The American people want their snake oil, dangit!

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post puts the blame for our current mess where it belongs...on the American People.

In the punditry business, it's considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the American people. But at this point, it's impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

This is not, I repeat not, a partisan argument. My own political leanings are well-known, but the refusal of Americans to look seriously at the nation's situation -- and its prospects -- is an equal-opportunity scourge. Republicans got the back of the electorate's hand in 2006 and 2008; Democrats will feel the sting this November. By 2012, it will probably be the GOP's turn to get slapped around again.

The nation demands the impossible: quick, painless solutions to long-term, structural problems. While they're running for office, politicians of both parties encourage this kind of magical thinking. When they get into office, they're forced to try to explain that things aren't quite so simple -- that restructuring our economy, renewing the nation's increasingly rickety infrastructure, reforming an unsustainable system of entitlements, redefining America's position in the world and all the other massive challenges that face the country are going to require years of effort. But the American people don't want to hear any of this. They want somebody to make it all better. Now.

President Obama can point to any number of occasions on which he has told Americans that getting our nation back on track is a long-range project. But his campaign stump speech ended with the exhortation, "Let's go change the world" -- not, "Let's go change the world slowly and incrementally, waiting years before we see the fruits of our labor."

And one thing he really hasn't done is frame the hard work that lies ahead as a national crusade that will require a degree of sacrifice from every one of us. It's obvious, for example, that the solution to our economic woes is not just to reinflate the housing bubble. New foundations have to be laid for a 21st-century economy, starting with weaning the nation off of its dependence on fossil fuels, which means there will have to be an increase in the price of oil. I don't want to pay more to fill my gas tank, but I know that it would be good for the nation if I did.

The richest Americans need to pay higher taxes -- not because they're bad people who deserve to be punished but because they earn a much bigger share of the nation's income and hold a bigger share of its overall wealth. If they don't pay more, there won't be enough revenue to maintain, much less improve, the kind of infrastructure that fosters economic growth. Think of what the interstate highway system has meant to this country. Now imagine trying to build it today.

Fixing Social Security for future generations, working steadily to improve the schools, charting a reasonable path on immigration -- none of this is what the American people want to hear. They're in the market for quick and easy solutions that won't hurt a bit. It's easy to blame politicians for selling a bunch of snake oil. But the truth is that all they're doing is offering what the public wants to buy.

Yes on the explosion, but...

...there isn't any mile long oil slick after all.  Sorry.

The Coast Guard initially reported that an oil sheen a mile long and 100 feet wide had begun to spread from the site of the blast, about 200 miles west of the source of BP's massive spill. But hours later, Coast Guard Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesau said crews were unable to find any spill.

Betcha Keith doesn't even cover this tonight.

Yglesias: "There’s no real upside in lying to the choir..."

Andrew Sullivan has a couple of awards he gives out every week named for various pundits and the annoying habits they perpetrate in the media.

But one of the awards isn't a put down to the person its named after. It's named after Liberal Blogger Matthew Yglesias, and it's for writers, politicians, columnists or pundits who actually criticize their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe.

So the following is an example from Yglesias himself showing just why the award is named after him. It's a piece on Markos Moulitsas’ new book: American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right.

All I can say is wow, and well done, Matthew:

I previously expressed hope that Markos Moulitsas’ American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right would be better than the publicity material suggested. Jamelle Bouie read it for The American Prospect and reports back that it isn’t. Kevin Drum, meanwhile, notes the contrast between this kind of scathing review on a very mainstream liberal magazine and the reception of Liberal Fascism on the right.

I tend to think that this is one of the areas where progressives aren’t just doing the right thing, but have a smarter tactical approach to politics. There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don’t see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic “my enemies are totalitarian madmen” strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections. This should be differentiated from the occasional lapse into rhetorical excess that everyone does now and again. I’m talking specifically about the kind of sustained effort to seriously persuade people that Elana Kagan favors sharia or Dwight Eisenhower is a Communist that you see among loons of all stripes but that seems to be granted more respectability on the right.

This stuff doesn’t win votes anyone because, after all, it’s a form of preaching to the choir. Which is fine—the choir needs some sermons. But there’s no real upside in lying to the choir. Political movements need to adapt to the actual situation, and that means having an accurate understanding of your foes. You need to see them as they actually are so that you know the right way to respond. Either underestimating or overestimating their level of viciousness and evil can lead to serious miscalculations. Which is just to say that getting this stuff right is more important than coming up with funny put-downs.

I almost want to call this the Fort McHenry Manifesto. Thank you again, sir.

We cover the Horse-race, but only if the Fox-approved Horse is winning!

What else is new?  Courtesy Jonathan Singer:

It's interesting. The media hyperventilates over any Gallup polling that finds the Democrats in despair. But when Gallup finds Barack Obama's approval rating jumping a net 12 percentage points in two and a half weeks, with more approving than disapproving for two straight days -- the first time that has been the case since mid-July -- all we hear is... crickets. Interesting.

This is more of a media story than a what's-Obama-done-for-us-lately story. The President had a good week. The Iraq Speech obviously went over way better than the Pundit class would have you believe.

I understand Horse-race thinking when it comes to covering Political stories, but only covering the Horse-race if a certain horse is winning??

Yes, there's been an explosion. But...

Yes, there has been yet another Oil Rig Explosion off the coast of Louisiana, but even if the worst happens (and there are early indications that it has), this will be a lot easier to fix than the Deepwater Horizon leak:

First, this was not a deep water well. It was drilling in the Gulf in waters reported as being 340-feet deep or 450-feet deep, depending on who's doing the reporting. That's shallow compared to the mile-deep water BP's Deepwater Horizon was drilling in when it went down. So the moratorium doesn't apply.

Second, this was a production platform, not a drilling platform, according to the initial reports. There's been some conflict in the reports about whether it was actively producing at the time of the explosion, but regardless it's not an exploration platform. The moratorium applies to drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf. Production in the deep waters of the Gulf has been ongoing ever since the BP disaster.

Two points of clarification to keep in mind as this story unfolds.

More workers at small businesses will get Health Care under that no-good Law which MUST be repealed...

From Jonathan Cohn, and the Los Angeles Times:

An economist and two health policy researchers at the nonprofit Rand Corp. conducted a simulation to predict what is likely to happen once employers are able to offer coverage through these exchanges. Overall, they estimate that the proportion of U.S. workers who will have access to health insurance through their jobs will jump from 84.6% to 94.6%. That works out to 13.6 million additional workers having the option to buy affordable health plans.

Most of that bump is likely to come from smaller businesses with 50 or fewer employees. Today, only 60.4% of these employees can get health insurance through their jobs. Once the exchanges are functioning, the Rand researchers forecast that 85.9% of small business employees will have the option of buying health plans at work--an increase of 10.5 million workers.

Part of the reason for that growth is that the policies that will be offered through the exchanges will be less expensive, the researchers said. Small companies will be able to band together to pool their risk, which will give them more leverage to bargain with insurance companies. It also means their premiums should be more stable from year to year.

Yes Republicans, please stop all this nasty, nasty growth and stabilization.

Why Joe Klein's idea isn't going to work.

I like Joe Klein, but his latest column edges toward the nonsensical.  Our Democracy isn't breaking down because of the process or arcane Senate rules.  It's breaking down because one group of people (Conservatives), believe that the other group (Liberals/Progressives) have no right to govern once they've been voted into power.  

When one side is saying that the other doesn't have a fundamental right to govern, Mr. Klein's idea's become meaningless.

Maybe it will be Elizabeth Warren after all...

Remember, not so long ago, when I wrote this?:

I think she's the best choice. I would prefer it be her, though I have no idea of her capacities as an Administrator (a suitable No. 2 can be hired for that). With Christina Romer leaving the Council of Economic Advisers, there's a serious girl shortage on the Obama Econ team, and Prof. Warren would fill in that role nicely (or at the Fed).

Either way, Warren not getting this job is not the end of the freaking world. (Plus, she may want to go back to Harvard. Anyone consider that??)

Well...

It looks like she ain't goin' back to Harvard.

This from Ezra Klein:

Elizabeth Warren is the frontrunner to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She's also, however, a professor at Harvard Law School, which isn't very compatible with taking a full-time job in Washington. Something's going to have to give. And if this e-mail Brady Dennis obtained is any indication, it's not Warren's political ambitions:

When fall classes began Wednesday at Harvard Law School, Elizabeth Warren was scheduled to be teaching contract law to first-year students. But something happened on the way to the chalkboard.

"I'm writing to let you know that Professor Jerry Frug will be teaching your Contracts class this term instead of Professor Elizabeth Warren," law school dean Martha Minow wrote to students on Tuesday, according to an e-mail obtained by The Washington Post. "Professor Warren regrets that she will not be able to teach you this fall and we regret the last minute change."

Last-minute change?

I'd also note that as the election outlook grows grimmer for the Democrats, the White House seems to be picking a new fight on jobs. I wouldn't be shocked if they decided to pick one on consumer protections, as well.

Fingers crossed.

Remember what I said about Tim Pawlenty?

Never mind:

Although Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) on Tuesday signed an executive order aimed at keeping the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act out of the state, he has also approved a budget that encourages state agencies to apply for grants funded by that very same health care law.

Pawlenty's executive order explicitly states, "All executive branch departments and agencies are directed that no application shall be submitted to the federal government in connection with requests for grant funding for programs and demonstration projects deriving from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA" or "the Act") (Pub.L. 111-148) unless otherwise required by law, or approved by the office of the Governor."

But in Minnesota's Special Session Budget, signed by Pawlenty on May 21, the state health commissioner is directed to apply for grants from this exact law:

Do as I say, not as I said to get a couple of headlines a couple days ago in the interests of my faltering Presidential ambitions.

And yes, I know I just ripped Huffington Post and quoted something from Huffington Post in the space of two postings. I am just Mr. Consistency!

Huffington Post: Making as little sense as usual.

It's a blaring headline on the Huffington Post right now:

DEMS UNLIKELY TO REPEAL BUSH TAX CUTS

The link leads to a story in McClatchy that says:

Democrats unlikely to repeal tax cuts for the rich

Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.

Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.

However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.

Without their support, the push to raise rates on the rich probably will fail.

I respect McClatchy...and despite the fact I'm a Liberal, I can't stand Huffington Post...but there is a huge problem with the story, as far as I see it.

One, the Bush Tax Rates are set to expire at the end of the year. No further legislation is needed to raise the rates back to Bill Clinton-era levels. In fact, no further action is needed to raise the rates back to Bill Clinton-era levels.

(Once again, it's all about the clicks.)

So what are we talking about here??

Fine, was a movement afoot by...well, fiscally responsible Democrats to enact legislation to raise taxes on the rich, and a few Democrats have been stoopid enough to champion the idea of keeping our Nation's wealthiest citizens taxes low, low, low.

And Evan Bayh just proved to me what a crappy Vice-President he would have been. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, you rich bastard!

It is quite possible that Washington stalemate will produce the result fiscally responsible Liberals want, no bill to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. (Do you really think there's 60 votes for this crap? I'm betting 53-55 tops.)

Let's say they do get the tax cuts extended. Who exactly is going to sign them?

The way he was talking last night, I don't think it's going to be Barack Obama.

Again, let me repeat what he said:

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.

Translation: Okay, y'all have made everything I've done in the last two years about the deficit (even when I've worked to trim the deficit), so put your money where your mouth is. I'm about to give you what you say you want, a lower deficit. Now are you willing to stop whoring for your Corporate Masters to get this done, or is what you're selling nothing but a mountain of bullshit?

I'm betting mountain.

Ethics Investigations! They're not just for Democrats anymore!

Welcome John Campbell (R-CA) and Tom Price (R-GA) to the circle of the morally circumspect!

Tom Price was an Anti-Stimulus liar of the first order.  And John Campbell looks like Louie Golmert, only with a full head of hair.  Maybe it's worth losing Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters to get these two.

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.