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.