The next big and dangerous lie about Health Care Reform...

You watch it. What's going to happen is that the 26 Attorneys General who sued the Adminstration over Health Care Reform are going to seize upon Judge Vinson's ruling that the Law is unconstitutional, and start saying: "How dare the President enforce his unconstitutional law."

One problem.

Judge Vinson called the Law unconstitutional...sure.

He neglected...for some reason...to put a stay on it.

That's right, for all the hubbub and hoopla over this ruling, the Judge in the matter neglected stop it from being enforced. Mostly likely because he knew it wouldn't stand up in Court for more than a nanosecond.

Still, that won't stop a lot of Conservative douchebags and liars out there from proclaiming that the Law is unconstitutional. (Uhh, you've got two Judges saying it is, I got two Judges saying it is -- meet you at Anthony Kennedy's desk in a little over a year).

Once again, the Rhetoric around Health Care Repeal will escalate to dangerous proportions, because in their zeal to make their argument (which will be that the President is doing dangerous and unconstitutional things), we continue down the road that led to Congresswoman's shooting, only this time the the consequences might be far, far more tragic.

Do we even know what the Muslim Brotherhood is? (VIDEO)

Seems to me that a great deal of the commentary about the possible future of Egypt rests on a definition of the Muslim Brotherhood that may not be entirely valid.

That's not to say that they're not bad news, they are.  But co-flating The Brotherhood with Al-Qaeda (as a lot of Righties are doing) is not valid (apparently, they hate each other).



Should the Brotherhood get into power Will they be more radical than Murbarak? Yes.

Will they institute Sharia Law? They'll try.

Will they try to walk away from the 1979 Peace Agreement with Israel? Again, they'll try...they might even succeed as Israel is real unpopular in Egypt.

Will they wage War on Israel? Only if they really, really, really want to get their asses kicked by the Israeli Military and have their stay in power only be a few short months. (If the Protests are about a lack of food and jobs, how does attacking Israel, or sparking an attack from Israel help on either of these fronts?) My bet is they shake their fists real, real hard, but stop short of anything provocative, like sending aid directly into Gaza.

Will they attack America? See the Israel answer above, and multiply times fifty.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Mubarak Mu Problems - Samer Shehata
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

Once again, WHY AM I GETTING BETTER INFORMATION ON COLBERT OR THE DAILY SHOW than I am from the News Media?

The slightly out of place (on reflection) Fireside Chat for January 29, 2011 (VIDEO)

By the way, this was done the Wednesday before in Wisconsin, before all hell broke loose in Egypt:



The President discusses his visit to a company in Manitowoc, Wisconsin and how it exemplified his agenda for America to “win the future” spelled out in the State of the Union Address.

The YouTube Interview with President Obama (VIDEO)

Your questions (well, a good handful, not all 300 million Americans) answered by the President.

The President's speech at Families USA (VIDEO)

Egypt is certainly on the minds of friends and loved ones around the world. It is most certainly the most important news story out there right now.

But the fight goes on...still.



From the Hill:

In his most vigorous defense of the healthcare law since Republicans took control of the House, Obama fired back Friday at GOP claims that the law deprives essential care for seniors and balloons the deficit.

“You may have heard once or twice this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity,” Obama said to pro-reform advocates at the Families USA annual conference in Washington. “That just doesn’t match up to the reality.”

Obama’s fired-up rhetoric comes just days after the president offered a more muted defense of the healthcare reform law in the State of the Union address.

The president was firm Friday and used the home-field advantage of a pro-healthcare reform crowd to bolster his defense of the law, which House Republicans voted to repeal only a week ago.

Obama fought back against GOP claims that the bill won’t reduce healthcare costs and would hurt the nation’s seniors while expanding the deficit.

With House Republicans using committee hearings this week to pose the reform law as bad for business, Obama touched on a report from a large business advocacy group that said the law would reduce premiums for workers.

“That’s money that business can use to grow to invest or hire. … That’s money workers won’t have to see vanish from paychecks or bonuses. That’s good for all of us,” he said.

“And I can report that granny is safe,” he added, hitting back at GOP claims that the administration wants to ration expensive care for the elderly.

Steve Benen:

As a rule, consultants tell officials not to repeat the wording of a rhetorical attack, because it only helps lend credence to the criticism, but I'm glad Obama put it this way this morning. The president is, in effect, openly mocking Republicans for transparently ridiculous talking points that are fundamentally dishonest.

And since they deserve to be mocked, this was an entirely appropriate line to take. Instead of getting angry, there's something to be said for a "can you believe these guys?" kind of approach.

President Obama's statement on Egypt (VIDEO)

Ezra. Ever more pessimistic.

I couldn't find a place to snip and cut "Did the Senate just lose the future?" without losing its meaning (a testament to the writer). the last sentence was the killer for me:

The pity of the deal that Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell struck on rules reform is that this was a really good moment for Senate reform. The usual danger with this kind of project is that it'll end up being a power grab directed at passing some discrete pieces of legislation, as when Bill Frist tried to free judicial nominees from the filibuster, rather than an overhaul dedicated to making the institution work better. But with one party controlling the House and another controlling the Senate, there was no way that a more majoritarian Senate could start ramming all sorts of legislation into law. For the next two years -- and probably some time after that -- Barack Obama will not sign anything that John Boehner hasn't already approved. Both Republicans and Democrats had the luxury of contemplating the Senate's workings without giving either party a major advantage in passing new legislation.

Instead, the Senate decided that its current procedures are good enough. There's something slightly terrifying about that. Accepting a dysfunctional legislature is, as James Fallows and others have argued, one way to lose the future. Our problems -- debt, health-care costs, infrastructure, education, etc. -- are on autopilot. Our solutions are not. Obama can give as many speeches as he wants. If we don't have a political system capable of acting on our challenges, we don't have a political system capable of overcoming them.

I've never been a huge fan of 'the constitutional option. My oft-expressed preference was for both parties to recognize that the Senate is broken and requires fairly fundamental reforms. One way to do that would be to phase in the reforms over six years, ensuring that no one knew who would benefit from the more majoritarian institution first. Another would've been to do it now, when divided government would undermine any advantage that Democrats might gain from the new rules, and thus might have given both parties space to participate in the process with more of a long-range perspective.

Instead, both parties decided to back off. There were hard decisions to be made, and they agreed not to make them. They chose the parochial comforts of what they were used to, and what would advantage each of them personally, to the discomfort and sacrifice that creating a more workable legislative process would require.

When I speak publicly, I always get variants of the same question: We've got so many problems to solve. Can we solve them? And the answer I always give is the same: Yes. in most cases, we already know what to do. The question is simply whether we'll do it. And I'm a lot less confident about that.

As much as I personally at "the Club" (aka the Senate) I understand the Founder's intentions. The House is and remains the House of the people, where their passions are recognized, and Legislation passed in accordance with those passions.

Problem is the people are flakes. They tent to jerk the Country too hard one way or the other, and the consequences of such flakiness can be rather dramatic.  WE WANT HEALTH CARE!!!  JUST NOT FOR THOSE PEOPLE!!  WE WANT GOVERNMENT SERVICES!!  JUST DON'T TAX US FOR IT!!!  And of course KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!!!

 Thus, we have the Senate, the saucer that cools (or kills) the drink. It's function is to prevent the leftward-rightward shifts the people want to put the country through are milder, less severe.

Get me a better quality person...and I'll get you a better Senate.

In the end, Ezra notes that we're more worried about what we'll lose rather than what we'll gain, and the Senate is no different.

So why did Senate Democrats agree, in principle, that simple majorities can't change the Senate's rules, and even exceedingly modest changes to the filibuster are out-of-bounds? Easy: They're a simple majority now, but someday soon, they'll be a simple minority. When that happens, they want to be able to mount constant filibusters as well.

To borrow David Brooks's schtick for a minute, there's an easy behavioral explanation for this preference: Loss aversion. Study after study shows that human beings fear the consequences of loss much more than they value the benefits of gains. And so too in the Senate, where the two parties think about the rules in terms of "what happens when I lose" rather than "what happens when I win?"

But if you really think you've got a great agenda and that the voters would agree, that would imply a fantastic upside to rules that allow you to make good on your campaign promises: Either the American people would get to judge you on all the great stuff you want to do, as opposed to all the great stuff you got stopped from doing, or they'd get to judge the other party on all the awful stuff they did, and which you could then reverse with a simple majority vote. That's a coherent theory of the way accountability encourages good ideas and wise governance in American politics. A world in which you can't enact your ideas or govern effectively and so the voters end up thinking you as feckless as the folks across the aisle isn't. That's a world in which the rules of the Senate, and not the policies of the parties, drive outcomes, and thus drive elections. That's a world where voters never know whose ideas are best because neither side can ever enact their agendas. But that's the world the Senate apparently prefers to inhabit.

The point about the Democrats soon (possibly) being in the minority is a point I made yesterday. The only problem I have with this analysis is one of simple human psychology and mathematics.

We're human beings living in the world, living with other human beings. Most of the time, we as individuals we want things (events, items, etc.) and most times, we don't get them (i.e., we don't "win"). And the same time, we tend to forget that other individuals want things as well, and they're not getting them either. You put the two of them in collision and you get a great big stew of people not getting what they want colliding into other people not getting what they want...

...yet somehow we all muddle through.

Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains. Think about that. (--Nuke LaLoosh)

Ezra made it sound like these results are not normal, when they're anything but.

It's also called Democracy.

In the end, Senate Reform for me, isn't about making better rules. The rules are fine. It's the Senators willingness to game them that has broken the system down. It doesn't take a genius to filibuster something, but it does take a particular corruption of the soul to abuse the filibuster the way it has been abused, to use it more times than at any point in History.

One type of person says: Hey, we lost the election. There are more of them than there are of us. These guys what Health Care Reform. Let's see which of our ideas we can get in there to make it more palatable for our side.

The other type of person says: So what if we lost the election. I don't care if there are more of them than there are of us. They don't get their way, period. Let's burn Health Care Reform down, even if we have to take the whole country with us!

Who do you think we've had to deal with in the Senate these last two years?

Get me a better quality of person in the Senate (and I'm not just talking replacing only Conservatives or Republicans believe it or not), get me people more interested in the country than in ideology (...or the club), and I'll get you a better Senate.

I'm sure Professor Dad has a better, more elegant, and mathematical explanation for all this.

Where a Liberal (that'd be me) argues that losing the Filibuster would have been bad, bad, bad...

Ezra banged out this little 'graph, with a twinge of disappointment in his writer's voice:

A few moments ago, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell took to the floor of the Senate to announce a five-point agreement on rules reform. But the five-points weren't, well, the point. The real agreement was on the process by which rules can be reformed.

"As part of this compromise," Reid said, "we've agreed that I won't force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate -- that is the so-called ‘constitutional option’ -- and he [McConnell] won't in the future." In other words, Reid and McConnell have agreed that the Senate's rules cannot -- or at least should not -- be decided by a simple majority. That was what the constitutional option was about, and that's what Reid explicitly rejected in his speech. Why? "Both McConnell and Reid feared what would happen if they were in the minority," explains a Reid aide.

Okay, the big, big thing is the fact that Give 'Em Hell Harry got McConnell to agree to not hold a similar filibuster vote in the future. Why?  Because given the number of Democratic Senate Seats up for grabs in the 2012 election, its quite possible that we're going to lose the Senate as we're re-electing Barack Obama (yes, I'm still way confident that's going to happen). Should we lose the Senate (the number of Democratic Seats up outweighs Teabaggers by 2 to 1) you, me and every other Liberal out there is going to fall so in love with the Filibuster, it's gonna make your head spin like Linda Blair.

Now, if you want to question whether or not Reid can trust McConnell to keep his word, have at it. (Ultimately, to because Senate decorum is more important to these guys than anything else, I actually believe McConnell will keep his word). But as far as the long game, Harry Reid surrendered our ability to get some stuff done in 2011 to keep our ability to hold back a Teabagger Apocalypse in 2013.

Good job, Harry.  Though, I'm betting the Professional Left doesn't see it that way for two more years.

The everlasting value of Mark Penn's advice...

Mark Penn hated the speech.  Couldn't have been all bad, right?

Begala loved it.  He was the one Hillarylander I trusted even back in 2008, though he got on my nerve.  Still, that's a damn good sign to me.

The (Enchanced) State of the Union Speech. January 25, 2010 (VIDEO)

Randi Rhodes once said that to really take in the speech, it was important to watch it on C-SPAN, where there is no commentary on it afterwards by the Pundit class. Separating the speech from the Punditocracy really informs your own opinion about the speech, but in a good way.

That being said, I missed the speech last night. I came in just in time to watch the MSNBC crew going over it (mostly in glowing terms). Then I watched the speech. It was enough separation to let me judge it on its own terms. That being said, I liked the speech. I don't think I flipped over it as much as the Pundit class, but I liked it.

My favorite part, early on, was the moment when he reminded the new House GOP: "By the way...you have to actually govern now, not just say no to everything."

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won’t usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

I believe we can. And I believe we must. That’s what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they’ve determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all -– for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

I'm afraid the lack of specificity is a symptom of how uncertain our times still remain, and, of course, the fact that we got a Republican Congress (thanks stay-at-homers!) and the President doesn't want to show all his cards. After all, drawing a line in the sand, and having to renegotiate that line doesn't exactly win him any friends in the Depressed Left.

Anyway, in deference to the White Houses' ideas (and the fact that any State of the Union isn't the most...cinematic of creations), I have decided to use the White House's "Enchanced" Video, showing all their fancy charts and graphs.

David Shuster speculates (probably pretty damn accurately) what happened to Keith Olbermann

This is from a Transcript of David Shuster's appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources. Remember, David was fired by MSNBC for taping a pilot for CNN (when his MSNBC was about to expire, and it wasn't going to be renewed). David's gag order has been lifted just as Keith's is going to into effect, so judge for yourself:

KURTZ: Let me turn to David Shuster.

SHUSTER: I'm not sure if I can accept your assertions of what was going on at NBC, but in any case --

KURTZ: But you worked there a long time.

SHUSTER: Yes.

KURTZ: You had a good relationship with Olbermann. You filled in for him periodically on "Countdown."

What about this constant friction? I described it as a war between him and top executives at NBC and MSNBC.

SHUSTER: Well, look, I mean, everybody knew that with the new sort of Comcast coming in to take over from General Electric, that the reporting structure within MSNBC was going to be different. Until Comcast comes in, you have Phil Griffin, who very much was a Keith Olbermann protector, reporting directly to Jeff Zucker, the head of NBC News.

Under the new arrangement, Steve Capus, from NBC News, he will essentially be right above Phil Griffin. And so NBC News is going to have much more of an influence over what happens on MSNBC. And I think Keith anticipated, perhaps justifiably so, that his wings might be clipped, that some of the special commentaries that he would be making, that there would be much more sort of deference that would have to be paid to NBC News' standards and judgments.

And I think Keith felt that he built this franchise for eight years, it was highly successful. He treasured his independence, and he treasured the fans, the 250,000 who signed the petitions back in November, demanding that he put right back on the show.

The Fireside Chat (and SOTU Preview) for January 22, 2011 (VIDEO)

Yeah, I know. It's way late.



President Obama discusses the steps he is taking to make America competitive in the short and long terms, and why he chose GE CEO Jeff Immelt to head up the new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Everything's going to hell...unless it isn't...

In the span of twenty minutes, you were told, most assuredly that things were either total crap on the Violent rhetoric front...or getting much better...by two Hosts of two different shows on the same network.

First, we had Keith's Special Comment from Monday night...

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

...which bled into Rachel's segment containing happiness, sunshine, rainbows and unicorns (well, happiness, sunshine, rainbows and unicorns for her):

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

In truth, this is Liberalism. We have debates even among each other. We don't always agree (see: Deal, Tax Cut...and Option, Public), but at least we have the debate. It's not like a version of Colbert's frequent question: "George Bush, Great President...or the Greatest President?!?"

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Great President...or Greatest President?
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

White House White Board: The Cost of Repeal...

The first White Board without the Goolsbee!

Jonathan Cohn: "Why Today's vote matters"

A very nice article from a guy who's been watching this fight for the last couple of years. But the killer paragraph(s) were these:

Today's House vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act is merely symbolic. The Senate will almost certainly not pass it and, even if it did, the president surely would not sign it.

But symbolism matters. It sends a message about values. And so it's worth considering what values this generation of Republicans has decided to embrace.

Over the last year, the Republicans have spent a lot of time arguing that the Affordable Care Act will cost too much, that it will micromanage care, that it will burden business with taxes and bureaucracy. The most outrageous claims, like the notion of government-run "death panels," have zero basis in fact. And even the less explosive arguments frequently rely on flimsy evidence. But the most remarkable thing about the Republican campaign against health care reform is what the advocates of repeal haven't said.

They never bothered to engage with the fundamental moral logic behind the Affordable Care Act--that a modern society guarantees everybody access to doctors, hospitals, and the treatments they provide; that it's wrong to sit by and watch people give up their savings, or their lives, just because they happened to get sick. They have some ideas, yes, but nothing that would come remotely close to insuring 30 million people or bolstering coverage for the people who have it.

As recently as the last debate over health care reform, in the 1990s, prominent Republicans showed sincere interest in finding common ground in order to achieve similar goals. And there are, I know, honest, caring conservatives who still feel the same way. But the Republicans in the House? If they too are committed to helping the un- and under-insured, they haven't shown it.

The Fireside Chat for January 15, 2011 (VIDEO)

As Congress returns to work, the President calls on them -- and all of us -- to debate our differences vigorously but to live up to the spirit of common cause we felt following the tragedy in Arizona.

Apparently, Ezra thought the "puddles" imagery was...cheap.

It has not been a good week for Ezra, and I don't know why.

First, he was adamant that the Jared Lee Loughner had no connection to Right Wing Political thought at all. (Southern Poverty Law Center's Mark Potok, who makes a living studying these things, says otherwise).

And how, he (and Wonder Boys author Michael Chabon) seem hell bent on pissing all over what I thought was the line of the night.

For me, the one really false note in the president's speech last night came when he said, "If there are rain puddles in Heaven, Christina is jumping in them today." It was ... cheap, somehow. More like what you tell children when a pet dies than what you tell adults when a child dies. Or maybe it wasn't. I haven't had to talk to many parents in that situation. But Michael Chabon had the same reaction.

Yeah.

Hope Ezra and Michael realize that the rest of america, didn't feel that way.

I'm going to chalk it up to a major, major disagreement between friends. But it wasn't like Andrew who took a position on Loughner's philosophy initially, then slowly (and quietly) backed off it. Ezra seems to be loud and proud about letting the concrete dry around his feet.

"If there are rain puddles in Heaven, Christina is jumping in them today...." (VIDEO)

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

From the prepared remarks:

I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed.

Imagine -- imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council. She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us -– we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.

As has already been mentioned, Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called “Faces of Hope.” On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child’s life. “I hope you help those in need,” read one. “I hope you know all the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart." "I hope you jump in rain puddles.”

If there are rain puddles in Heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on this Earth -- here on this Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and we commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.

May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in restful and eternal peace. May He love and watch over the survivors. And may He bless the United States of America.

John Dingell. An old soul with fire in his belly. (VIDEO)

Via Talking Points Memo, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) reading off a list of the various comments he's heard in the last two years:

If only. The Police had stopped Loughner the day of the assassination...

First caught by Karen Tumulty via Twitter.  The Police stopped Loughner the day of the assassination attempt.

Police stopped Jared L. Loughner for running a red light several hours before authorities say he opened fire outside a Tucson supermarket Saturday, but the state wildlife officer who made the traffic stop noticed nothing unusual about Mr. Loughner and had no probable cause to search the vehicle, Arizona authorities said Wednesday.

On Saturday at about 7:30 a.m. — some two-and-a-half hours prior to the shooting that left six dead and wounded 14, — the officer pulled over Mr. Loughner, 22, as he drove down an access road several miles from the supermarket. A check of his license and registration turned up no warrants and he was allowed to leave with a warning, officials said.

“The contact was very cordial,” said Jim Paxon, a spokesman for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. “Mr. Loughner was very forthcoming with his license and registration and insurance. The officer did a visual examination of the vehicle. He had no probable cause to search the vehicle or detain the subject.”

This is not something we should crack on the Arizona Cops for. That last part was right. They had no probable cause to search his vehicle. This, I'm afraid, falls into the category of...if only...

Charlie Rose's Interview with Jon Meacham and Ezra Klein...

...only a link, I'm afraid, as Charlie and PBS still haven't figured out the whole "embed" thing.

Still, never thought I'd see the day when I'm siding with Jon Meacham against Ezra Klein on any matter, yet..

The Southern Poverty Law Center's Mark Potok's had himself a busy day (AUDIO and VIDEO)

First, Mark's Interview with Randi Rhodes:




And his second interview with Keith:

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

You do know that the Federal Reserve has turned 80.9 Billion dollar profit, right?

First caught by Ezra.

By the way, in case you couldn't tell by now, I'm not much of a Ron Paul supporter.  I don't like the guy.  I don't trust the guy.  I think he's a racist.  I don't buy his bull@#$% about the Gold Standard.  I generally understand what the role of the Federal Reserve is, but don't ask me to write a paper on it.  I've heard of the Panic of 1907 (a.k.a., the Financial Crisis everyone in America would still be talking about if it wasn't for that Great Depression thing).

So when I saw this story in the Financial Times (not exactly a stronghold of Liberal thought), I was...you know...pleased!

US Federal Reserve turns $80.9bn profit

By Robin Harding in Washington
Published: January 10 2011 18:04 | Last updated: January 10 2011 18:04

The US Federal Reserve made a record profit of $80.9bn in 2010 and sent $78.4bn to the US Treasury as income poured in from its programme of quantitative easing.

The figures show how the financial crisis has turned the Fed into the most profitable bank in history, earning income of $88.1bn in 2010 but paying only $2.7bn in interest and $4.3bn in operating expenses.

CNN: Anderson Cooper interviews Bill Maher on the Giffords Assassination Attempt and the Right's use of rhetoric

Great catch from Under the Mountain Bunker & Coffee Shop:



I'm always a little nervous about posting third party video of Television, as big companies (like the one I work for) tend to assert their Copyright claims and delete said video. Enjoy it while it lasts!

That being said, Maher pushed a lot of interesting buttons, especially in regards to the media. Wonder if Anderson was listening.

UPDATE: 1:05pm Pacific: In the interests of mitigating a sudden departure of the video above, I've decided to put the CNN Video on this blog as well. Though, it only covers the first 8 minutes or so of the interview:

Reading extreme right wing ideas did not make Loughner crazy, and it was crazy that made him a killer...

One of the first things that happened after the Loughner Assassination-attempt was how quickly folks in the media tried to distance Loughner from the American Right. I even had two of my stalwarts doing it as well:

First, it was Ezra Klein:

From what we know, or think we know, Jared Loughner, the suspected shooter, was mentally ill. This was not an organized act of political violence, or even a rational one. Loughner's statements were clearly insane, and though his ravings contained some political content, it is not political content that either side of the spectrum would easily recognize as their own. "I'm able to control every belief and religion by being the mind-controller" does not appear in the platforms of either party, for instance.

...and quickly, Greg Sargent followed suit:

It's crass and counterproductive to start asking whether any political parties or ideologies are to blame for the tragic and horrific shooting of Dem Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others at an event with constituents yesterday. That's especially true given that the shooter is looking more and more like a deranged loner and early chatter that he might have had an accomplice is turning out to be false.

Greg's still at it, as of this morning.

Mind you, these are the two Liberals on the Post's staff. I shudder to think what was being said on less reputable Newsorgs (I'm talking about you, Wall Street Journal). Even Andrew Sullivan, fair-minded, but Conservative, seemed to be jumping on the Media's "He's of no Party or Ideology" bandwagon, at least for a time. These seemed to echo a meme from a lot of Reporters on Twitter (Jake Tapper and Rachel Maddow to name two) begging the rest of us to calm down and wait for the evidence.

There's something to that. We in the Liberal/Progressive community are supposed to be a lot more "Fact-based" than at least the rabid right, so we should take this advice to heart.

At the same time, we're kind of like Cops (or at least my worst stereotypes of them), in that, even when we know we know who did it, we're going to go about the task of gathering all the evidence anyway.

Well, it looks like at least some of that job has been done. We have a clearer picture of the shooter than we did the night before, and it's pretty much what we expected.

The first thing I saw was a couple of quotes Andrew pulled from Mr. Loughner's YouTube Channel:

The majority of the citizens of the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws. Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws. .... In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the current goverment because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

No! I won't play debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver! No! I won't trust in God

And...

Every US Government Official Agency is illegally accepting payment not in Gold or Silver.

Wow. This sounds familiar. Where have I heard this crap before?

The language of currency points to a Libertarian/Ron Paul type (a movement that tends to blend ideologies from odd ends of the spectrum -- Free Market Anti-Federal Reserve types and Stoner end-Marijuana laws hippies). But the stuff about Mind Control and "controlling grammar"? That had another, but still wholly extreme Right-wing source:

Jared Lee Loughner’s rants about grammar and mind control track closely to the writings of a conspiracy theorist who believes that is how the government controls the populace, one leading group says – and the man tells POLITICO he agrees with some of Loughner’s statements.

The far-right activist, David Wynn Miller, said in a telephone interview that he didn’t know Loughner, but agreed with his statement in a YouTube video that “the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.”

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

Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, first mentioned Miller during an appearance Saturday on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

“The idea weirdly enough of controlling grammar, of somehow the government using grammar to control the people is an idea that exists on the radical right. There’s a particular person, a man named David Wynn Miller who has plugged this idea for years,” Potok said.

Miller “claims to have invented truth language,” Potok said in an interview with POLITICO. “His idea is that if you only use the correct grammar and punctuation, you can throw off the shackles of the tyrannical government.”

Potok said Loughner appeared “practically illiterate and quite mentally ill,” but his statements and the books he has cited suggest a “pretty strong anti-government, conspiracy-oriented threat.”

“It seems he is getting some of his key ideas from David Wynn Miller,” he said.

You might want to take a look at what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about Miller.

Another thing that has come up in trying to play down any connection to the Tea Party is Mr. Loughner's selection of reading material. Basically, the line of thought goes, since he liked the Communist Maniefesto, he must have been from left.

Uhhh, is there a web-app that allows me to make a game show buzzer--nope?

Okay. Read on. (This was first caught by Andrew Sullivan, who slowly changed his mind about the "No Ideology" thing throughout the day):

His favorite book list is actually rather good, I must say, featuring Orwell’s Animal Farm, Huxley’sBrave New World, Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, Kesey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Hesse’s Siddharta (as well as Marx’ The Communist Manifesto and Hitler’s Mein Kampf). While these are all masterpieces, they have in common that they deal with the topic of reality perception being controlled by higher powers, as well as the possibility of alternate realities. Loughner in his YouTube videos writes about ‘conscience dreams’, and his MySpaceis called ‘fallen asleep’. His talk of grammar being controlled by the government calls to mind Foucault.

The inclusion of The Communist Manifesto on this list has been cited by some as proof that Loughner could not be a Tea Party activist, but since the Manifesto deals with the topic of organized revolution more than it does with imposing a state-controlled economy, I find its appearance on the list not so strange. It also seems that Loughner had came in contact with (campus) police a couple of times, so a picture more or less emerges of a troubled adolescent, who reads stuff that’s maybe a few levels too complex for him. But these are exactly the people that you shouldn’t expose to the sort of militant, violent political rhetoric that since Obama’s presidency has been employed by the Tea Party and the Republican right.

What I've presented to you here just a few pieces. This is not a complete picture. We're day two into this investigation, and I'm sure there's still an avalanche of crap yet to hit us. Still, I'm pretty much willing to say at this point his ideas came from the Right Wing camp. Though it's entirely possible that I'll have to repudiate this whole article at some point in the future...I'm betting I won't have to.

Of course the very idea that Loughner was from the right has sent the right into a frenzy. Never mind that the overwhelming negative tone of American politics primarily comes from them, never mind virtually all of the political violence that has occurred in the country over the last two years, has come from the extreme wing of their ideology.

Nope. Never mind all that...and don't you dare talk about it, either.

From Steve Benen:

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) was asked this morning by CNN's Candy Crowley about Sarah Palin's notorious "crosshairs" graphic, and he seemed rather annoyed about the question. Alexander concluded, "I think the way to get away from it is for you not to be talking about it."

Well, tough crap, Senator. We're talking about it.

Then, Rand Paul struck:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said on Fox News Sunday today that the mass shootings in Arizona yesterday are "unrelated" to Arizona's gun laws: "The weapons don't kill people, it's the individual that kills people."

And how could I make a list of tone deaf, dishonest Right-wing rhetoric without listing Justin Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, sent out an Email with this little ditty:

In a moment, a leftist lunatic destroyed a half a dozen lives.

Right. He blamed us.

Project much there, Justin?

If there is one bit of sunshine to come out of this mess (and it is just a bit, given how much we have all lost and how much others have suffered), it is that people are noticing. They've had enough of the rhetoric and want it to stop...now:

“There is a need for some reflection here - what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”

The Senator who said that was a Republican. The problem is that he or she refused to identify themselves on the record "in order to freely discuss the tragedy", which is horrifying in itself.

Even the Tea Party showed that it hadn't completely lost their minds. Allison Miller of the Pima County Tea Party Patriots (where the shooting occured) said:

"There are people in society that are just going to do these things, unfortunately. And then, what happens is, you know, in this case, people trying to use it to create further divisions between the right and the left. I think it's irresponsible, in my opinion...what it does is polarize people even further."

At the same time, she was still defensive :

"I did feel, you know, very like 'why are they jumping to this conclusion before they even knew the person's name?' They're jumping to this conclusion that it has to do with the hotly contested Congressional race," she said. "Well, apparently, from what I've seen so far...it's looking like that's not the case."

I guess it's too much to ask for Allison to read any part of this blog, right?

George Packer (the Liberal who blew his call on the Iraq War) was in a far more reflective mood:

For the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents. Not just arguing against their opponents, but doing everything possible to turn them into enemies of the country and cast them out beyond the pale. Instead of “soft on defense,” one routinely hears the words “treason” and “traitor.” The President isn't a big-government liberal—he's a socialist who wants to impose tyranny. He's also, according to a minority of Republicans, including elected officials, an impostor. Even the reading of the Constitution on the first day of the 112th Congress was conceived as an assault on the legitimacy of the Democratic Administration and Congress.

This relentlessly hostile rhetoric has become standard issue on the right. (On the left it appears in anonymous comment threads, not congressional speeches and national T.V. programs.)

Andrew Sullivan (on same posting, in response):

The level of animus toward the new president and anyone supporting him reached preposterous proportions at the beginning of this presidency; the gracelessness from the Congressional leadership on down, from "You lie!" to "death panels" and "palling around with terrorists" ... this is a real problem in a country with its fair share of disturbed individuals and much more than its fair share of guns.

The Palin forces, who have fomented this dynamic more viciously and recklessly than any other group, are reacting today with incandescent rage that they could even be mentioned in the same breath as this act of political terrorism. That's called denial. When you put a politician in literal cross-hairs, when you call her a target, when you celebrate how many targets you have hit, when you go on national television and shoot guns, when you use the language of "lock and load" to describe disagreements over healthcare provision ... you are part of the problem.

John Weaver, a longtime Republican operative, agreed:

"Actions can’t be placed on anyone’s doorstep. But if Governor Palin doesn’t want to be criticized then she should continue her commentary but dial back the anger."

Amen.

One of the things I keep saying about President Obama is that he gets blamed for more stuff he actually didn’t do. It started with the Reverend Wright case, and how the eventual President was somehow blamed for statements that were made when he wasn’t there. It cast in my mind the importance of trying to nail down for anyone, what was actually done, and said.

Along those lines there is an obvious statement that needs to be said flat out for the argument to continue:

Being Right winged does not mean mentally unstable.

I know, revolutionary thought, right? But its something that we on he left have started to take for granted, albeit a lighthearted way. We say it all the time, “Oh, that person must be crazy for saying those things” or “they’re nuts” or even a simple “they’re stupid”.

All that is lighthearted banter. We can say those things a thousand times and still not mean them, because we don’t. We just disagree, and are doing so in strong terms.

All the more reason to be mindful of what actual crazy looks like, and Loughner falls into that category.

He may have gotten his ideas from the extreme right, but reading what we would call bad ideas did not make him crazy. That was something else, and that crazy made him pull the trigger.

I leave this post convinced that a majority of the political philosophy Mr. Loughner absorbed was from the extreme American right.

…but in Loughner's case, crazy takes precedence.

The Fireside Chat for January 8, 2011 (VIDEO)

This almost counts as blog business. But given the tragic events of this past weekend, I almost didn't get to it.



Remember, these videos are taped the Friday before their release on Saturday.

If anything, his real Weekly Address is below.



I'm starting to get the feeling that more is to come from the President. There's even speculation about an Oval Office Address.

Gabrielle Giffords

It has been a long, heart-breaking weekend.  I have been following the news, and I will go about the business of this blog in the near term.  I'll back-post the President's address later in the day, and try to express some thoughts on the shooting...sometime.  Right now, I'm trying to decompress from the horror of what happened.

To understand what happens if we fail to raise the Debt Ceiling requires thinking that Teabaggers aren't capable of

"Debt bad. Debt wrong. Spending bad.  Spending wrong.  Debt limit must not be raised."

Hulk SMASH!!!

This, unfortunately, is the level of intellect that's the driving the demand of many grass-roots conservatives not to raise America's Debt Ceiling.

But like many things about the Economy, dealing with the Nation's debt is counterintuitive (my personal word of the year in 2010), and things that are counterintuitive require a degree of thinking that it seems the Tea Party is just not capable of.

To Tea Partiers, not raising the Debt Ceiling is a statement of personal responsibility, it shows that America is going to "get serious" with the National Credit Card, and finally start to get it's "act together".

It also shows that the Teabaggers are completely divorced from reality, because here's what's gonna happen (take it away, Ezra Klein!):

Think back to the financial crisis. The underlying cause was that various financial entities stopped believing that their loans would be repaid, and so they stopped making loans, or began demanding such high prices for making loans that credit became unaffordable. The result was economic catastrophe.

If the federal government defaults on its debt, the same thing will happen. But in this case, it will happen to the full faith and credit of the United States, not just to Wall Street.

The basic unit of borrowing in America is the debt that the Treasury sells to finance the government. Much of the rest of the debt in the country -- even when it has no direct connection to the government -- is benchmarked against Treasurys. Treasury debt normally goes for very good prices because it's considered a virtually riskless investment: Modern America has never defaulted on its debt. If that changes, then so too will the prices the market charges to loan the government money.

What happens then? As Geithner explains, "because Treasuries represent the benchmark borrowing rate for all other sectors, default would raise all borrowing costs. Interest rates for state and local government, corporate and consumer borrowing, including home mortgage interest, would all rise sharply. Equity prices and home values would decline, reducing retirement savings and hurting the economic security of all Americans, leading to reductions in spending and investment, which would cause job losses and business failures on a significant scale."

And the damage done by a debt default won't be temporary. Instead, it will permanently introduce a new variable into the market's calculation of America's risk: Right now, the market doesn't believe that our political system would ever allow a debt default. The morning after a default happens, the market will have been proven wrong, and it will have been proven wrong permanently: If it can happen once, it can happen again in 20 years. In that world, the cheap debt that America enjoys and relies on is gone forever, and our economy is likely to be permanently worse off for it.

The Bill Daley rundown...

Jonathan Bernstein:

When I was describing Rouse's strengths, I listed: "he's a problem-solver, he doesn't cultivate enemies, he knows the Washington landscape well, he has an excellent working relationship with the president." As far as I know, those all apply to Daley, as well, with the possible exception of an as yet unproven working relationship with Barack Obama. I'd say it's also a plus that Daley knows his way around a presidential campaign, since keeping the presidency running during one of those is going to be one of his challenges over the next two years. I like the idea that when the campaign demands that Obama absolutely, positively needs to be in San Dimas tomorrow or else California is lost, Daley will have a good idea of how to evaluate that request.

I can also say that my biggest hesitation about Rouse, enough to make me suggest at the time that Obama would be better off seeking someone else, was that Rouse does nothing to address the administration's biggest weakness, which is its administration of the executive branch departments and agencies. Daley, as a former cabinet secretary, should be more oriented towards that side of the presidency than the numerous former Hill staffers in the Obama WH (and, perhaps more to the point, the former Senator in the Oval Office) tend to be.

Greg Sargent:

This has all been argued already at length by others, but here goes. Obama's approach to the crises he inherited were by any sane measure mostly moderate and reasonable. The stimulus was smaller and less ambitious than most liberals wanted. The health care plan he adopted jettisoned the most liberal elements and embraced solutions once championed by Republicans. The Wall Street reform bill was the most sweeping overhaul of financial regulations in generations, but as observers across the spectrum have noted, it wasn't fundamentally transformative. Obama is winding down the Iraq War, but he escalated in Afghanistan. And he has embraced some controversial Bush policies on civil liberties and terrorism. And so on.

Despite all this, Republicans and conservatives have uniformly condemned the Obama administration as in the grip of unrepentant leftism run amok. Yet what's actually happened is that in so doing, Republicans have moved to the right, and we've all agreed to move what we arbitrarily call the "center" to the right in order to accomodate this.

The pick of Daley, however, will reinforce the conventional narrative that Obama has recognized the error of his ultraliberal ways and has picked a "seasoned Beltway hand" to steer the adminstration back to the center. Obviously this is only one of many things to consider about the Daley pick, and there may be many other good reasons to pick him that outweigh this problem.

But in interpreting the Daley pick, many commentators will be pointing to Daley's interpretation of the first two years as if it's, well, true. They'll assert that Obama has internalized it. And maybe the President has internalized the Daley interpretation of his young presidency. But that doesn't mean it has anything to do with what actually happened.

Ezra Klein (same article as before, but still...):

Perhaps Daley is simply an obscenely good executive vice president type: He seems to have impressed everyone who could one day promote him, alienated virtually no one (or at least no one who has come forward publicly) and effectively advocated for the interests of whoever happened to be paying him at the time.

Or maybe the answer is that the Obama administration has simply decided to tack right, and they figure the way to do that is to hire someone who legitimately believes that tacking right is a good idea. I don't find Daley's theory of politics persuasive, but if you wanted to get credit in the media for moving to the right, it'd help to hire someone who had publicly and clearly attacked your moves to the left.

But the evidence here really doesn't add up. Dean wanted more a vastly more progressive administration, but he likes the guy who wanted a vastly less progressive administration. The administration likes its own record but appears interested in hiring someone who doesn't. There's a widespread perception that the White House is too close to Wall Street, but the leading candidate for chief of staff is a top executive at J.P. Morgan. Oh, and he was on the board of Fannie Mae, too.

The Daley pick seems like a bad idea to me. The particular theory of politics he espouses seems woefully detached from the realities of the modern partisan environment.

Ezra went on to quote Jonathan Chait, so I'll go ahead and save you the trouble:

And there is the problem. I don't know what easy method there is to respond to McConnell's tactics. But Daley's method, allowing extreme positions to redefine the parameters of the debate, is almost surely the wrong way.

I think liberal criticism of some potential Obama nominees is overblown -- the fact that Gene Sperling got paid a lot of Wall Street money to run a charitable program doesn't bother me. But putting a figure like Daley in a position of strategic importance seems like a major blunder.

Andrew Sullivan (however briefly):

Look: he's chief-of-staff. That's about management more than policy. Let's judge him on that when we have the data.

When it comes to Bill Daley, there is only one thing I'm am surer of (other than Boehner crying in the next 24 hours)

What was it I said about Bill Daley? Oh yeah:

I'm not wild about William Daley coming into the White House as Chief of Staff, but I'm not that opposed to it happening either. (It's not impossible, but...) He seems qualified enough for the job, which is more than I can say for Ed Rendell (cough-cough, Joe Klein) In any case, I have my doubts about it happening.

Euuuhhh, shoulda stopped one sentence earlier than that.

First off, I've got to learn about these wide release trial balloons the Administration floats up. Whenever they make a decision, there's a wide release about who the choice is. There is a flurry of complaints (i.e. a flurry of activity on Huffington Post and Firedoglake), the Administration denies any hire has happened (which is technically true), then the hire happens anyway.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this procedure is? Other than a classic trial balloon to get any opposition to show its cards in advance. I think the White House would be better served in skipping step two, the denial portion, and just going ahead, making their decision, and living with the consequences.

Anyway, here's Ezra's piece on the New Chief of Staff, he expresses for me my own mixed feelings better than I ever could. (Thank you, Mr. Klein!)

Imagine I told you that one of the candidates President Obama is considering for chief of staff opposed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, opposed doing health-care reform and led the Chamber of Commerce's effort to loosen the post-Enron regulations on the accounting and auditing professions. His major qualification for the job is that he's extremely well liked by the business community, in part because he routinely advocates for their interests and in part because he's a top executive at J.P. Morgan. His theory of politics is that the Democratic Party has become too liberal and needs to tack right. Last year, he doubled down on that argument by joining the board of Third Way.

Now imagine I told you that one of the candidates President Obama is considering for chief of staff has been endorsed by Howard Dean as a "huge plus" for the Obama administration and previously chaired Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. Dean, of course, was the great liberal hope in 2004, and has been a key voice for progressives ever since. Gore's 2000 campaign was a notably populist effort, in tone if not in content.

Now imagine I told you they were the same guy.

This is the mystery of William Daley. Reports suggest that he'll be named Obama's chief of staff fairly soon, perhaps as early as tomorrow. But how is it that a centrist banker who opposed the Obama administration's signature initiatives has such a large constituency among liberal political types both inside and outside the White House?

Daley certainly has his backers. The Obama administration, home to many liberals, clearly likes him. So does Howard Dean, and so did Al Gore. He's apparently quite popular among business leaders, as well. His performance shepherding NAFTA through the Congress certainly sounds like it was an impressive political feat, whatever you think of the underlying legislation.

Perhaps Daley is simply an obscenely good executive vice president type: He seems to have impressed everyone who could one day promote him, alienated virtually no one (or at least no one who has come forward publicly) and effectively advocated for the interests of whoever happened to be paying him at the time.

One more point, I say this to remind the Professional Left fans out there who think that this is the President tacking right, or that Daley will "manipulate" the President like they think Rahmbo manipulated Obama.

Right, the guy the President hires has somehow put the President under his sway. Now that's a Jedi mind trick!

As the Attorney General is the guy or gal who runs the Justice Department, as the Treasury Secretary is the guy or gal who runs the Treasury Department (and so on), the White House Chief of Staff is the guy who runs the White House. That is not the same as the guy who runs the Country. William Daley is guy who makes sure the ship runs smoothly, but the Captain (that'd be Obama) ultimately charts the course.

If I am sure of any one thing, other than Boehner crying sometime in the next 24 hours, is that some of my ideological colleagues are going to make the asinine assumption that Daley is somehow tacking this country rightward. He won't. If White House policy tacks rightward, it'll be Obama. Granted, it may be the consequence of a deal with the GOP, but it won't be Daley.

Rep. Ron Paul is a blithering idiot. (VIDEO)

Sorry, I take that back. Calling Ron Paul a blithering idiot would give blithering idiots a bad name.

I wouldn't trust Dr. Ron Paul give me first aid. It's probably a safe bet that if you go to his son, the Senator from Kentucky, you'd probably go blind.

The following should serve as testament once and for all about this man's complete inability to understand even the most basic of economic concepts. Thank you Stephen Colbert, you may have done as big a service as Jon's recent efforts to get the 9/11 Health Bill passed. You exposed Ron Paul as a fraud.

Problem is, most people (especially his supporters) don't know it, or won't acknowledge it.

Well, watch the two clips...and learn something.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Gold Faithful
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Gold Faithful - Ron Paul & David Leonhardt<a>
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive

I was only pissed off at New York Times writer David Leonardht for not just cutting to the chase and calling Rep. Paul a @#$%ing moron to his face.

Did Rep. Paul really suggest utilizing Gold "Certificates" to represent how much gold you have?

And the difference between than the Federal Reserve Notes (Dollar Bills) in your pocket is...what exactly??

Don't expect an answer. Ron Paul's got his ideology...that and a room temperature IQ.

The Washington Post delivers the most shocking bit of news on the Tea Party...evah!

By the way, my tongue is so deep into my cheek, I'm practically chewing on it.

Tea party supporters [surveyed by Roanoke College] included more men (60 percent) than women (40 percent) and were overwhelmingly white (94 percent). Interestingly, 79 percent of those who said they disagreed with the tea party also were white. It's worth noting that the college said nearly 84 percent of those polled overall were white, 11.5 percent were black and 2 percent were Hispanic/Latino.

By the way, what's the formal, journalistic way to say "No Duh" in print?

A great post about the William Daley non-hire, and how to feel about it by Ezra Klein

I'm not wild about William Daley coming into the White House as Chief of Staff, but I'm not that opposed to it happening either.  (It's not impossible, but...) He seems qualified enough for the job, which is more than I can say for Ed Rendell (cough-cough, Joe Klein) In any case, I have my doubts about it happening. The Citibank stench, at the end of the day, will overwhelm. Added to that, its supposed purpose probably won't work for the reasons Erzabelow outlines :

It's frankly slightly insulting to business leaders to say that their relationship with the White House relies on how many close personal friends they have in the building. It's not that that stuff doesn't matter, but what really matters, as you'd expect, are actual policy decisions. And the reason Daley is well liked by business, at least right now, is that he has been siding with them on major disputes. If he gets to the White House and stops doing that, he won't be as well liked among them.

If the administration wants more support from the business community, that's going to mean giving the business community more things that it wants, or at least fewer things that it doesn't want. So far, that's not happened because the administration has thought that good policy meant pushing some high-profile changes -- such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- that the business community really didn't like. If the administration decided it was wrong about that, and has resolved to not do things business doesn't like going forward, it can build a better relationship with the business community even without Daley. Conversely, if the administration plans to keep pushing policy it likes even if business doesn't like it, then relations with corporate America will be icy even if Daley is working the phones morning, noon and night.

You know the old saying, "nothing personal, this is just business"? Well, the business community knows it, too.