyone making less will have an even bigger increase. The break-even point is $40,000. Based on this little math game - over 40% of all American families - the ones with the lowest incomes - will actually pay more in taxes - while those fine folks at $250,000 who are enjoying an additional $2,136 for Ferragamo shoes, Parada bags, Beluga caviar, and Dom Perignon champagne. Want to bet that a good chunk of that aforementioned 40% are teabaggers?

I wonder how many teabaggers bothered to read the bill, do the math - or realize that no matter how angry they get...... well let them eat tea cakes with Asti Spumonte.

Oh - 43.6 million Americans (or 14% of the country) lives below the poverty level - which is around an income of $21,700 for a family of four. In 1980, before the dawn of trickle down your pants tax cuts - that number was 27 million or 12%.  Pretty pathetic for the richest country on Earth.

Progress in America: DADT goes down

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

The Senate voted to repeal DADT on Saturday. We've written about DADT a lot here, and I won't repeat myself here, but I must say that while I am neither gay nor in the military, nor even American, I am incredibly happy about this. It was a hard-fought victory for the opponents of this bigoted policy, a victory not just for President Obama and the Democrats in a partisan political sense but more broadly for liberty, for the noble principles for which America purports to stand.

I may not be American, but I have roots in America, and I genuinely love America, and yesterday, I believe, America took a significant step forward in its progress towards justice.

Here's the Times:

The Senate on Saturday voted to strike down the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, bringing to a close a 17-year struggle over a policy that forced thousands of Americans from the ranks and caused others to keep secret their sexual orientation.

By a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate approved and sent to President Obama a repeal of the Clinton-era law, known as "don't ask, don't tell," a policy critics said amounted to government-sanctioned discrimination that treated gay, lesbian and bisexual troops as second-class citizens.

Mr. Obama hailed the action, which fulfills his pledge to reverse the ban, and said it was "time to close this chapter in our history."

Of course, there is still a lot more to be done. While gays and lesbians will be able to serve openly, to fight and die for their country, we must remember that they do not enjoy equal rights as American citizens. They are still subjected to widespread bigotry, in particular with respect to marriage.

America has come a long way, but the fight must continue. Those noble principles often seem like little more than aspirational and unachieveable goals, but now, after this historic vote, and with Obama's signature soon to come, they are more within reach.

The forces of darkness, mostly within the Republican Party, will continue to do all they can to block progress from their perches on the wrong side of history, but they must be overcome if America is ever truly to achieve her potential.

Tax deal

By Creature

Let's be clear, politically, Obama got everything he wanted out of the tax-cut deal. The point, right or wrong, was to separate himself from the liberal base and appeal to moderates and independents. The more we wail the more the White House cheers. It's Bill Clinton all over again. Mission accomplished.

Why waste all that typing on an email

By Creature

As you guys have become acutely aware of, I have no time to blog (or, I'm so dispirited, I don't feel much like it). However, I have had time to have some spirited email exchanges, see my last two substantive posts, with a very moderate buddy (and reader) who insists on making the false equivalency argument that both the Left and the Right suck ass and are only interested in destroying the other. I call him a militant moderate. Well, we got into another row yesterday after I sent him a link to this Tom Tomorrow comic:



And the "discussion" flowed:

Him: Calling me a tepid moderate seems out of line on a nice Friday morning – and, besides, as you have noted before, I am pretty militant in my moderatism.

Here is what I do not get: You and your southpaw crew apparently think that the right is out to deliberately destroy and run the US into the ground (just like the right thinks the left is). That is my main problem with the battle lines that have been drawn. I simply just refuse to believe that either side is thinking “how can I, not only obstruct the other side, but DESTROY the country today.” Each side believes what they are doing is right, and both sides want what they see as “the best for the country.” You can disagree with their theory, but I just cannot believe that one side or the other wants the country to implode – cue you calling me naïve….

Me: You’re naïve.

If the left were as absolutists as you think then maybe you’re right. However, the left (or should I say Obama) has been bending over backwards to meet in the middle (the health plan was a GOP plan from the '90s and Mitt's from when he was governor of Massachusetts, the tax cuts were larded into the stimulus to satisfy the GOP—and they still didn’t vote for it, Cap & Trade was a GOP idea—-I could go on) and they have gotten nothing in return. They may not want to destroy the country, but they want to destroy Obama, make sure he’s a one-termer. It’s politics over the good of the country. This is what I’m talking about and you never acknowledge this. You are blinded by your militant moderation.

Him: I think we have played this record before.

Why do they want to “destroy” Obama? Because in their minds, according to their political theories, he is not doing what is best for the country.

Why did the left want to “destroy” Bush – for EXACTLY the same reasons – they didn’t agree with his politics and thought he was taking the country in the wrong direction.

Why did the right want to “destroy” Clinton? You get the point.

Me: Right, but I just gave you concrete examples of the Left trying, in good faith, to deal, so it’s not the same. Can you at least admit that?

Also, too, the Left gave Bush every opportunity and benefit of the doubt at the start (pretty much until Iraq). The battle cry to destroy him did not happen until then (not even from me). Obama got no such luxury (and he didn’t even send people to die in an illegal war of choice).

Here’s a thought experiment for you: If 9/11 happened under Obama what would the GOP do? Now, think back, when 9/11 happened the country and all Dem politicians were overwhelming supportive.

And another one: If Lehman’s collapse and the banking crisis of Sept. '08 happened under Obama, what would the GOP have done? It happened under Bush and the Dems banded together to help despite that fact that it helped a GOP President.

I’m just saying it’s not as black and white as your middle-of-the-road mind would like.

Him: Hypotheticals are not really useful. I know which conclusion you draw, but I do not believe you can play “what if” like that. Do you seriously think that the GOP would not rally behind the president in the face of an attack on the country? Also, you make it sound like the left was doing Bush a favor – they were overwhelmingly supportive because it was the right thing to do.

Yes, you provided one example. If you are representing to me that in the history of American politics, the Right has always been obstructionist, and have NEVER tried to deal in good faith, I guess an uninformed guy like myself would have to take you at your word. Is that what you are telling me?

Right, its not black and white, but its not either black and every single shade of gray on the one side and only the purest white on the other, like the left often represents.

Me: You’re killing me.

“If you are representing to me that in the history of American politics, the Right has always been obstructionist, and have NEVER tried to deal in good faith, I guess an uninformed guy like myself would have to take you at your word. Is that what you are telling me?”

What I’ve been trying to tell you, and you so stubbornly won’t hear, is that times have changed. Jeez. Yes, there was a time when there was dealing in good faith. I long for those times. Newt in '94 changed ALL that and they’ve gotten worse ever since. I long for those magical times where Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan sat down to deal. It just doesn’t happen today. They do not give Obama an inch. Hell, Clinton gave them everything they wanted (welfare reform, anyone) and they IMPEACHED him anyway. This is what you refuse to see. Again, times have changed. Now, this is a message Dems (and especially Obama) must get too. They still think they can deal in good faith, but there’s none right now. Maybe that will change, but that is not the reality of today.

Him: Ok, Ok, jeez, keep your pants on. I do not refuse to see anything.

Your Clinton point is weak. I am sure you don’t mean that the GOP should have ignored Clinton's lies on the stand (that is what he was impeached for, right? That is a question), because Clinton scratched their back?

Me: I give up.

Him: Quitter.

Me: Just call me Sarah.

Because sometimes I want to be a cheerleader

By Creature

Honoring our troops, not scoring political points

By Peter Henne

I waited until now to post this, because I knew the power of Obama's rhetoric would require some reflection. For what it's worth, his speech commemorating the official end of combat in Iraq was respectful, and appropriate.

The President tried to frame this somewhat-milestone in a somber manner, highlighting the valor of our troops without turning them into a political prop. As a progressive who believes that the use of force is occasionally required, I felt that Obama's realistic assessment of war--the "darkest of human creations," in his words--was not as triumphal as some might like, but was refreshing in a way.

I wish I could say the same of his Republican critics. I really do; it would be nice if honor and respect could prevail in a moment like this. Boehner and McConnell released confused "prebuttals," in which they claimed that Iraq has improved without Obama's help and Obama has always opposed the war; they also repeated the tired refrain about "arbitrary" deadlines. Never mind the 2011 Iraq withdrawal deadline Obama is working towards in a gradual, responsible way was set by Bush. Or that Obama has had a consistent and nuanced position on the war since it began (for a good overview of this, see the timeline Jim Arkedis put together).

And this was preceded by a ridiculous 527 ad that included such laughable attack lines as blaming Obama for failing to catch Osama bin Ladin. It isn't the inaccuracies that annoy me, as right-wing attack ads are rarely very erudite. It is the fact that today we should be reflecting on the sacrifices our troops have made in service of this country, and vowing to support those who have returned, those in Afghanistan, and the 50,000 who remain in Iraq. Instead we get a vapid and unoriginal attack on Obama from GOP "leaders," and a shameless fear-mongering ad.

I should not have expected more of the Right, but I did.

The long view

By Mustang Bobby.

A lot of people are quoting Atrios's summation of the White House mid-term election campaign strategy, so I might as well, too.

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

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

The logic behind the cool -- practically supine -- response is that Yelling and Screaming on TV isn't this White House's shtick; leave that to the Glenn Becks and the Fox News and Rush Limbaughs of the world while the Obama administration calmly goes about its business of keeping the country running. This seemed to work when they passed the stimulus package and healthcare reform. The fact that it also drove progressives to vituperativity didn't factor in.

But times have changed, especially since the Republicans have mastered the art of saying No, then turning around and saying "See, you can't get anything done, you won't work with us, and all you do is blame us for the huge clustastrophe we left you." This isn't March or April any more; there are less than four months before the mid-terms. The economy isn't going to recover all the jobs that were lost during the recession in that time; hell, they'll be lucky if they make up half of them by 2012. So if that's what the mid-terms are going to be decided on, the Democrats are going to get licked, possibly even to the point that John Boehner becomes Speaker of the House. If so, expect to hear two years of whining and complaining about how he can't get anything done because the Obama administration and the Democrats screwed up so badly. That's how that works.

On Meet the Press, Robert Gibbs basically sent out the message that the White House knows they're going to lose in the mid-terms and they're already focused on 2012. There may be some political gamesmanship here; setting expectations low so that when it happens it won't come as a shock, or if, by some miracle they retain just enough to keep the majority, it will seem like genius. But if that's the plan, why is the White House sending out mixed signals? If the president is going to go out on the stump in Kansas City and go into full campaign mode, then don't send Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod out on the Sunday chat shows two days later to lower expectations. All that does is give Chris Mathews something to talk about on Monday: "Mixed messages! Let's play Hardball!"

E.J. Dionne notes that the Democrats have lost a good deal of support among the independent voters. That may easily be, but the one thing that could save the Democrats is the wingnut factor. We're already seeing some of the extremist talk from candidates like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul get some WTF traction, and that has to have an impact on the independents; they are by and large repelled by ideology and vote based on practicality. It's hard to imagine them getting on board with some of the batshittery being put out there by some candidates. I find it hard to believe that a candidate who talks about "Second Amendment solutions" or who holds a seance with George Washington is going to rally any large group of voters besides the ones who haven't been taking their proper medications.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Obama's G20 stimulus pleas ignored

By Creature

Welcome to the dirty-fucking-hippie camp, Mr. President. I sure hope you don't bruise easily.

Sore winner

By Creature

McChrystal should be fired, if anything, for being such a sore winner. Guy got everything he wanted and still he whines. Not very general-like if you ask me.

No deal yet on BP escrow account

By Creature

Why are they even dealing? This is why I think last night's speech was weak. The president was still asking, not telling BP what to do. Just like with the Senate, he seems captured.

Update: $20 billion independent fund has been established. Good. Very good. I give the president props here for getting it done.

Oval Office speech

By Creature

I just don't know who the speech was intended for. It didn't play well with me, but for those who don't pay as much attention I suspect it may have done the job.

Quote of the Day

By Creature

"I guess it's the kabuki of our times. The president has to be In Charge whether he can actually do anything or not." -- Kevin Drum after yesterday's oil-spill presser.

Breaking ... Obama to launch "Clunkers For Nukes"

By J. Thomas Duffy

In a bombshell announcement this morning, President Obama, following up on his successful Nuclear Security Summit, said that an agreement was reached last evening with the other participating 47 countries, and a new "Clunkers for Nukes" program will be launched.



"Legitimate governments, rogue players, terrorists, they're all eligible to turn in their nuclear weapons, or materials, and have their choice of a pre-owned automobile," stated White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, at an unscheduled briefing this morning.

"We have an overstock situation," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

"We're swimming in used cars ... We lost count, we have so many."

Last year, the Obama Administration instituted a "Cash for Clunkers" program, in an effort to stimulate the economy, and, according to administration officials, was quite successful.



Gibbs further explained, that the "Clunkers for Nukes" program will be scaled, in favor of the client.

"We're offering one car, for every ten-pounds of nuclear material, be it simple, unaltered plutonium, or enhanced, weapons-grade plutonium. It's projected, some potential clients could walk away with three, four, possibly even, five cars with their trade-in."

Gibbs would neither confirm, or deny, that President Obama, in a Rose Garden ceremony, would, symbolically trade in an two old American nuclear warheads, for cars that would be saved for his daughters, when they reach the appropriate age.

News of the "Clunkers for Nukes" program reached the Middle East, as Al Jeezera is reporting that Osama bin Laden is planning on releasing a new audio tape, indicating he is looking for a 1965 Cadillac, and may reach out to U.S. officials.


Bonus Riffs

Top Ten Cloves: Great Things About Obama Taking Over General Motors

What's Good For Tesla Motors ...

Retro Garlic: Is Chrysler Now Adopting The HuffPo Business Plan?




(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

The Plain Sense of Things

By Capt. Fogg

After the leaves have fallen, we return
To a plain sense of things. It is as if
We had come to an end of the imagination,
Inanimate in an inert savoir.

-Wallace Stevens-
___________________________

Remember when Obama was "the most liberal Senator" in the whole, wide world and we were supposed to tremble at the thought of his limitless liberalness making Capitalism illegal while the Government Printing office was strained to its limit printing little red books? Wasn't long ago.

Now what seems like a majority of those who voted for him are asking what things would be like if he really were a liberal. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi -- they don't seem much like the little red " far left liberal" devils we were warned about. In fact, with a health care bill that seems to have been written by the Health Care corporations and the anti-abortion Religious Right, some are asking if this isn't indeed a country for old men; the same old men whose exclusive country club it's been all along.

No, it's not like the crazy bastards we had for the last 8 years are back and in fact I think we'd have been far worse off had the Republicans won the White House once again, but still. It's like we had come to an end of the imagination -- a fantastic effort has failed, a repetition in a repetitiousness of men and lies.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)