Ta-Neishi Coates's final thought...

Published in its entirety:

Here is former head and current spokesperson for the Tea Party Express Mark Williams satirically responding to the NAACP:

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.

The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew
NAACP Head Colored Person

Williams has since taken the original down and posted a half-hearted justification. Mark Williams is the same man who has denounced Barack Obama as "Indonesian Muslim" and a "welfare thug." If Mark Williams is not a racist, then there are no racists in American society--a position which many, some liberals among them, no doubt find plausible.

It's been asked in comments, a few times, what good has come of the NAACP's resolution. I would not endeavor to speak for anyone but myself when I say that I owe the NAACP a debt of gratitude. I have, in my writing, a tendency to become theoretically cute, and overly enamored with my own fair-mindedness. Such vanity has lately been manifested in the form of phrases like "it's worth saying" and "it strikes me that..." or "respectfully..."

When engaging your adversaries, that approach has its place. But it's worth saying that there are other approaches and other places. Among them--respectfully administering the occasional reminder as to the precise nature of the motherfuckers you are dealing with. It strikes me that this is a most appropriate role for the nation's oldest civil rights organization.

Ta-Neishi Coates says it for me...

This is starting to be a trend.

First Chris Bodenner (writing for the vacationing Andrew Sullivan) wrote this:

Ta-Nehisi, who has been critical of the NAACP in the past, can't side with me, Weigel, and others exasperated with the group's Tea Party resolution

...

For me the issue is a practical matter; was the NAACP resolution helpful for race relations? Based on the immediate and inflammatory backlash showcased in the MSM, I think not.

And then he followed up with this:

Perhaps the NAACP could have approached [Tea Party Movement] leaders in private first, offering to help with a PR strategy to purge the racist elements of the movement from its core, small government message. That would have been the Obama-esque approach. But publicly shaming the [Tea Party Movement] into doing so doesn't seem smart or pragmatic.

I cannot think of a more stupid (and yes, frankly...racist) sentence to write in the English language than that.

Why is it that every time there is racist action on the part of White Americans, and Black Americans have the temerity to protest it or just let folks know it happened; it always becomes our fault? It's never the people who committed the racist action, it's always something we should have done better.

I put the following in an email to Ta-Neishi Coates, the writer who touched off Mr. Bodenner's comments:

Perhaps the Rodney King could have approached L.A. Police in private first, offering to help with a PR strategy to purge the racist elements from their ranks and get them to stop beating the hell out of him. That would have been the Obama-esque approach.

Dave Weigel chimed in today, following through on the "the NAACP shouldn't have done this" meme :

When I said the NAACP's move would backfire, I meant things like this would happen. I didn't mean they were wrong to go down that road. It's just that they should know that calling out a group for "racism" is pointless -- whoever's been targeted will simply claim to have been attacked unfairly and had his free speech threatened. Remember what happened when Eric Holder said that America had been a "nation of cowards" in discussing race. Boom: Backlash. Anger. Debate over why he said it, but not what he meant. A year and change later we have a ridiculous national debate over whether Holder's department hates white people because it won't draw and quarter the New Black Panther Party. This stuff is what he meant, of course. But saying it isn't actually starting the debate. It's pretty obvious that the NAACP failed here.

Suddenly, I find myself just a little less sympathetic to Mr. Weigel's dismissal by the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago.

But finally, Ta-Neishi stepped up, and wrote back to Mr. Bodenner and Mr. Weigel:

To the extent that the NAACP has, as Dave says, "failed," it is because the arbiters of facts have ceded ground, and reporters and writers dutifully, and uncritically, dispense the notion that an organization which helped birth modern America has "a long history of...racism." But it also fails because there is very little pushback on this notion from "sensible" liberal writers. (I don't include Dave among them, mind you.) Instead we're getting calls for the president to condemn the NAACP, essentially, for being the NAACP.

Dave concedes that the NAACP has a case, but concludes that they're wrong for making it. But they're only wrong for making it because the broader society, evidently, believes that objecting to a call for literacy tests is, in fact, just as racist as a call for literacy tests. This inversion, this crime against sound logic, is at the heart of American white supremacy, and at the heart of a country that has nurtured white supremacy all these sad glorious years.

It is the Founders claiming all men are created equal while building a democracy on property in human beings. It is Confederates crying tyranny, while erecting a country based on tyranny. It is Sherman discriminating against black soldiers, while claiming that his superiors are discriminating against whites. It's Ben Tillman justifying racial terrorism, by claiming that he's actually fighting against terrorism. It is George Wallace defending a system built on bombing children in churches, and then asserting that the upholders of that system are "the greatest people to ever trod this earth."

Those who employ racism are not in the habit of confessing their nature--inversion is their cloak. Cutting out the cancer means confronting that inversion, means not wallowing in on-the-other-handism, in post-racialism, means seeing this as more than some kind of political game. Someone has, indeed, failed here. It is not the NAACP.

Well said. (Though I do put Dave Weigel in the category of failed "sensible" writers.)

Spoken like someone who's never had to work for a vote in his life...

Krugman, after repeating a story from Rep. David Obey about how the Stimulus was formed, and downgraded:

But remember, the Cossacks work for the czar.

When Krugman says stuff like this, it's hard to believe he's got a college degree much less a PhD from an acclaimed University. Yeah, the White House staff works for the President, but the Congress...you know the people who actually vote on stuff...work for the people in their districts. The President isn't a CEO, despite what Dubya would have you believe. He can't snap his fingers and get anyone in the Congress to do his bidding. The system was never set up that way. I thought that was a good thing.

Joe Klein (also) says it for me...

More pushback on the Washington Post story, this time coming from the pen of Joe Klein on the pages of Time. It's not all positive, but...:

The reading and spinning of polls is more alchemy than science. The Washington Post, in its infinite wisdom, leads that paper today with this headline: 6 in 10 Americans lack faith in Obama. Uh-oh...paging Pete Wehner and the rest of the sky-is-falling crowd.

And, of course, the numbers are not great news for the President. But it takes 15--count 'em--paragraphs to get to this little news nugget: Obama has a 50-47% approval rating. How on earth can that be? Well, it turns out that Americans don't have much faith in any politicians. Indeed, people have more faith in Obama than they do in most anyone else: if 58% say they have "some" or "no" faith in him, 68% say the same about the Democrats in Congress...and 72% have no faith in the Republicans.

So, what's this all about? Tough times, mostly. Let's take a test: Do you have faith that the President is doing the right thing on the economy? My answer: I don't have a clue. Actually, at the moment, I'm leaning toward "no" because Obama seems to be tilting against stimulus and toward short-term deficit reduction--which could swing us into a double-dip recession.

This is also about the over-hyping of polls. Newspapers pay lots of money for them and hope they will create a splash. In this case, the real news is no news. The President's approval ratings remain pretty good, given all the lousy news abroad in the land--and pretty stable as well. The Congressional Democrats, on the other hand, have a lot to worry about.

It's all in how you want to spin it.

Jonathan Chait says it for me...

I've been a mite bit depressed about the Washington Post story that appeared this morning about the President's poll numbers (Dad will attest to this). I was going to write something about the general foolishness of the American public, but Jonathan Chait of the New Republic beat me to it:

The poll shows that, among registered voters, 47% plan to vote for a Republican in the House elections, and 46% for a Democrat. (Among voters most likely to vote, the GOP leads 49-45.) At the same time, the poll also shows that the public clearly favors the Democrats over the Republicans. The Post story about the poll leads with the fact that only 43% of the public has confidence in President Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future. That's low. But only 26% have confidence in Republicans in Congress to make the right decisions, which is far lower than Obama, and even lower than Congressional Democrats, in whom 32% have confidence. That's not an anomaly. Asked which party will do a better job of handling the economy, 42% say the Democrats and 34% say the GOP.

So, in sum, there's a crucial swing vote bloc that prefers the policies of the Democrats over the Republicans but plans to vote for the Republicans anyway.

My honest assessment is that the Democrats are going to lose seats, but the only way they lose either of the houses is if Democrats don't show up.

So Democrats? Show the @#$% up.

The Fireside chat for July 10, 2010 (VIDEO)

President Obama announces that the Department of Veterans Affairs, led by Secretary Shinseki, will begin making it easier for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to receive the benefits and treatment they need.

Ego run amok. Part 2.

The Attorney General for West Virginia gives the go ahead for Governor Joe Manchin's ego trip--err, I mean Special Election.

How does the deficit affect LeBron's decision?

Wow. A non-politics post.

We had a 5.4 Earthquake here in SoCal, and I asked "How does the Earthquake affect LeBron's decision"

Speaking of ego run amok...

Listen, I’ve been on record (in the non-blogsphere world) saying over and over again that LeBron is staying in Cleveland. Even though it’s starting to look very much like I was wrong on this one, I’m going to stick with my prediction to the bitter end. Why? Because I cannot believe that this multi-millionaire Athlete, who can live anywhere in the world, and chooses to live in Akron, Ohio (because clearly he loves it), is going to give that up...and take less money in the process.

If Art Modell had to leave Cleveland for his own safety, do you really think that Bitter Cleveland fan is going to let LeBron off the hook? At least Modell was a New York native. Prince James doesn’t have that excuse. Cleveland fans have been through tough times, and are even tougher people, and they’ll hold onto a grudge until hell won’t have it no more.

But since I’m not from Cleveland, I just root for the team, I’d like to think I have a little perspective on LeBron James. I like the guy, but I don't love him like Ohio fan does. I think he is vastly overrated. I think he's a smart kid, but not a very bright one (and there is a difference). I think he truly believes that if he bolts to Miami, he’ll be forgiven by the people of Ohio.

Never in a million years.

Only a individual with his titanic ego would buy himself an hour of national (basic cable) television time, to tell the people of Ohio to @#$% off, and somehow expect them to be grateful for it. (I heard Stephen A. Ego---errr, I mean Stephen A. Smith on the Jim Rome show this morning saying that LeBron has nothing to apologize for. I think he’s living in the same bubble as LeBron and his crew).

There will be no gratitude, no thanks and no fond memories from the fans of the Cleveland Cavaliers. All they can do is pick themselves up, dust themselves off, draft well, let Byron Scott coach ‘em up, and win despite that preening @#$%.

No other act in this world will turn me into a Laker fan faster than LeBron bolting for Miami. But hey, that’s where we are.

UPDATE: 11:20am Pacific: Bill Simmons has a lot more. Read it, I'm sold.

I can't wait to watch for the same reasons I couldn't turn away from O.J.'s Bronco chase or the Artest melee: it's Car Wreck Television. If LeBron picks anyone other than the Cavaliers, it will be the cruelest television moment since David Chase ended "The Sopranos" by making everyone think they lost power. Cleveland fans will never forgive LeBron, nor should they. He knows better than anyone what kind of sports anguish they have suffered over the years. Losing LeBron on a contrived one-hour show would be worse than Byner's fumble, Jose Mesa, the Game 5 meltdown against Boston, The Drive, The Shot and everything else. At least those stomach-punch moments weren't preordained, unless you believe God hates Cleveland (entirely possible, by the way). This stomach-punch moment? Calculated. By a local kid they loved, defended and revered.

It would be unforgivable. Repeat: unforgivable. I don't have a dog in this race -- as a Celtics fan, I wanted to see him go anywhere but Chicago -- but LeBron doing this show after what happened in the 2010 playoffs actually turned me against him. No small feat. I was one of his biggest defenders. Not anymore.

Ego run amok...

Because only one job really matters to him, the West Virginia Governor is holding 2.1 Unemployed Americans hostage.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"If you’re going to push the rules as far as they can go..."

A good dig from Jonathan Cohn:

The holds are in keeping with the rules of the Senate, as currently written; Republicans are technically within their rights to use them. But having poisoned the nomination process, are they really surprised--and can they really blame--the Democrats for responding in kind? “If you’re going to push the rules as far as they can go,” my colleague Jonathan Chait notes, “you can hardly complain when the other party does the same thing.”

Even Steven/Stephen... (VIDEO)

As a veteran Daily Show viewer, I can't tell you how much I missed this...

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Steve Carell
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Regarding This Double Dip Talk .....

The Bonddad tries to put some much needed perspective on this talk of a double-dip recession. (Thank you, Robert Reich!)

In short? Out of the woods yet? No. Doing better? Yes. Unemployment? Still too high. Housing? Too much supply. China? Could be a problem. E.U.? Another problem, but could be fixable. Washington? The Austerity police have their heads so far up their--

--I'll leave that to Krugman. He's got more Nobels than I do.

Soldiers are Soldiers everywhere... (VIDEO)

...and yes, those are members of the Israeli Defense Force, on duty, in the West Bank, gettin' down to (according to Andrew Sullivan and the Telegraph) Kesha's (American, and a terrible rapper) hit song Tik-Tok.

The Fireside chat for July 3, 2010 (VIDEO)

As part of the explosion of Recovery Act projects this summer and as a move towards a clean energy future, the President announces nearly $2 billion in conditional commitments to key solar companies.

The President's Speech on Immigration for July 1, 2010 (VIDEO)

The key graph:

In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.

Just a few years ago, when I was a senator, we forged a bipartisan coalition in favor of comprehensive reform. Under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who had been a longtime champion of immigration reform, and Senator John McCain, we worked across the aisle to help pass a bipartisan bill through the Senate. But that effort eventually came apart. And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support.

Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.

And you don’t have to take my word for this. You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing.

These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound. And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.

The President's Town Hall in Racine, Wisconsin of June 30, 2010 (VIDEO)

This wasn’t a bad town hall. Not a must see by any means, outside of the hard elbow the President threw at on John Boehner, which he’s still smarting about given his public comments today.

The Town Hall portion was a bit of a let down, in that everyone was just so glad to see him that no one asked any tough questions. The one kid seemed to have one, but it bordered on incomprehensible. “I saw an interview where you said that you wanted the civilians to be just as strong and well-funded as our military. What are your plans to go about constructing such a thing?” Huh?!?




Sometimes I get the feeling that, the President is just waiting for a Republican plant to get into one of these Town Halls and throw him some heat. Every time someone asks him something close to tough, the crowd boos, and the President has to shush them down. “No. No. That’s okay,” he’ll say. As if to say he’s got this. I’m sure he’s ready with an answer, but the question never comes.

Jon Stewart interviews the Axe (VIDEO)

I feel...mixed about this interview, but am leaning toward a solid B for both Jon and David Axelrod.

A lot of the questions asked came off at times plain-ass ig'nant. (Was Congress even mentioned in the interview? Apparently, the President can enact our Progressive/Liberal Agenda through Executive fiat. I did not know that.)

Still, Stewart got to ask a bunch of questions that I know he's wanted to ask for a long time, ones that had clearly been bugging him. He got in some good hard shots.

At the same time, Axelrod answered them...but answered them quickly in the middle of long lists of Administration Accomplishments. One telling exchange between Axe and Jon was over Bagram Air Base. Jon wanted to know why it had been excluded from habeas corpus proceedings, and Axe said: 1) that the Courts will decide (intimating that the President has and will follow the Courts decisions), and 2) intimating that when your ass is in charge of National Security, you're perspective does change a little.

Favorite question? What's worse? Dealing with intractable Conservatives or Pie-in-the-sky, Nothing's ever good enough Liberals? (My words, not Jon's).

And yes, Jon. There are people in between that.


Part 1:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
David Axelrod Unedited Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
David Axelrod Unedited Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Part 3: (This is the part that wasn't aired, and contains the good stuff.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
David Axelrod Unedited Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The Fireside chat for June 26, 2010 (VIDEO)

With Congress having finalized a strong Wall Street reform bill to avert another crisis and end bailouts, the President urges Congress to finish the job and send the bill to his desk.

The President replaces Stanley McChrystal (VIDEO)

While, I've found some of the rhetoric overheated (really, Joe Klein...his whole Presidency?) I don't think the President had much of a choice. The article was at the very least a borderline Article 88 violation of the UCMJ, which says:

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

I picked that up from Thomas Ricks, who of course has had a couple of really good pieces on the McChrystal Matter.

When in doubt, go to the Bonddad...

I first heard the Bonddad (aka Hale Stewart, a Tax Lawyer from Texas) on Johnny Wendell's KTLK Radio Program, and it was their conservations that prompted my recent interest in Economics.

Whenever I read his blog, I am always reassured. Even when things look like or are actually going to hell, I understand why (a biggie in my book). He's got enough knowledge (and writing skills) to tell me what's happening, explain it clearly, and tell me what I should look for, and why I should or shouldn't be worried.

Here's his latest:

Household spending is increasing but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit.

We've seen PCEs and retail increase for the better part of a year. But these increases are coming off of very low levels caused by the recession. In addition, there is little reason to think we'll see robust increases in this number given the unemployment and income situation.

Business spending on equipment and software has risen significantly; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls.

About half of the investment equation is solid. Businesses are increasing in capital areas that increase productivity. Commercial real estate is still in poor shape and businesses are still reluctant to hire.

Housing starts remain at a depressed level.

And they will for the foreseeable future. As NDD and I highlighted a few days ago, housing is still suffering from a massive inventory overhang.

Financial conditions have become less supportive of economic growth on balance, largely reflecting developments abroad.

Europe is a problem. I think we figured that out. The real question is what is the depth of the problem. Should the EU's policy response continue to develop positively, I think we'll be OK. The main problems is they are trying to coordinate a $1 trillion dollar plan by building a consensus in the EU community -- an obviously difficult task.

Bank lending has continued to contract in recent months

Yes it has. But that is normal. Consider this chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve:



First, the chart is in logarithmic scale. While the depth of the latest contraction is sharper, it is normal for credit to contract at the beginning of the expansion. In other words, the latest contraction is hardly a new or historical development.

Your base + everyone else...

I'm not in the habit of quoting Conservative Pundits on this site. (Yeah, yeah, I know Andrew Sullivan's a conservative...but he supports Obama. By this point, he's practically a Democrat. Granted, a Charlie Crist Democrat -- and I mean that seriously).

David Frum, who's a Tea Party hater of the first order, put this little nugget up:

It's difficult for a political party to think strategically after a political defeat as severe as 2008's. But the Tea Party elevated the inability to think strategically into a fundamental conservative principle. Its militants denounce those Republicans who have resisted the movement as ideological traitors: "Republicans in name only" or even (charmingly) as "Vichy Republicans". In fact, the unthinking rejectionism of the Tea Party has strengthened Obama's political position. Now it threatens to deplete Republican strength in Congress, losing races that could have been won.

David Cameron's Conservatism responds to local British conditions. It's not an export product. But there is at least one big lesson that Americans could learn from him when the Tea Party finally ends: yes, a party must champion the values of the voters it already has. But it must also speak to the voters it still needs to win.

The Fireside chat for June 19, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President calls on Republicans in Congress to put scoring political points aside, and instead to focus on solving the problems facing the nation. At the time of this address, the Republican leadership is blocking progress on a bill to boost the economy, retain jobs for teachers and cops, and help people buy their first home; another bill which would hold oil companies accountable for any disasters they cause by removing the current $75 million liability cap; and 136 highly qualified men and women who have been nominated to government positions.

Not necessarily a campaign preview (VIDEO)

One of the things Democrats are doing very well in the run-up to the mid-terms is running local races. "All politics is local" after all. And while Democrats are doing that, Republicans are running a national campaign against the President, against the Speaker and against Harry Reid.

So, despite the fact that I think this is a good commercial, I don't know how much we're going to be seeing it in the future with other Democratic candidates.

Unserious People III

I was so busy writing Unserious People II, that I nearly missed Andrew Sullivan:

What are the odds that Obama's huge success yesterday in getting BP to pledge a cool $20 billion to recompense the "small people" in the Gulf will get the same attention as his allegedly dismal speech on Tuesday night? If you take Memeorandum as an indicator, it really is no contest. The speech is still being dissected by language experts, but the $20 billion that is the front page news in the NYT today? Barely anywhere on the blogs.

This is just a glimpse into the distortion inherent in our current political and media culture. It's way easier to comment on a speech - his hands were moving too much! - than to note the truly substantive victory, apparently personally nailed down by Obama, in the White House yesterday. If leftwing populism in America were anything like as potent as right-wing populism - Matt Bai has a superb analysis of this in the NYT today - there would be cheering in the streets. But there's nada, but more leftist utopianism and outrage on MSNBC. And since there's no end to this spill without relief wells, this is about as much as Obama can do, short of monitoring clean-up efforts, or rather ongoing management of the ecological nightmare of an unstopped and unstoppable wound in the ocean floor.

I sure understand why people feel powerless and angry about the vast forces that control our lives and over which we seem to have only fitful control - big government and big business. But it seems to me vital to keep our heads and remain focused on what substantively can be done to address real problems, and judge Obama on those terms. When you do, you realize that the left's "disgruntleist" faction needs to take a chill pill.

Unserious people II. (Liberal Edition)

Usually, this ire is saved for that other party across the aisle (I'm starting to loathe saying "our friends" at this point). But now, since I'm seeing some of the same bul@#$% come from my fellow Liberals, I think it bears mentioning.

I'm starting to think that the biggest problem with America may be the American People.

I don't think the American People are serious about solving our problems.

First off, Rachel's speech was a joke, and I don't mean "ha-ha" joke. I mean "I-wonder-why-she's-allowed-a-TeeVee-show" joke.

Spoken like someone who's never had to pass a single bit of legislation in her life.

But alas, when Jonathan Chait ripped her, he said it much better than I:

In reality, you can't pass any of the climate bill by reconciliation. Democrats didn't write reconciliation instructions permitting them to do so, and very little of its could be passed through reconciliation, which only allows budgetary decisions. Maddow's response is to pass the rest by executive order. But you can't change those laws through executive order, either. That's not how our system of government works, nor is it how our system should work.

If Maddow's speech had to hew to the reality of Senate rules and the Constitution, she'd be left where Obama is: ineffectually pleading to get whatever she can get out of a Senate that has nowhere near enough votes to pass even a stripped-down cap and trade bill. It may be nice to imagine that all political difficulties could be swept away by a president who just spoke with enough force and determination. It's a recurrent liberal fantasy —Michael Moore imagined such a speech a few months ago, Michael Douglas delivers such a speech in "The American President." I would love to eliminate the filibuster and create more accountable parties. But even if that happens, there will be a legislative branch that has a strong say in what passes or doesn't pass. And that's good! We wouldn't want to live in a world where a president can remake vast swaths of policy merely be decreeing it.

Jon Stewart ran along the same lines last night, when he blasted the last eight President's for promising to get us off Oil, and then not getting us off oil.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
An Energy-Independent Future
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Jon, I love ya. It was a great bit. But do you know what those last eight Presidents had in common?

Us.

We've been electing them.

We've been electing these Congress-critters.

We've asked them to make tough choices...

...and when they've had to make tough choices, we've punished them for it. (Health Care Reform, anybody?)

We may be the one's we've been waiting for, but we're the one's who've been falling for this crap again and again and again.

No amount of money can sell a truly terrible idea, but a truly terrible idea can sell to a public that's only half paying attention. And that's where we are today.

It took a hundred years to get a Health Care Bill through both Houses of Congress and onto the President's desk for signature. Every time it was attempted (again, this is a bill to benefit the American People) those same American People (helped along by the AMA, Pharma and AHIP) rose up and cried "SOCIALIST!"

So how long is it gonna take for Energy? We know we have a problem. We know we want to get off oil, but we also want someone else to take the pain.

Not me. Not in my backyard. No.

We don't even have a population that understands that there's a problem yet, so how do we expect our elected representatives (Note: they represent their people, remember?) to generate any political will to do anything about it?

If you want to attack a problem seriously, you first have to accept the idea that not everyone is going to accept your ideas. Period. That's the thing about a Representative Democracy, everyone's got a say...and they're not always going to align with what's on your mind. It's as difficult for me to accept as it is for you. But you know what? That's okay. You muddle through the best you can. You do what you can. You do not, Keith and-or Rachel, let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The ship of state turns slowly...but it does turn. The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice...but it does bend.

Translation: You think your job is done just because you pulled a lever in 2008? Are you high?

The Civil Rights Era, the New Deal...the two proudest accomplishments (up till now) on the Liberal Resume were not overnight success stories. They were long, hard slogs, full of blood (spilled), sweat and more than a few shares of tears. They were not popular when they were done. Too many Liberals thought they didn't go far enough. And on top of all that, somehow my fellow Liberals have jedi-mind tricked themselves into believing that the respective Presidents who got these bills passed magically snapped their fingers to make them happen.

Again, I ask...are you high?

Don't answer that. I'm afraid I already know the answer.

Look, fellow Liberals. We're on the right path. We're doing what we said we wanted to do when Obama got elected. Either we're going to follow through, or we're not. Right now, to me, it looks like you're punking out.

Rachel certainly did.

Post BP-Meeting (VIDEO)

This has been a damn busy today. Of course, that's what's going to happen when this story lands in one of the two tracks.

Here is the President announcing the $20 Billion dollar Escrow fund.



Key graphs:

This $20 billion will provide substantial assurance that the claims people and businesses have will be honored. It’s also important to emphasize this is not a cap. The people of the Gulf have my commitment that BP will meet its obligations to them. BP has publicly pledged to make good on the claims that it owes to the people in the Gulf, and so the agreement we reached sets up a financial and legal framework to do it.

Another important element is that this $20 billion fund will not be controlled by either BP or by the government. It will be put in a escrow account, administered by an impartial, independent third party. So if you or your business has suffered an economic loss as a result of this spill, you’ll be eligible to file a claim for part of this $20 billion. This fund does not supersede either individuals’ rights or states’ rights to present claims in court. BP will also continue to be liable for the environmental disaster it has caused, and we’re going to continue to work to make sure that they address it.

Additionally, BP voluntarily agreed to establish a $100 million fund to compensate unemployed oil rig workers affected by the closure of the deepwater rigs.

TPM: How the Escrow Fund Will Work...

Good piece by TPM's Ben Frumin, summarizing a Times story how this Escrow fund is going to work with BP:

BP likely won't be in any rush to deposit $20 billion in the escrow account anytime soon: The deal's "preliminary terms would give BP several years to deposit the full amount into the fund so it could better manage cash flow, maintain its financial viability and not scare off investors."

The White House also released details this afternoon on how the claims will work. Feinberg will serve as "independent claims administrator," and a panel of three judges will hear any appeals of his decisions on claims of individuals and businesses harmed by the spill. Government agencies will still make claims directly to BP.

BP will put $5 billion a year into the account in each of the next four years, beginning in 2010. In the meantime, it will set aside $20 billion in U.S. assets to assure its commitments.

And the damages may not stop at $20 billion: "This account is neither a floor nor a ceiling on liability," the White House announced.

And it sounds like claimants will still be able to sue BP, even if they do get payouts from this account: "Dissatisfied claimants maintain all current rights under law, including the right to go to court or to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund."

BP will also contribute $100 million to a foundation supporting unemployed oil right workers.

The fact that dissatisfied claimants get to maintain all their current rights under law is huge.

But remember what happened to the University of Southern California recently. When the NCAA dropped its hammer on the school, the Basketball program wasn't punished nearly as hard as the Football program because that program had imposed a post-season moratorium on itself, even though they were guilty as the same infraction as the football program.

Likewise, BP, in setting up this Escrow Account may not immunize itself against the tidal wave of lawsuits coming its way, but it may well blunt their impact.

Even Joe Scarborough is on board? (VIDEO)

Actually, I'm shocked. But he's been...supportive?

Now I'm nervous.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yay?

From MSNBC: BP suspending dividends.

There have been better, but... (VIDEO)

No. It wasn’t his best speech, but it sure as hell it wasn’t a disaster either.

If I was disappointed about anything, it is that Douglas Brinkley’s Gulf Recovery Act didn’t make a full-throated appearance, but it was hinted at.

Beyond compensating the people of the Gulf in the short term, it’s also clear we need a long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region. The oil spill represents just the latest blow to a place that’s already suffered multiple economic disasters and decades of environmental degradation that has led to disappearing wetlands and habitats. And the region still hasn’t recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That’s why we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.

I make that commitment tonight. Earlier, I asked Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, who is also a former governor of Mississippi and a son of the Gulf Coast, to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists and other Gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.

Let me reiterate, the Gulf Oil Volcano breaks down into two tracks. One is environmental, the other is Investigatory. The environmental track is about the cutoff of the Oil Volcano rapidly poisoning the Gulf, and the eventual clean-up of its effects. The Investigatory track is about finding out what happened, who did it, and administering justice to those involved.

To paraphrase Lewis Black, if a news story about the Gulf Oil Spill doesn’t fall onto one of those two tracks, no one’s catching it, it ain't news.

The Gulf Fishermen, and the "lost way of life" mentioned in the speech, fall into both categories. The Fishermen and rescue workers suffer at the hands of the environmental track, they get justice in the Investigatory track.

To be even more direct, if it doesn't fall into one of those two tracks, it's just bleating about BP. Granted, BP deserves to get beaten about the head, but all the Firebagger bleating in the world isn't going to stop that volcano from spewing.



But for the first time in a long while, we did get some news (and not just the fact that this was the President's first Oval Office Address).

One, we got ourselves a new Director for MMS. How he’ll work out, I don’t know, but I like the fact he’s a former Inspector General for the Justice Department under Bubba.

When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency. But it’s now clear that the problem there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow. And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency -- Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General. And his charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry’s watchdog -- not its partner.

Two, and I don’t know how this got underreported in the aftermath of the speech, but Obama said the Government was going to compel BP to pay the freight for the cleanup, and apparently that’s official as of this morning.

Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.

Three, he said there was going to be a way to capture 90% of the oil coming out of the volcano until the relief wells are dug in.

Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That’s why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that’s expected to stop the leak completely.

Commentary about the speech skewed pretty negative, but there were a few comments from favorites (and one surprise) that caught my attention:

Ezra Klein:

His language was a close echo of the language he used in the health-care fight. "There are costs associated with this transition," he said, using a formulation many will remember from health care. "And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy." Similarly familiar was his reminder that "I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels," and his promise that "the one approach I will not accept is inaction."

The optimistic take, at least for environmentalists, is that this is the language and approach Obama uses when he really means to legislate. The pessimistic take is that Obama shied away from clearly describing the problem, did not endorse specific legislation, did not set benchmarks, and chose poll-tested language rather than a sharper case that might persuade skeptics.

Andrew Sullivan:

So far: two steps backward for every one forward. But it's worth remembering that almost every step backward on innovating post-carbon energy comes from the GOP. Obama and the Dems would have passed a serious climate bill by now if it weren't for total Republican obstructionism (with the fitful exception of Butters). Obama is not the real obstacle here: the American people are, however manipulated by short-term political maneuvering by Republicans. And he does not have the political capital at this point in time to twist their arms. He has already pushed so many as far as they can go - on the issues of the economy and health insurance.

I'm hoping one day he will be able to push again. Maybe with a more Republican Congress from next year on, he has more of a chance. Because they will be forced to say what they're for, rather than always pivoting from day to day based on what they're against.

...and super surprise guest-star Paul Begala:

As one who has been critical of the president's response to the disaster so far, I was enormously impressed with this speech. Obama communicated his personal commitment, and the commitment of the entire country, to the people of the Gulf region. He called for a new energy economy - one that creates more jobs and costs fewer lives. Perhaps most important, he made accountability a presidential priority. BP must be punished; the people of the Gulf must be made whole; the American coastline must be reclaimed.

He closed on an emotionally resonant note for all of us who grew up fishing in the Gulf: the blessing of the fleet. In so doing he told us that he gets it. He understands this is not about barrels of oil and billions of dollars. This is about a way of life. This is about a life-giving region. And this is about the eleven lives that were lost.

There is a villain in this story, and it's not Barack Obama. It is BP and its corporate cohorts. This is why the Katrina analogy is so unfair. The guy who was president when New Orleans drowned -- I can't recall his name offhand -- froze our government in icy indifference. His own people did not know that American citizens were stranded at the New Orleans convention center without food or water. They did nothing as Americans were drowning and families were clinging to life on their rooftops. Can any fair-minded person realistically compare that to President Obama's earnest, engaged--and until tonight somewhat emotionally aloof--response to BP? No way.

The President's speech in Pensacola, FL (VIDEO)

An enthusiastic response, especially from the Marines, especially when mentioning Afghanistan.

Why I like America (Photo)

This is not to say that a similar sign wouldn't be found somewhere else in the world (it would, by the way). But the fact that it's here, the fact that someone thought it was important enough to do, thought it was important enough to sacrifice for, to help someone else out especially during these tough economic times, warms the heart.


By the way, in case you're wondering, Andrew Sullivan had it first, and the store is in Portland, Oregon.

The Fireside chat for June 11, 2010 (VIDEO)

With doctors facing deep cuts in their reimbursements from Medicare unless Congress acts to correct long-standing problems, the President calls on Senate Republicans to stop blocking the remedy and pledges to work toward a permanent solution.

The Gulf Recovery Act? (VIDEO)

Douglas Brinkley (Dad's colleague at Rice) has it on good authority that it's going to happen.



We're going to have to re-direct the Mississippi River.

Ass-hattery... (VIDEO)

Dear Gay Folks,

Listen, I get the upset over the fact that DADT hasn’t been repealed. No, really, I do.

But when you go blaming the President, exclusively might I add, for the lack of DADT repeal, you betray the fact that you seem to have forgotten about a little thing known as the U.S. Congress.

Just because its dominated by Democrats, that doesn’t mean they can’t be just as asinine as any Republican.


Regards,

Me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

BP Spills Coffee (VIDEO)

The metaphor doesn't entirely work, but its heart is in the right place:

The Fireside chat for June 4, 2010 (VIDEO)

Speaking from Grand Isle, Louisiana, the President discusses the hardships local residents and small business owners are facing as a result of the BP oil spill. He pledges to make sure those responsible do not shortchange them.

Okay, so maybe Mitt Romney won't be the GOP Nominee in 2012...Part 2

Why? Because Sarah Palin just endorsed Terry Branstad.

And who, might you ask, is Terry Branstad, and why could it have major consequences for 2012? Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic has the answer.

Charlie Rose's Interview with Vice President Biden

Charlie Rose sat down with Vice President Biden on a range of topics: The Gulf Oil Spill, Jobs, Economy, the Gaza Blockade, etc.

And of course, given PBS's backward view of technology, the video is unavailable for embedding, and can be viewed here.

"Moving Forward on a New Foundation" (VIDEO)

The video of the President's speech today at Carnegie Mellon University.

Upcoming: The President's speech at Carneige-Mellon...

Listening to it live. It's a bit of a barnburner. It's not going to re-write the Obama record books, but there was a bit of a fire in his gut. (Satisfied, Keith??)

Greg Sargent put it very well. At a time when there's a meme building about Government ineffectiveness in light of the BP Oil Disaster, Obama seems to be doubling-down on the idea that Government can be a force for good. Good for him.

And he takes a good whack at the GOP to boot:

A good deal of the other party's opposition to our agenda has also been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about government. It's a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges...

As November approaches, leaders in the other party will campaign furiously on the same economic argument they've been making for decades. Fortunately, we don't have to look back too many years to see how it turns out. For much of the last ten years, we tried it their way. They gave tax cuts that weren't paid for to millionaires who didn't need them. They gutted regulations, and put industry insiders in charge of industry oversight...This the same crowd who took the record $237 billion surplus that President Clinton left them and turned it into a record $1.3 trillion deficit.

So we already know where their ideas led us. And now we have a choice as a nation. We can return to the failed economic policies of the past, or we can keep building a stronger future. We can go backward, or we can keep moving forward. I don't know about you, but I want to move forward.

I'll get the video when it comes.

Giving Government money away: Wrong. Stealing Government money??

...apparently okay!

Former Florida GOP chair Jim Greer is charged with six felony counts of fraud, theft, and money laundering in connection with a company he allegedly created to take a cut of the state party's fundraising revenues, Florida authorities announced this morning.

Who is Jim Greer? Well, we've talked about him before on this very site. Where he said (cough-cough), and I quote:

As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.

And...

While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.