Vanity Fair: "F@#$nutsville..."

From Todd Purdum's new piece in Vanity Fair:

Like many changes that are revolutionary, none of Washington’s problems happened overnight. But slow and steady change over many decades—at a rate barely noticeable while it’s happening—produces change that is transformative. In this instance, it’s the kind of evolution that happens inevitably to rich and powerful states, from imperial Rome to Victorian England. The neural network of money, politics, bureaucracy, and values becomes so tautly interconnected that no individual part can be touched or fixed without affecting the whole organism, which reacts defensively.

And thus a new president, who was elected with 53 percent of the popular vote, and who began office with 80 percent public-approval ratings and large majorities in both houses of Congress, found himself for much of his first year in office in stalemate, pronounced an incipient failure, until the narrowest possible passage of a health-care bill made him a sudden success in the fickle view of the commentariat, whose opinion curdled again when Obama was unable, with a snap of the fingers or an outburst of anger, to stanch the BP oil spill overnight. And whose opinion spun around once more when he strong-armed BP into putting $20 billion aside to settle claims, and asserted presidential authority by replacing General Stanley McChrystal with General David Petraeus. The commentariat’s opinion will keep spinning with the wind.

The evidence that Washington cannot function—that it’s “broken,” as Vice President Joe Biden has said—is all around. For two years after Wall Street brought the country close to economic collapse, regulatory reform languished in partisan gridlock. A bipartisan commission to take on the federal deficit was scuttled by Republican fears in Congress that it could lead to higher taxes, and by Democratic worries about cuts to social programs. Obama was forced to create a mere advisory panel instead.

Four years after Congress nearly passed a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws, the two parties in Washington are farther apart than ever, and hotheaded state legislatures have stepped into the breach. Guantánamo remains an open sore because of fearmongering about the transfer of prisoners to federal prisons on the mainland. What Americans perceive in Washington, as Obama put it in his State of the Union speech, in January, is a “perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side—a belief that if you lose, I win.” His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, whose Friday-afternoon mantra has become “Only two more workdays till Monday!,” sums up today’s Washington in terms both coarser and more succinct. To him, Washington is just “Fucknutsville.”

What if the Stimulus had been bigger?

This has been Krugman's thing recently. So, Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic asked Economist Dean Baker the question flat out:

Most liberals economists now believe the economic stimulus was too small. I'm inclined to believe them. But exactly how much difference would a larger stimulus have made? Pretend Obama had gotten a stimulus that was twice as large, somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion. What would the economy look like today?

I put that question to Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Here's what he said:

As a first approximation, try multiplying everything by 2. The Congressional Budge Office estimates that the stimulus added 1.7-4.5 percent to GDP and that it lowered the unemployment rate by 0.7-1.8 percentage points. If it were twice as large assume GDP growth in the 3.4 -9.0 percent range and the drop in unemployment in the range of 1.4 -3.6 pp. In other words, the unemployment rate today would be between 7.7 percent and 8.8 percent.

There is also a greater likelihood that this would have kicked off self-sustaining growth with a bigger round of investment coming on board and maybe even some real wage growth.

In other words, unemployment would have been more than a full percentage point lower than it is today. And it would be heading down faster.

That's a pretty big difference.

That said, devising such a large stimulus may not have been easy. At the time, White House officials said they were having trouble finding more shovel-ready infrastructure projects and, more generally, coming up ways of ways to inject more money into the economy.

Larry Mishel, who is from the Economic Policy Institute, thinks you have to acknowledge those limits. But he also thinks it was possible to do a lot more and, to his credit, was saying so at the time. Here's what he just told me:

Well, the stimulus would have created twice as many jobs, perhaps as many as five million more full-time equivalent jobs. I must admit, however, that though the economy needed that size stimulus, I’m not sure there were good vehicles for executing such a stimulus. I’m not sure I would have wanted to double the tax cuts, and it wasn’t possible to double much of the investments and get them underway in this time period. We could have given states more relief. And, we could have extended the time period of much of the stimulus elements--unemployment insurance, investments, state relief, etc.--so we wouldn’t need to renew tham now.

Five million more jobs--again, if that's correct, it's a big difference.

Of course, such a large stimulus may not have been possible politically. But that's another story.

The Republican Con-job on Health Care

As expected a number of states are suing the Federal Government over the “Individual Mandate” in the Affordable Care Act (aka Health Care Reform), all while they work very hard to collect the money they're suing to...keep from...having to take??

Anybody get all that?

The Conservative position is simple. The Individual Mandate makes people buy Health Insurance, and people shouldn’t have to be forced to buy Health Insurance if they don’t want to.

Here’s the problem with that notion. One of the most popular aspects of Health Care Reform is the provision that forbids Insurance Companies denying you coverage based on Pre-Existing Conditions. This provision is so popular that even Conservobots who voted against the bill say that this is the one thing they agreed with. If the Democrats had just gotten rid of the Individual Mandate, we could have voted for Health Care Reform.

Of course, that’s bull@#$%. One of the hard lessons people learned in the last few years is you cannot have one without the other.


Paul Krugman from back in March:

So what’s the answer? Americans overwhelmingly favor guaranteeing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions — but you can’t do that without pursuing broad-based reform. To make insurance affordable, you have to keep currently healthy people in the risk pool, which means requiring that everyone or almost everyone buy coverage. You can’t do that without financial aid to lower-income Americans so that they can pay the premiums. So you end up with a tripartite policy: elimination of medical discrimination, mandated coverage, and premium subsidies.


Or to put it another way, you end up with something like the health care plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts in 2006, and the very similar plan the House either will or won’t pass in the next few days. Comprehensive reform is the only way forward.

Of course, as you remember, the reform was passed, and Republicans are campaigning to repeal it.

It’s very simple. Health Care is a complicated machine. Piecemeal reform isn't going to cut it (as Dr. Krugman said). If you wanna do X, then you have to do Y. If you don’t, costs spiral out of control and soon nobody will have Health Insurance (see, Insurance Death Spiral).

Which brings me to Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota, and potential Republican Candidate for President in 2012, doing his damnest to make it impossible to carry his own state.


From Steve Benen:

As implementation of the Affordable Care Act proceeds, the law extends subsidies to states to help early retirees -- folks who leave the workforce before they're eligible for Medicare, but who still want to maintain their coverage. States led by Republicans may claim to hate the new law, but they're nevertheless seeking the funds -- even many of the states trying to kill the ACA in court.

In Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) is taking a different route. The increasingly right-wing governor, desperate to pander to the party's base in advance of his presidential campaign, issued an order to state officials yesterday, demanding that they not seek grants through the new law, even if the funding would help the people of his state.

Keep in mind, this isn't some kind of opt-out scheme -- the law still applies to Minnesota, just like every other state. This is a scheme whereby funds are made available to states, and Pawlenty is demanding that Minnesota not seek those resources, at least for now.

Let’s call it what it is. Tim Pawlenty is screwing over the uninsured in his state to burnish his Conservative Credintials in advance of the 2012 race.

What a guy!

Needless to say Doctors in Minnesota are pissed off:

The heads of Minnesota's most influential medical associations -- which nearly always keep political matters at arms' length -- issued a sharp rebuke. "The governor's decision just doesn't make sense for Minnesotans," the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, the Minnesota Hospital Association and the Minnesota Medical Association said in a joint statement late Tuesday.

But not all Doctors are pissed off, according to Jonathan Chait. Actually, they are pissed off, but for them, not for you:

Hal Scherz, a doctor and president of the right-wing lobby "Docs4PatientCare" writes in today's Wall Street Journal that he and members of his group are posting letters in their waiting rooms warning patients of the horrors of the Affordable Care Act and urging repeal.

This is all real simple.

Republicans don’t give a rats ass about deficits or future costs. Period. All they care about is representing the Corporate Master who has given them a lot of campaign cash. They don’t care about the Health of the Health Care System. It’s broken (but starting to mend thanks to HCR), a fifth of our Citizens can’t access it, but screw ‘em. They should have been born to richer, whiter households. We don’t like President Obama anyway, and this seems as good an excuse as any to rail against him, even if it means lying through our teeth to get the job done.

If you fall for this, America, you'll fall for anything.

We’re about to learn a lot about America in the coming months. I maintain my position that the problem with the country isn’t its Polticans, but its people.

MSNBC: Pundit Reaction to the Speech

Reactions to the Iraq Speech:

First, Rachel Maddow:

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

Eugene Robinson (Dead trees):

President Obama’s Oval Office speech was good, but the iconography was great.

In his address marking the effective end of the Iraq War, Obama used the setting well. The flags behind him, the family pictures on either side, the flag pin in his lapel, the red tie, white shirt and blue suit... it all projected patriotism and authority.

One thing that worked in the speech was his drawing a straight line between the vast monetary cost of the war and the economic slough of despond in which we're mired. One thing that didn't work was his assertion that with the end of combat in Iraq, we were turning a page. We're still at war, and Obama said that now more resources are available for Afghanistan.

Politicos will be universally dissatisfied. Liberals will say he gave George W. Bush too much credit; conservatives, not enough. But I think he did himself and his party some good tonight. He was generous enough to Bush, resolute in his intentions and obviously sincere in his praise of the troops. He wore the presidency with an accessory that Americans expect and appreciate: gravitas.

Adam Server (bit of whining):

Conversely, while conservatives are busy angrily denouncing the president for not giving more credit to Bush for implementing the surge -- by which they mean not acknowledging that conservatives were right -- that wouldn't have been appropriate either. This speech was about the commitment of those who actually served, not the better part of valor displayed by those who sat in front of their keyboards and hammered out empirical or ideological arguments for or against the war.

That's not to say that the speech was devoid of politics. Obama's style of politics is to pretend he's above politics, and this speech fits that mold. But the biggest reason not to rehash the argument over going to war in Iraq is that he won it already. It's part of why he's president. Obama doesn't need to convince the American people that the war in Iraq was a mistake, because a majority of Americans already believe that. Conservatives want to reargue the war from 2007 onward, but treating the Iraq war as though it began with the surge is a bit like running over someone on the street, backing up over the body a few times, and then demanding a special merit badge for finally deciding to call 911. And as I wrote yesterday, this still isn't really over.

The most disappointing part of the speech was that the president failed to acknowledge the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the war. Doing so would not have diminished his tribute towards American servicemembers, but it would have been a helpful reminder that treating the rest of the world like a game of RISK has real human consequences. Unlike the president's refusal to reargue the war, his failure to acknowledge the suffering of Iraqi civilians -- more than an estimated 100,000 of whom died as a result -- is an inexcusable omission.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson:

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

And Eugene again, this time on Video:

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

Breaking: Murkowski Surrenders...

Following up on the Alaska Nonsense, this from CNN:

Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski conceded in the Alaska GOP senatorial primary which remained unresolved after last Tuesday's voting.

Looking Homeward (VIDEO)

The War in Iraq is over, but now the President pivots to a new task.



From the prepared remarks:

Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for -- the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Islamophobia Around the World.

It's not just New York, or Tenneessee. There's also Germany, France, Spain, Germany (again), France (again), and even Canada.

Apparently, this sign was necessary

I got this from stumbleupon, so I'm having a hard time linking to the original story, but still...

Jonesing for Jon Stewart...

Yeah, yeah. I know it was the Emmys last night, and I know Jon is celebrating his big win, but damn I'm gonna miss them tonight, especially coming off the Beckoning.

(Still, on next week's Colbert Opener, Jon needs to walk that Emmy into Colbert's studio, drop it on the desk, and kick his feet up.)

The President tells Senate Republicans to get off their @#$%! (VIDEO)

Okay, he wasn't that crude.  (That's my job!)



From Steve Benen:

Last week, in the midst of several discouraging economic developments, White House officials recognized the need to sharpen its message a bit. They just weren't sure when.

Yesterday, President Obama was in New Orleans for the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Tomorrow is an Oval Office address on Iraq. Later this week, the focus will be on Middle East peace talks. One official told ABC late last week, "We know he needs to be out there to talk about the economy next week. We haven't yet figured out the way he's going to do that."

So, this afternoon, the president appeared in the Rose Garden to talk up economic policy in general, a chide Republicans for blocking the small-business-incentives bill in specific.

On his first workday back at the White House after a 10-day Martha's Vineyard vacation and a trip to New Orleans on Sunday, Mr. Obama addressed the nation's mounting economic anxieties in brief remarks from the Rose Garden. With the unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent, and the economic recovery all but stalled, he spent part of the morning huddled with his economic advisers.

While he said he and his team are "hard at work in identifying additional measures that could make a difference" -- including extending middle-class tax cuts that are set to expire this year, investing more in clean energy and in infrastructure rebuilding -- the president's most urgent call was directed at members of Congress, who return to work next week.

"This bill has been languishing in the Senate for four months, held up by a partisan minority that won't even allow it to go to a vote. That makes no sense," Mr. Obama said, referring to the small business initiative. He added, "Holding this bill hostage is directly detrimental to our economic growth."

That last point was bolstered by a new USA Today report, which the president made reference to, explaining that about 1,000 small businesses are ready to expand, but are waiting for Senate Republicans to stop playing petty games.

Following up on what we talked about yesterday, though, is there any reason to think the White House may put forward any kind of new economic policies and/or stimulus and/or jobs bill? It's hard to say exactly -- there almost certainly won't be one, ambitious package on the way, but Obama raised the specter of "additional measures."

Specifically, the president said, "[A]s Congress prepares to return to session, my economic team is hard at work in identifying additional measures that could make a difference in both promoting growth and hiring in the short term, and increasing our economy's competitiveness in the long term -- steps like extending the tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire this year; redoubling our investment in clean energy and R&D; rebuilding more of our infrastructure for the future; further tax cuts to encourage businesses to put their capital to work creating jobs here in the United States. And I'll be addressing these proposals in further detail in the days and weeks to come."

I wouldn't necessarily interpret this as "new economic plan on the way," but it's something to keep an eye on.

NBC: Brian William's Complete Interview with the President (VIDEO)

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

A Commitment to Restoring New Orleans (VIDEO)

The complete speech:



UPDATE: 12:54pm Pacific, August 31. For whatever reason, the White House video wasn't working, so I've turned to the YouTube version. Same speech, different angle.

The Fireside chat for August 28, 2010 (VIDEO)

With the end of combat operations in Iraq days ahead, the President salutes our troops for their service and pledges to fulfill America’s commitment to them as veterans.

Benen: "Nearly as annoying as Limbaugh's racism is his ignorance"

Limbaugh goes off on African-Americans claiming that the Fourth of July is no big deal.

Only thing is, the Fourth of July wasn't celebrated that much in the South, as it was considered a "Yankee" holiday.

Trust Krugman's numbers, never his poltical sense, Part II

Let me put it another way.

Paul Krugman is the guy in the stands, with his team down three touchdowns, with all the Running Backs injured and out for the game, facing the Number 1 defense in the league, talks about how the Team should go back to running the ball more.

Trust Krugman's numbers, never his poltical sense.

I want to know why when other Economic Scholars are out there saying that what's going on now is fairly typical for so-called Credit Recessions, Paul Krugman is still out there with his hair on fire over the size of the Stimulus.

Carmen Reinhart and Vincent Reinhart have authored a paper examining the historical record of economies that experienced a major financial crisis over the ensuing decade. And the results are rather sour news for anyone expecting the U.S. economy to bounce back from the Great Recession rapidly.

Indeed, their major takeaway is that the weak, slow recovery the U.S. has experienced over the last year is well within the historical norm for nations that experience a deep crisis.

They analyzed the economic results following three global financial crises--the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash, 1973 oil shock, and the current experience--and 15 crises in both advanced and emerging nations.

The results: Among advanced economy, per-capital gross domestic product is now about 2 percent lower than it was in 2007, which is comparable to the experience three years after the onset of the 15 severe financial crises studied.

Meanwhile, Krugman at least gives me this:

Now, it’s arguable that even in early 2009, when President Obama was at the peak of his popularity, he couldn’t have gotten a bigger plan through the Senate. And he certainly couldn’t pass a supplemental stimulus now. So officials could, with considerable justification, place the onus for the non-recovery on Republican obstructionism. But they’ve chosen, instead, to draw smiley faces on a grim picture, convincing nobody. And the likely result in November — big gains for the obstructionists — will paralyze policy for years to come.

Krugman in a nutshell: Yeah, even though the Obama Administration could have never passed the Stimulus of the size I wanted, it's still their fault for not passing it. And worse, they're trying to put their best face on the fact that credit recessions are notoriously slow to come back from, even though my recent commentary is ignoring that. Never mind the fact that the President said on the night of his election that this was going to hard-sledding for the next few years.

Albert Pujols turns out to be a Beckhead. Go Cubs!

I can tell this is going to be an awful morning.

First, Economic Growth was revised downward from 2.2% to 1.6%, feeding the Austerity Caucus, but as Mathematician Dad reminded me that the German's 2.2% is the best they have done in decades. Still, it's going to feed the Pain Caucus, and cause the Congress to do even less when they come back to actually address the Economy.

Then, I learned that St. Louis Cardinals Manager Tony LaRussa and Cardinals Superstar Albert Pujols are going to attend Glenn Beck's Goldline-sponsored "reclaiming" of the Civil Rights Movement on Saturday. Now, I'm not a Cards fan (actually, I'm a long-suffering Orioles fan), and the fact that LaRussa is a Right-wing douchebag is not a total surprise. The fact that Albert Pujols is attending shocks me.

Now, both LaRussa and Pujols are using the fact that the Beckocalypse is "non-political" to justify their attendance. Bull@#$%! If they don't know, they don't want to know. They're Beckheads, plain and simple. Go Cubs.

I hope Albert realizes that this is going to damage his brand with African-Americans for a long time, probably for good. What I want to know is what his Latino fans are going to do with this. After all, he's siding with the people who hate Latinos almost as much as they hate gays, blacks and everyone who's not white and Christian. I'd love to be surprised, but I'm not optimistic.

D.W.M. (There and back again, Edition)

Maybe cab-attacker Michael Enright was who we thought he was all along.

According to the New York Daily News (via TPM):

When he was arrested Tuesday in midtown, Enright had a personal diary filled with pages of "pretty strong anti-Muslim comments," a police source said.

The source said Enright's journal equated Muslims with "killers, ungrateful for the help they were being offered, filthy murderers without a conscience."

And check out the picture of himself he posted on Facebook.

Yeah, I wanna be his friend...and I take back what I said yesterday.

Let's be honest, posing with a pump-action shotgun, rockin' it like you're playing Guitar Hero doesn't make you're crazy.  But couple this photo after you've tried to throat slash a New York Cabbie???

D.W.M., continued (More weirdness)

According to TPM, the Driving While Muslim story keeps getting weirder and weirder...

Michael Enright is a film student at the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan and has been working with the Intersection International, an interfaith and multicultural effort which seeks to promote justice and peace. The project's website is strongly supportive of the Cordoba House project in lower Manhattan and videos of its leader, Imam Faisel Rauf, are posted on their website.

The 21-year-old aspiring filmmaker had been to Afghanistan recently, working on a documentary on a Marine unit his high school buddy served with. His earlier efforts to embed with his friend were the subject of a profile in the local paper.

The documentary he was working on was "completely nonpolitical," Enright told the newspaper. "It's just showing the young people who are spearheading our foreign policy. They're doing what I don't have to do."

Enright told police he had been working with an Internet media company and had recently spent time with a combat unit in Afghanistan filming military exercises according to The New York Post.

A former high school classmate of Enright's, speaking to TPMMuckraker on background, expressed shock about the crime and spent the morning eliminating electronic footprints that connected the two. "It's just disgusting, sad, horrific," he said, adding that, like the group Enright was working with, he supports the Cordoba Project.

You gotta figure that something about Enright was chemically amiss. If he really had truck against Muslims (like say an Cordoba House basher), he had ample opportunity to get stabby in Afghanistan (or maybe he was worried about being outnumbered).

Still, at the very least, this is a person skilled in dealing with Muslims on a daily basis on their home turf. What sets him off her? Either strong drink or a chemical inbalance of another kind, which is going to require a Doctor's help.

Krugman runs smack at Business week

A couple of months ago, Business Week ran a story asking who would you rather bet on: Hank Paulson or Kruggers himself?

Krugman takes a moment to gloat.

Tuesday (formerly Alaska)

First, the story from TPM:

Political prognosticators were surprised to wake up this morning and see Joe Miller holding a narrow lead of less than 3,000 votes over Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's Republican primary.

Unofficial returns as of this morning -- with 84.2 percent of precincts reporting -- showed Miller leading with 45,188 votes to Murkowski's 42,633 votes. That's Miller 51.5%-Murkowski 48.6%. What's more, the votes outstanding are from rural areas and 8,400 so-far-unreturned absentee ballots, so the final result won't be known for at least a week and might be undetermined until Sept. 8.

Jonathan Bernstein:

First, give the Sage of Wasilla credit. Right now, I don’t know whether or not Joe Miller will actually knock off Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska primary, but even if he ultimately falls just short (and he’s leading now, so it’s at least just as likely that he’ll prevail), Sarah Palin’s reputation will surely be enhanced by her endorsement of an unknown insurgent against a sitting Senator. Did she carefully and correctly assess Miller’s chances of winning before she took to her usual combo of Facebook and Twitter, or was she just carrying on her personal feud with Murkowski’s family? Did her endorsement actually make any difference in the contest? I have no idea the answer to either question, but in terms of her national reputation, neither matters: all that anyone is going to know is that she endorsed a nobody who either took down a sitting Senator or came close. Maybe her endorsement mattered, but if not, figuring out which way the parade is headed and jumping out in front is an important political skill, and she at the very least seemed to have that working this time around.

Second...no matter what the final result, but especially if Miller wins: these primaries are sending a very strong message to GOP pols about the dangers of ever allowing any space to develop between themselves and movement conservatives. And that’s true whether or not that’s a message that Alaska’s primary voters are intending to send (it may be, as I said last night, that the explanation for this election has more to do with the reputation of the Murkowski name in Alaska along with general voter discontent with the economy than it has to do with her actual actions in the Senate): the interpretation everyone’s going to hear and believe is that ideological deviation, even very mild deviation, is extremely dangerous to one’s electoral health. Whether it’s the New START treaty, or a compromise deal on the budget if the GOP controls at least one House of Congress next year, or any other issue, you can be sure that Republican pols who have to cast tough votes are going to remember Bob Bennett and Lisa Murkowski (and Arlen Specter, for that matter).

Marc Ambinder:

In Alaska, Sarah Palin's endorsement does seem to matter. It's not like no one predicted that Joe Miller could be the next senator; former Gov. Tony Knowles told me a month ago that Murkowski was not taking Miller seriously and that he could easily organize a campaign to beat her in the primary. Absentees won't be fully counted for a while, but Miller's victory can be reasonably inferred from the outstanding ballots.

But Also:

It is fairly clear that the anti-establishment / anti-Washington / pro-radical revolution plankton are feeding more off Republicans than off Democrats. As the year has unfolded, it has become easier and easier for formerly fringe candidates to find funding sources, get key "outsider" endorsements and shock complacent frontrunners. When it comes to the Tea Party factor, remember: about issues it ain't. Bill McCollum was one of the attorneys general who filed a lawsuit against Obama's health care reform bill. He is as conservative as a Blackberry at an Apple convention. But he has ties to the state's now-discredited Republican establishment (think of the indictment of the former party chairman) and his avuncular, amiable, comfortable-as-a-leather shoe style just doesn't fit with the times. Rick Scott didn't need the money, but the Tea Party Express helped him build a volunteer base. In Alaska, the same group ponied up $500,000 to help Miller (probably) defeat an incumbent U.S. senator.

Meanwhile, there was an equal surprise on the Democratic side:

Thanks to an old-fashioned political upset, Sitka, Alaska Mayor Scott McAdams is about to get a lot more ink.

McAdams (D) will face the winner of the Republican primary between Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Joe Miller, though we may not know for sure if Miller unseated Murkowski until next month. National Democrats tell us privately the Alaska Senate race wasn't even on their radar, until today when Miller's showing stunned Washington.

Well, we'll see.

Updated at 11:16pm, Pacific, where I added the Ambinder stuff, and changed the Post's title.

D.W.M.

As if New York City wasn't dangerous enough...

I got this from TPM. It looks like the Cabbie is alive (enough to make a statement to the press), and New York City Police are treating this as a hate crime. (I'll set aside how ironic that statement is).

Primetime Address next Tuesday?

According to CNN, the President has requested some airtime for an Oval Office Address on Iraq next Tuesday.

I'm with Team Evil (VIDEO)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The Teabaggers "avoid Black people" guide to Washington, D.C. Part 2 (VIDEO)

Rachel Maddow on the racist Metro Guide being handed out ot the TeaBaggers coming to Glenn Beck's crapfest on August 28th. (And if you listen carefully, there's now a safety issue in that Democratic Lawmaker's home addresses have been listed.)

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

Let's think about this Glenn Beck is claiming to be the ideological heirs to Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement, but at the same time...it seems that the ideological heirs want to avoid Black people at all costs.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

"The Stupidity of Liberal Apathy", Part IV

In light of that damned Politico piece, Noam Scheiber (subbing for Jonathan Chait) goes after Eric Alterman (whom I like) and Progressive Activist Bob Borosage (whom I don't know, never heard of, and don't give a damn about):

On Alterman:

It's true that Obama often spoke in transformational terms about the practice of politics. But if you listened to the way he and his campaign discussed policy, it was always clear that they preferred a relatively pragmatic, non-ideological approach to some sweeping progressive vision. Many of us in the press made this point repeatedly during the primary and general-election campaign, so it hardly seems like there was some massive flip-flop on Election Day.

On whats-his-name:

Is the suggestion that it would have been preferable to have failed on health care (an ideologically modest but substantively far-reaching and historically momentous achievement) if that was the price of rallying progressives? I'm guessing Borosage would say it was possible to both rally progressives and pass health care--that, in fact, rallying progressives would have led to a better bill by shifting the debate leftward. And, at the margins, that might have been useful. But the idea that you were going to pass health care without a ton of Washington deal-making is just willfully blind to the realities of policymaking. Whatever the progressive mobilization, there was simply no way to pass a comprehensive bill without defanging the huge array of interests with the power to block it--doctors, hospitals, insurers, device-makers, pharmaceuticial manufacturers, etc., etc. (And the need for 60 votes in the Senate gave these interests even more power than they'd otherwise have.)

And (what I thought was) the summary:

We got the president we voted for--and, what's more, that non-ideological pragmatism was one of the things that really appealed to people after George W. Bush.

Too Funny not to post (NSFW)

Jon Stewart destroys Governor Rod Blagojevich

For my Father, who sooooo loves him some Blagojevich:

Part 1:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Rod Blagojevich Extended 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
Exclusive - Rod Blagojevich Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The Teabaggers "avoid Black people" guide to Washington, D.C.

Again, my two regular readers should know by now how I feel about the Huffington Post, and how I grit my teeth when I forward along a story from them.  But this one deserves forwarding.

But there's another thing you should know about me, I'm an actual native D.Cer. Yup, born at Georgetown University Hospital (D.C.), raised in College Park and Seabrook, Maryland. I love my hometown...especially now that the Teabaggers don't:

A blogger at Maine Refounders has taken it upon himself to offer repost a DC visitors guide to anyone coming to the Rally For Glenn Beck's Material Wealth, scheduled for August 28th. So, if you want some not-half bad restaurant recommendations or are interested in learning how you can avoid Nancy Pelosi's house, get thee hence. That said, I find this take on the DC Metro system to be sort of comical:

If you are on the subway stay on the Red line between Union Station and Shady Grove, Maryland. If you are on the Blue or Orange line do not go past Eastern Market (Capitol Hill) toward the Potomac Avenue stop and beyond; stay in NW DC and points in Virginia. Do not use the Green line or the Yellow line. These rules are even more important at night. There is of course nothing wrong with many other areas; but you don't know where you are, so you should not explore them.

Let's be honest, this is a "avoid the Black People guide to the D.C. Subway."

You were saying Half-Governor Palin?

Jeff Merkley's Op/Ed on the Cordoba/Park 51 Community Center.

Just about everyone loved on this piece from Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and...well, they're right to:

The debate swirling around the proposed mosque and Muslim community center in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center site has, for many, tapped into strong emotions of a national trauma that is still raw. But in the churning political and constitutional arguments, one question has not been adequately addressed: what makes a mosque near ground zero offensive?

Nearly everyone in this debate affirms the constitutional right for the mosque's construction. Indeed, that right is a cherished founding principle. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." It is no accident that the right to worship in accordance with one's own conscience is enshrined in the First Amendment.

But, many mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site. I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaidaterrorists who attacked our nation.

Such an association is a profound error. Muslim Americans are our fellow citizens, not our enemies. Muslim Americans were among the victims who died at the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks. Muslim American first responders risked their lives to save their fellow citizens that day. Many of our Muslim neighbors, including thousands of Oregon citizens, serve our country in war zones abroad and our communities at home with dedication and distinction.

Some have also argued that the construction of the mosque would hand a propaganda victory to Osama bin Laden. I think the opposite is true. Al-Qaida justifies its murder by painting America as a nation at war with Islam. Celebrating our freedom of religion and Muslim Americans' place in our communities is a blow to al-Qaida's ideology of hate and division. We strengthen America by distinguishing, clearly and unequivocally, between our al-Qaida enemy and our Muslim neighbors.

President Bush understood the importance of separating the terrorists from over a billion peaceful Muslims around the world whose faith has been used as an excuse by those bent on killing. Speaking at a mosque just six days after the World Trade Center attack, President Bush said, "These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that."

I have great respect for the sentiments of the survivors and family members of those who died on 9/11, and understand that some may not regard the situation this way. But our fundamental religious freedom and our national security -- in addition to fairness for our fellow citizens -- will be well served by drawing a bright line between our Muslim friends and neighbors at home, and our al-Qaida enemy abroad.

Amen, brother. Amen.

P.S., I stressed different stuff than Greg Sargent did.

U.S. allowed to arrest Taliban No. 2?!?

Okay, the U.S. recently arrested Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the second in command of the Taliban. On any other day, this should be (in the Vice President's words) a big f@#$%in deal.

But how we were allowed to arrest Mullah Baradar has come into question. And yes, you read that right, we were allowed to arrest him.

It seems that the Pakistani Government allowed the United States to arrest the Taliban's Number two because:

"We picked up Baradar and the others because they were trying to make a deal without us," said a Pakistani security official, who, like numerous people interviewed about the operation, spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of relations between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. “We protect the Taliban. They are dependent on us. We are not going to allow them to make a deal with Karzai and the Indians."

Okay, did we get that?

The Pakistanis sold out Taliban Soul-Brother No. 2 out to us because Soul-Brother No. 2 had the temerity to make a deal without them.

Are you @#$%ing kidding me?!?!?

We're in a war where we can't trust our enemies (Taliban-duh!), can't trust our allies (Pakistan) because they're dealing with our enemies (Taliban), and are willing to sell them out in a moment's notice.

We're screwed.

More Politico...

I don't like Politico. I don't trust Politico, but they are given free rein at times by the MSM to create the morning meme. Why, I don't know.

This morning's meme is all about a Politico article that appeared this morning about disinheartened Democrats:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs's recent complaint about the ingratitude of the "professional left" is a small symptom of a larger problem for President Barack Obama: He has left wide swaths of the Democratic Party uncertain of his core beliefs.

In interviews, a variety of political activists, operatives and commentators from across the party's ideological spectrum presented similar descriptions of Obama's predicament: By declining to speak clearly and often about his larger philosophy -- and insisting that his actions are guided not by ideology but a results-oriented "pragmatism" -- he has bred confusion and disappointment among his allies, and left his agenda and motives vulnerable to distortion by his enemies.

The president's reluctance to be a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan, who spoke without apology about his vaulting ideological ambitions, has produced an odd turn of events: Obama has been the most activist domestic president in decades, but the philosophy behind his legislative achievements remains muddy in the eyes of many supporters and skeptics alike.

Which is nonsense, since all I do is hear the man talk about his core philosophy, in every speech, in every video, which means some on the Professional Left haven't been listening!

To which, Greg Sargent wrote (after clarifying ways in which the Politico article was right):

I tend to think this critique is overstated: Obama has passed the most ambitious domestic agenda since FDR, and there are some grounds for believing that the White House got as much as it possibly could have. But my bet is that if the White House hadn't fetishized bipartisanship early on; if Obama had drawn a sharper contrast with the GOP from the outset; and if he had taken a stronger stand on behalf of core priorities even if they were destined for failure, his lefty critics would be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That said, presuming Obama's will be a two-term presidency, we are not even one-fourth of the way through his tenure. By the time Obama retires to private life, this whole debate underway about Obama's early failings could ultimately be reduced to a mere asterisk, or even forgotten completely.

And Joe Klein chimed in as well:

But Dems are distressed? He's not populist or ideological enough? Oh please. There are several ways to go about the presidency. Ronald Reagan chose one way: he said one thing and did another. He was for cutting back the size of government, but didn't. He was for lowering taxes and he did, but then he raised taxes--two of the laegest percentage increases in American history--when his supply-side "philosophy" proved a phony. He confronted the Soviet Union, but he also would have agreed to massive reductions in nuclear arsenals if the Soviets had allowed him to pursue his Star Wars fantasy.

Barack Obama has chosen another way.

He has pretty much done what he said he'd do. His achievements are historic. But he hasn't wrapped them up in an ideological bumper sticker--or provided some neat way for the public to understand it, or pretended to be a yeoman simpleton, noshing on pork rinds, clearing brush and excoriating the business community. That is a real political problem. He delivered a stealth tax cut to 95% of the American people; I've never seen a politician cut taxes and not take sufficient credit for it before. He made it impossible for Americans to be denied health care coverage because of pre-existing conditions or chronic problems; somehow this has gotten lost in the "socialist" shuffle as well. He ended major combat operations in Iraq, on time and without much fuss--without using the word "victory" or denying the continuing problems involved in cobbling together a coherent government there. Another President might have hyped this "achievement" relentlessly.

The Fireside chat for August 21, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President calls out Republicans for blocking campaign finance reforms that would address the Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates of corporate money into elections.

Howard Dean, defiantly wrong.

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

I'm glad former Governor Howard Dean went on Keith last night. Too many people hide from the cameras when a controversy breaks out, so kudos to him for getting out there.

Still, his position on Park51 remains ridiculous, indefensible, and frankly a little racist.

I hate to be brutal about it, but the in the scheme of things, the pain, the tragedy, the suffering of the 9/11 families, does not matter.  I'm not dismissing their pain, I'm saying that their pain cannot be allowed to trump our Constitution.

More to the point, to maintain a position that says that a Muslim Community Center is disrespectful, you have to believe that Muslims genetically predisposed to being terrorists. Now, Howard Dean says (over and over again) that he doesn't believe that, but then why justify this belief by giving into it?

This is the same damn argument that was dropped on Civil Rights Protesters.  Progress is coming, but you have to be patient.  This is, in effect, Howard Dean's argument to America's Islamic Citizens.  But as Thurgood Marshall said (at the time), "the Emancipation Proclamation was signed 90 years ago, I think Black Americans have been plenty paitent."

Either the First Amendment is going to apply to all of us, or it applies to none of us.

UPDATE: Saturday Aug. 21: Somehow the guy who once wrote a Screenplay about Thurgood Marshall thought the 90 years quote ws said by Martin Luther King. My utter bad.

What "doing his job" can sometimes mean...

Great, great piece by Jonathan Bernstein:

What makes the presidency so hard is that it's not about deciding right vs. wrong. It's almost always about choices about priorities--which of the many possible "right" things should move up to the top tier, which are clearly not worth the effort, and which are somewhere in the middle. This requires gauging all sorts of things...are cranky Dem Senators really upset about Warren, or just putting up a show for the benefit of home-state interests. How much does Warren's obvious symbolic importance to some liberals translate to liberal activists in general, and how will that play out if Obama was to choose a substantively similar but symbolically less fraught nominee? How do Washingtonians feel about the president's resolve, and will his reputation for being tough be helped if he stands up to balky Senators? What if he stands up to liberals? How much do the banks actually care about Warren's symbolic importance? How likely is this choice to take up valuable Senate floor time compared to alternative nominees, and which nominations or legislation might that jeopardize? What options does he have on those other items that might clear more space for a Warren floor fight (if one is likely), and how important would those compromises be?

Then realize that there's a similar set of questions for each of the things that Barack Obama wants to do, and for all the things he doesn't really care about but for which others are urging him to act. Remember that while on the one hand he has far more tools than any other individual to use in order to persuade others to go along with what he wants, he's using those tools across dozens, maybe hundreds, of issues, while many of those he deals with may only care--and care intensively--about one or two or maybe a handful of issues. And note that everyone is watching what the president decides, and how he decides, and who he listens to and what strategies he uses, so that they can maximize their ability to get what they want from him when it's their turn to play. None of which should be taken as apologizing for the president... he asked for the job! He certainly should be held to account. It's just important, in my opinion, to understand what it means for a president to make a decision before we start attacking him for one.

Black Republicans

From the Daily Beast:

Timothy Johnson, who as chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation works to get African-American Republican officials elected and grow the ranks of black members of the party, says that Sarah Palin needs to clarify her defense of Dr. Laura Schlessinger. He also says Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele needs to speak out against Palin.

Like that'll happen. Mr. Johnson (absolutely, positively ZERO relation) also said:

If she chooses to run for President in 2012, she is going to have to answer to black Republicans.

Again, yeah right.

If a majority of African-Americans were convinced that your organization wasn't going to cave at the first opportunity in the face of the former Half Governor, there might be more than three Black Republicans in the country.

You want to prove something to me? Tell Palin and tell America that Black Republicans have a zero tolerance policy towards racism. Tell Palin that if she runs, even Black Republicans won't support her. But we both know that's not going to happen, thus we come to the inescapable conclusion that Black Republicans tolerate racism.

This from the supposed Party of Lincoln.

The Racist Sisterhood...Part 2

Shocking headline of the day from the Daily Beast, following up on the Dr. Laura racist crapfest:

Black Republican: Sarah Palin Doesn't Speak For Us

Loved Josh's crackback:

Wow, pro-'N-Word' advocacy not helping with black voters. Always hard to figure how these things will play.

Hypocrisy? Priceless.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), you know, the guy who thought withdrawing from Iraq was a mistake, thinks that George Bush hasn't been getting enough credit for the ending of the Combat mission in Iraq.

Disappointed.

The amount of coverage (outside MSNBC that is) of the ending of our Combat Mission in Iraq has been scant. Right now, Newsweek's lead story is about Wyclef Jean's Presidential bid in Haiti. CNN is doing tainted eggs and Dr. Laura. Fox News is doing "Nuclear Iran -- Is it Too Late??" Nothing on Salon, Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times. Oh, the Washington Post has a lead story...sorry, had a lead story for a while there (now it's back to the Park51 bull@#$%). Talking Points Memo, via AFP, rates a mention.

The international press t rates only a little better. Nothing on the Times of London. It's the third story on the Guardian of London at least. The BBC has it at number two, with a side story about Iraq finding it hard to care.

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

What gets on my nerves more than anything is that this was a clear promise made by the President during the campaign, it was one of the reasons (though not the reason) people voted for him. And now that he's made good on that promise, he's not going to get any credit for it.

Listen, let's not B.S. here. This is a great day. I know a lot of my fellow progressives are still up in arms over Afghanistan (and I'm not sure they should be), but getting out of this mess is a net positive.

Now if we can only find a way to avoid an armed Islamic Reformation, that'd be even better.

The Racist Sisterhood...

As I was under the weather yesterday, I did not get a chance to comment (celebrate) the ending of Dr. Laura's radio crapfest.  So let me state my position clearly for the record: Hooray!

But equally interesting is former Half-Governor Sarah Palin's tweeting in support of Dr. Laura.  There's more here in the Washington Post.

Keith tweeted a very good question in response. Does this mean that the former Half-Governor agrees with Dr. Laura's conduct??

Howard Dean's lowest moment.

Oh, Jesus (ironically enough).

I've gotta believe there has to be a compromise here. This isn't about the right of Muslims to have a worship center, or Jews or Christians or anybody else to have a place to worship, or any place around Ground Zero. This is something we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith. And we have to understand that it is a real affront to people who've lost their lives -- including Muslims. That site doesn't belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans and all faiths. So I think a good, reasonable compromise could be worked out, without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.

Yeah, I gotta go with Keith on this one. What has happened to his man since he left the DNC?  First the Bill-Killer crap, now this.

Josh Marshall went on with some points of his own:

I mean, what's so humorous about Dean's sweating the pain of Muslim 9/11 victim families who are going to be offended about a Muslim community center being built is that I really don't get a clear sense that Dean has any idea what's even being discussed. Does he know it's not at Ground Zero? It's almost like he piled on some 'Muslims are Americans too' and 9/11, 9/11 and the rest and just let his mouth run for a minutes.

Late Please Make It Stop It's Too Painful Update: Sam Stein at Huffpo rung up Dean to see if he wanted to revise and extend his remarks and Sam basically ended up giving the good doctor another chance to demonstrate that he apparently doesn't know anything about what's going on. Dean says the Cordoba House proponents are being inflexible. And maybe they are. But he also makes clear that he takes "the congregation at its word that it is a moderate congregation trying to heal the wounds of 9/11." Only there's no congregation. It's a investment group (Soho Properties) and a Muslim non-profit (the Cordoba Initiative) trying put this together. Ahh, never mind. But he does point out that "best way to heal the wounds is not to have a court battle, but to sit down and try to work things out." Good point, only there's no Court battle. It's done. They got the approval. Maybe someone will get Mayor Bloomberg ginned up about Muslim plot to make us all eat Halal food. But there's no court battle.

Doing your homework. What a concept ...

Almost.

After cracking on Keith’s Special Comment on Obama a couple of days ago, I felt it only appropriate that he should be given his due praise for his recent work where he almost nailed it in his Worst Person in the world segment when he ripped on Dr. Laura for her recent racist rant on the radio.

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

Almost.

Somehow it has gotten into the American consciousness that only saying “N----r” and burning a cross on the lawn counts as racism. As someone who lives with the prospect of my life ending at a routine traffic stop, being followed around in stores, on watching as a perfectly legitimate application for an Apartment is rejected, I know better. These are examples of everyday, common racism that still happen. What Dr. Laura did was extraordinary and public, but hardly unique.

So this is a long way of saying that Keith really nailed the moment when he said that the N-bomb wasn’t the most offensive part of the segment. He was telling his audience that there was more racism there, and he was right.

But the part that offended me wasn’t the bit Keith highlighted, where she assailed black people for hyper-sentivity (which was offensive, don't get me more), it was Dr. Laura’s insufferable demand that the caller prove to her (the white woman) that what happened was racist.

You got to listen to the whole segment (which Randi Rhodes played last week), which I cannot stomach to bring you here.

Again, African-Americans are perfectly capable to determining for themselves what is and isn’t racist. No offense white folks, we really don’t need your help on it. We do need your help in the discussion that follows. But in the end, we will determine what offends us, not you.

But we're starting to get a good look at what passes for racial discourse nowadays, and it's starting to tick me off. There are (at least) two parties in any debate. In a racial one, such as this, there is a African-American and a White Person. Both have a role to play in the discussion to come, but for some reason on the TV, only one is allowed to speak.

I still am stung by the idea that when Rand Paul revealed his true colors, there weren't many black people called onto the air to offer their opinion outside Rep. James Clyburn. That ticked me off.

Now, we're seeing the same thing happen when the Park 51/Cordoba Mosque B.S. As people scream, hem and haw, has there been any Muslim...well...anybody brought to the air to defend the place. Or is this just another discussion happening exclusively among white people?