Saturday, September 24, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
President Obama's speech at the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati, Ohio (VIDEO)
Wow, they booed the Bears. Really, Cincinnati? Really?
And yes, that was a decidedly mixed response for Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Thursday, September 22, 2011
What a shock. Republicans are set to break their word on the Budget Control Act.
Did I call it...or did I call it?
I said in an earlier post, this:
And now, we have confirmation from Talking Points Memo:
Remember there are consequences to this strategy, from Stan Collander:
Lemme repeat something. There was a deal between the White House and Congress as to how much spending would be cut made back in August. I'm sure you remember.
Now, in order to secure more Republican votes (some of which he may lose, but I bet they can twist enough arms), they are going back on their word.
Boehner is probably going to get this out of the House, and make it the Senate's problem...but hopefully the Senate will turn around and throw it back in the House's face, meaning Conference Committee here we come!
In the meantime, the Senate will be screaming over how the House went back on their word.
Oh, and by the way, they need to do all this by the end of the month.
Sooner or later, that 9% approval rating is going to look sky high.
I said in an earlier post, this:
For John Boehner, nothing is worth doing, unless you can screw the Democrats at the same time. My bet is he tries to go the Teabagger route, because he wants to do whatever it takes to kick a Conservative bill into the Senate, and have the Democrats there "take the blame" for shooting it down.
And now, we have confirmation from Talking Points Memo:
Looks like House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will try to close GOP ranks around existing legislation to fund the government rather than scrap a controversial requirement that disaster relief funds be offset with an unrelated budget cut. And that means they'll be moving ahead without Democratic support -- a risky gamble that could lead to a government shutdown if it fails.
"The Speaker's seeking more Republican votes," Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who led a House conservative rebellion on Wednesday, told reporters after an impromptu Thursday GOP meeting.
According to other Republicans, Boehner will swap out the existing disaster relief offset -- a hybrid vehicle manufacturing incentive -- with new cuts.
Remember there are consequences to this strategy, from Stan Collander:
[By moving to the right] to pick up tea party votes by (1) proposing bigger spending reductions for fiscal 2012 than were included in the bill that was defeated yesterday and (2) continuing to refuse to allow the Hurricane Irene-related disaster assistance to be provided unless others spending is cut to pay for it. The tea partiers want fiscal 2012 discretionary spending to be set at the level included in the House-passed budget resolution — AKA, the Ryan plan — rather than the higher level included in the debt ceiling increase/deficit reduction plan (the Budget Control Act) enacted on August 2.
The problem with this strategy, however, is that it will likely lose other votes from Republicans in North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey — the states that were hardest hit by Irene. Note that three of these four — all but North Carolina — have Republican governors who have said that they want/need/must have the federal assistance. And House Democrats are very unlikely to go along.
Lemme repeat something. There was a deal between the White House and Congress as to how much spending would be cut made back in August. I'm sure you remember.
Now, in order to secure more Republican votes (some of which he may lose, but I bet they can twist enough arms), they are going back on their word.
Boehner is probably going to get this out of the House, and make it the Senate's problem...but hopefully the Senate will turn around and throw it back in the House's face, meaning Conference Committee here we come!
In the meantime, the Senate will be screaming over how the House went back on their word.
Oh, and by the way, they need to do all this by the end of the month.
Sooner or later, that 9% approval rating is going to look sky high.
So what's more important to Boehner, his ties to the Tea Party or the Country?
We're about to find out...even though, if we're honest, we already know the answer.
From Stan Collender:
For John Boehner, nothing is worth doing, unless you can screw the Democrats at the same time. My bet is he tries to go the Teabagger route, because he wants to do whatever it takes to kick a Conservative bill into the Senate, and have the Democrats there "take the blame" for shooting it down.
From Stan Collender:
The big question now is the one we’ve been wondering about for some time in analogous budget situations: Where do Boehner and Cantor go from here?
On the one hand, they can move to the right to pick up tea party votes by (1) proposing bigger spending reductions for fiscal 2012 than were included in the bill that was defeated yesterday and (2) continuing to refuse to allow the Hurricane Irene-related disaster assistance to be provided unless others spending is cut to pay for it. The tea partiers want fiscal 2012 discretionary spending to be set at the level included in the House-passed budget resolution — AKA, the Ryan plan — rather than the higher level included in the debt ceiling increase/deficit reduction plan (the Budget Control Act) enacted on August 2.
The problem with this strategy, however, is that it will likely lose other votes from Republicans in North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey — the states that were hardest hit by Irene. Note that three of these four — all but North Carolina — have Republican governors who have said that they want/need/must have the federal assistance. And House Democrats are very unlikely to go along.
In other words, moving toward the tea party may not guarantee that the bill passes.
On the other hand, moving in the other direction on this one bill very likely will cause the tea party to split permanently with the two House leaders. The tea partiers have been leery of both Boehner and Cantor since the start of the year. In fact, a tea party supporter is running against Boehner in the GOP primary and the Virginia tea party has been threatening to challenge Cantor since before the 2010 election. Working with House Democrats at this point might get the bill passed but might also make it all but impossible for the GOP leadership to lead in 2012, that is, in the months heading into an election where anger about Congress is already at an all-time high.
For John Boehner, nothing is worth doing, unless you can screw the Democrats at the same time. My bet is he tries to go the Teabagger route, because he wants to do whatever it takes to kick a Conservative bill into the Senate, and have the Democrats there "take the blame" for shooting it down.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Where I wish the execution of an innocent man was more important that an argument about Presidential Powers...
This is an national tragedy but idiots like Michael Moore (who apparently said sometime today that this was all on Obama) are making it worse by not understanding something called the Constitution. It doesn't exist by convenience. It says:
Ummm, Mike?
But it turns out that not even the Governor of Georgia has the power to stop the execution (this is where David Roberts and Zerlina Maxwell come in, because they put this piece from the Atlanta Journal Constitution out on the twitter.)
NOTE: David from what I can tell sent it out first, but Zerlina helped by tracking down a proper link, so, thanks to one and all!
"...he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Ummm, Mike?
But it turns out that not even the Governor of Georgia has the power to stop the execution (this is where David Roberts and Zerlina Maxwell come in, because they put this piece from the Atlanta Journal Constitution out on the twitter.)
NOTE: David from what I can tell sent it out first, but Zerlina helped by tracking down a proper link, so, thanks to one and all!
Q. Can the president grant clemency or stop the execution in any way.
A. No. While President Obama has said he thinks the death penalty does little to deter crime, he has no legal authority to get involved, officially, with a state execution. When the death penalty is imposed for a state crime like murder, it is a state issue.
Q. Can the governor stop the execution?
A. No. Georgia's Constitution gives that authority only to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Q. Can the Chatham County district attorney ask the judge who signed the death warrant to withdraw it?
A. Mike Mears, a professor at John Marshall Law School and who has challenged the death penalty for decades, said probably not. "I don't think there is a legal mechanism to ask a judge for a do over," he said.
Q. Can the courts stop it?
A. Though his attorneys he can fill appeals, the only viable option is the Georgia Supreme Court and that is a questionable one. His lawyers would have to file in the Superior Court in Butts County, where the prison is located, and then, if necessary, the Georgia Supreme Court and then directly to the US Supreme Court. Federal law limits appeals in that court system and Davis has exhausted those.
Q. Can the Pardons and Paroles Board change its mind?
A. If additional evidence is provided the board could step in but the board has already twice rejected Davis' requests for clemency. This morning they said they would not reconsider additional requests.
You know that Elizabeth Warren? I...uh...think she can campaign... (VIDEO)
Just a little bit...
This is her SAVAGING the Class Warfare argument.
This is her SAVAGING the Class Warfare argument.
The (mostly) rights and wrongs of Ron Suskind's Interview on the Daily Show (VIDEO)
I'm starting to wonder if Jon is turning into one of Liberal Whiners. He so loves stories about how Wall Street got away with murder, that if you have a pamphlet saying just that and are handing it out on the street, he'll have you on the Daily Show to talk about it.
But Ron Suskind is no pamphleteer. He is a serious author, and his new book has serious things to say, both good and ill about the Administration.
The problem is now we have two Administration Sources quoted in the book who are saying that they were either taken out of context (that old chestnut) in the case of Anita Dunn, or misquoted entirely in the case of Christina Romer. Book publishers are so hell bent on providing juicy nuggets in advance of a book sale that they tend to overshadow the rest of the damn book. And worse if there is any reason to doubt said nuggets, it tends to throw the rest of your book into question; all while under a harsh media spotlight.
This is a long way of saying, yes, I think Ron Suskind fucked up, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the book is crap. He didn't help himself any, thought.
This is also a long way of saying Jon was right to give the man an interview on the Daily Show and did a credible job, though I am starting to doubt whether or not he's helping in the long run. Undercutting the President may be noble and honest in his eyes, but how does that help the country if all it does is get Rick Perry or Mitt Romney elected President?
That aside, Jon said one thing that did actually bother me in the interview: "Geither's tied to Wall Street", which is true and in some ways very much not. Remember, this is a meme spread by the Huffington Post, and we know what great experts they are.
Geithner has had only one job outside of Government, and that was working for a Think Tank run by (shudder) Henry Kissinger. He has never worked in Wall Street. Never! (Never evah? Never evah!). In his position as Chair of the New York Fed, Geithner has worked with Wall Street, and has represented their interests, which is kinda what you expect the New York Fed Chair to do.
When the Huffington Post says what its been known to say, and when Jon makes his crack like he did in Part 2 of the Interview, it makes it sound like he's Hank Paulson, going from the Head of Goldman Sachs right into the Treasury Building, and that part is just not true.
Part 1:
Part 2:
But Ron Suskind is no pamphleteer. He is a serious author, and his new book has serious things to say, both good and ill about the Administration.
The problem is now we have two Administration Sources quoted in the book who are saying that they were either taken out of context (that old chestnut) in the case of Anita Dunn, or misquoted entirely in the case of Christina Romer. Book publishers are so hell bent on providing juicy nuggets in advance of a book sale that they tend to overshadow the rest of the damn book. And worse if there is any reason to doubt said nuggets, it tends to throw the rest of your book into question; all while under a harsh media spotlight.
This is a long way of saying, yes, I think Ron Suskind fucked up, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the book is crap. He didn't help himself any, thought.
This is also a long way of saying Jon was right to give the man an interview on the Daily Show and did a credible job, though I am starting to doubt whether or not he's helping in the long run. Undercutting the President may be noble and honest in his eyes, but how does that help the country if all it does is get Rick Perry or Mitt Romney elected President?
That aside, Jon said one thing that did actually bother me in the interview: "Geither's tied to Wall Street", which is true and in some ways very much not. Remember, this is a meme spread by the Huffington Post, and we know what great experts they are.
Geithner has had only one job outside of Government, and that was working for a Think Tank run by (shudder) Henry Kissinger. He has never worked in Wall Street. Never! (Never evah? Never evah!). In his position as Chair of the New York Fed, Geithner has worked with Wall Street, and has represented their interests, which is kinda what you expect the New York Fed Chair to do.
When the Huffington Post says what its been known to say, and when Jon makes his crack like he did in Part 2 of the Interview, it makes it sound like he's Hank Paulson, going from the Head of Goldman Sachs right into the Treasury Building, and that part is just not true.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Markos: For anyone thinking Hillary Clinton would've been better than Obama...
From today's Huffington Post. Remember, this was the guy running Hillary's campaign (right into the ground):
Strategy Corner: Obama -- Don't Bring Back Class Warfare
Once again, for those of you who missed it, Ralph Nader is a racist.
It's getting harder and harder to remember that this man was once a champion of anything.
But Ralph Nader's ego is way to of control. It's his fault that we had Bush in the White House for at least four years. He's got a lot of blood on his hands. I don't care what he says.
And he's also a racist.
I'm sorry, when someone calls the first black President an Uncle Tom, on the record, he's a racist. I said so in January of 2010, and I'm saying it again now.
And now that he's talking about recruiting candidates to run against the President in the Primary, I can only assume that his motives here are racist as well.
But Ralph Nader's ego is way to of control. It's his fault that we had Bush in the White House for at least four years. He's got a lot of blood on his hands. I don't care what he says.
And he's also a racist.
I'm sorry, when someone calls the first black President an Uncle Tom, on the record, he's a racist. I said so in January of 2010, and I'm saying it again now.
And now that he's talking about recruiting candidates to run against the President in the Primary, I can only assume that his motives here are racist as well.
Monday, September 19, 2011
"We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable" (VIDEO)
And yes, thre was a direct shot in the speech at Paul "Punching Bag" Ryan's voucher program.
A couple key graphs from the text of the speech:
You know, last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner gave a speech about the economy. And to his credit, he made the point that we can’t afford the kind of politics that says it’s “my way or the highway.” I was encouraged by that. Here’s the problem: In that same speech, he also came out against any plan to cut the deficit that includes any additional revenues whatsoever. He said -- I'm quoting him -- there is “only one option.” And that option and only option relies entirely on cuts. That means slashing education, surrendering the research necessary to keep America’s technological edge in the 21st century, and allowing our critical public assets like highways and bridges and airports to get worse. It would cripple our competiveness and our ability to win the jobs of the future. And it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
So the Speaker says we can’t have it "my way or the highway," and then basically says, my way -- or the highway. That’s not smart. It’s not right. If we’re going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do it together.
And...
[A]ny reform should follow another simple principle: Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it.
It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it. And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution.
Now, we’re already hearing the usual defenders of these kinds of loopholes saying this is just “class warfare.” I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare. I think it’s just the right the thing to do. I believe the American middle class, who've been pressured relentlessly for decades, believe it’s time that they were fought for as hard as the lobbyists and some lawmakers have fought to protect special treatment for billionaires and big corporations.
Nobody wants to punish success in America. What’s great about this country is our belief that anyone can make it and everybody should be able to try -– the idea that any one of us can open a business or have an idea and make us millionaires or billionaires. This is the land of opportunity. That’s great. All I’m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families get. And I think most wealthy Americans would agree if they knew this would help us grow the economy and deal with the debt that threatens our future.
It comes down to this: We have to prioritize. Both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount -- by $4 trillion. So what choices are we going to make to reach that goal? Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can’t afford to do both.
Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get. We can’t afford to do both.
This is not class warfare. It’s math. The money is going to have to come from someplace. And if we’re not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more: We’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor. We’ve got to scale back on the investments that have always helped our economy grow. We’ve got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and schools that are crumbling.
That’s unacceptable to me. That’s unacceptable to the American people. And it will not happen on my watch. I will not support -- I will not support -- any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans. And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
"When you tell Dakota he can't do something, he's is going to do it."
There's a damn good reason Sgt. Dakota L. Meyer got himself a Congressional Medal of Honor. The text comes from (of all places) Gizmodo. And in case you're wondering (courtesy of the above video), Meyer did get that beer with the President.
I want you to imagine it's September 8, 2009, just before dawn. A patrol of Afghan forces and their American trainers is on foot, making their way up a narrow valley, heading into a village to meet with elders. And suddenly, all over the village, the lights go out. And that's when it happens. About a mile away, Dakota, who was then a corporal, and Staff Sergeant Juan Rodriguez-Chavez, could hear the ambush over the radio. It was as if the whole valley was exploding. Taliban fighters were unleashing a firestorm from the hills, from the stone houses, even from the local school.
And soon, the patrol was pinned down, taking ferocious fire from three sides. Men were being wounded and killed, and four Americans — Dakota's friends — were surrounded. Four times, Dakota and Juan asked permission to go in; four times they were denied. It was, they were told, too dangerous. But one of the teachers in his high school once said, "When you tell Dakota he can't do something, he's is going to do it." And as Dakota said of his trapped teammates, "Those were my brothers, and I couldn't just sit back and watch."
The story of what Dakota did next will be told for generations. He told Juan they were going in. Juan jumped into a Humvee and took the wheel; Dakota climbed into the turret and manned the gun. They were defying orders, but they were doing what they thought was right. So they drove straight into a killing zone, Dakota's upper body and head exposed to a blizzard of fire from AK-47s and machine guns, from mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.
Coming upon wounded Afghan soldiers, Dakota jumped out and loaded each of the wounded into the Humvee, each time exposing himself to all that enemy fire. They turned around and drove those wounded back to safety. Those who were there called it the most intense combat they'd ever seen. Dakota and Juan would have been forgiven for not going back in. But as Dakota says, you don't leave anyone behind.
For a second time, they went back — back into the inferno; Juan at the wheel, swerving to avoid the explosions all around them; Dakota up in the turret — when one gun jammed, grabbing another, going through gun after gun. Again they came across wounded Afghans. Again Dakota jumped out, loaded them up and brought them back to safety.
For a third time, they went back — insurgents running right up to the Humvee, Dakota fighting them off. Up ahead, a group of Americans, some wounded, were desperately trying to escape the bullets raining down. Juan wedged the Humvee right into the line of fire, using the vehicle as a shield. With Dakota on the guns, they helped those Americans back to safety as well.
For a fourth time, they went back. Dakota was now wounded in the arm. Their vehicle was riddled with bullets and shrapnel. Dakota later confessed, "I didn't think I was going to die. I knew I was." But still they pushed on, finding the wounded, delivering them to safety.
And then, for a fifth time, they went back — into the fury of that village, under fire that seemed to come from every window, every doorway, every alley. And when they finally got to those trapped Americans, Dakota jumped out. And he ran toward them. Drawing all those enemy guns on himself. Bullets kicking up the dirt all around him. He kept going until he came upon those four Americans, laying where they fell, together as one team.
Dakota and the others who had joined him knelt down, picked up their comrades and — through all those bullets, all the smoke, all the chaos — carried them out, one by one. Because, as Dakota says, "That's what you do for a brother."
Dakota says he'll accept this medal in their name. So today, we remember the husband who loved the outdoors —Lieutenant Michael Johnson. The husband and father they called "Gunny J" — Gunnery Sergeant Edwin Johnson. The determined Marine who fought to get on that team — Staff Sergeant Aaron Kenefick. The medic who gave his life tending to his teammates — Hospitalman Third Class James Layton. And a soldier wounded in that battle who never recovered — Sergeant First Class Kenneth Westbrook.
There was a time when James Carville was considered smart, right?
More from the same, epic Bob Shrum piece (shudder!).
I never thought I'd live to see the day when I thought James Carville was a useless sack of crap, but here we are:
I never thought I'd live to see the day when I thought James Carville was a useless sack of crap, but here we are:
My friend James Carville [argues] in a pyrotechnic CNN piece that yes, the White House should "panic." There is no more time for "explanations" — although it usually helps to think things through before making what Carville calls "a complete change [in] direction." And what does that change consist of? "Fire a lot of people" — which Obama won't and shouldn't do. So thus, the "geniuses" of 2008 become the scapegoats of 2011. Playing a hasty game of musical chairs would turn Obama's ship of state into the Titanic. It's a reflex, a gimmick — and it's ahistorical. As Bill Clinton's campaign chief in 1992, Carville didn't panic — he certainly didn't fire himself — in the early summer of that year, when Clinton was in last place, at 22 percent, in a three-way race with Ross Perot and the first George Bush.
Carville also wants Attorney General Eric Holder fired — boy, that will set off a popular pro-Obama groundswell. And the Ragin' Cajun recommends that the Justice Department "indict people," presumably a host of people and presumably on Wall Street — a white hot populist gesture that could cripple or crash financial markets. In any case, Obama wouldn't debase the law to score political points; we had enough of that in the last administration. In this one, indictments have been made and will be — but on the merits.
Carville is on target about one thing: Obama has to "make a case like a Democrat." But that's what this president is doing now. Day after day, he is drawing the dividing lines. He does have to keep at it — and show as well as say that he's the one fighting for ordinary, hard-working, and out-of-work Americans. That's been the right course for some time — and with Obama on course, he doesn't need to be told, "Fire. Indict. Fight." It's a catchy aphorism, but it's only one-third right.
Bob Shrum explains what happened in the New York 9th Special Election...
Is THIS what it comes down to? Me agreeing with Bob Shrum??!? (BOB SHRUM for pity's sake!!!)
Randi Rhodes said all of this on her show like on...Wednesday.
The GOP reaction was predictable: This was a referendum on Obama and a portent of doom in 2012. After all, here was the first Republican elected from this district since 1923. (Actually, that's a sloppy factoid, echoed in the media, to make it easy to blame Obama first; it's a fact in the Brooklyn rump of the district, but not in Queens, the district's predominant swath, where Forest Hills and other neighborhoods sent Republican Seymour Halpern to Congress in the 1960s and 1970s.)
Al Smith, the master of the sidewalks of New York, in a characteristic phrase, might have called the Democrat in this special election "a bum." At the least, David Weprin was a bumbler. He confidently offered up a figure on the national debt; he was off by 10 trillion (with a 'T') dollars. He skipped out of a debate, citing the threat of Hurricane Irene; the storm had already passed. He didn't go on the attack until it was too late; he never brought Gov. Andrew Cuomo into a district where he is overwhelmingly popular.
James Carville would have the president play a hasty game of musical chairs that would turn Obama's ship of state into the Titanic.
Weprin fled any identification with the president after former New York Mayor Ed Koch urged voters to retaliate against Obama's Mideast policy by rallying to the Right. Koch, whom I was proud to help defeat for re-election in 1989, has a record of exploiting ethnic tensions and turning on his own party. He race-baited Jesse Jackson in the 1988 presidential primary — and in the past, he's endorsed Rudolph Giuliani, the state's last Republican senator (Alfonse D'Amato), and George W. Bush.
Never mind that Weprin is an Orthodox Jew, an undeviating rubber stamp for Israeli policies, with relatives living in that country. And never mind that Obama's position is the same as Bush's, Bill Clinton's, and the peace deal Israel offered in 2000 and 2001 — a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps. And never mind that as Israel's self-ordained champion, Koch in reality endangers the increasingly isolated Jewish state with his knee-jerk support of a Netanyahu regime that subordinates the strategic imperatives of national survival to the political survival of his own extremist-infested coalition. To cite Abba Eban's famous phrase, it's now Netanyahu who "never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity" — say, to avert a dangerous break with Turkey — and there are "friends" of Israel like Koch who are there with him every lurch of the way.
Koch undoubtedly hurt Weprin; but there's little doubt that other, stronger Democrats — including former District Attorney and Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman — would have won anyway. But Democratic bosses outsmarted, or more accurately, out-dumbed themselves by ruling out a primary in favor of picking a patsy who would compliantly disappear after redistricting eliminated one of New York City's congressional seats. They got the patsy they wanted, only he inconveniently disappeared 14 months early.
Randi Rhodes said all of this on her show like on...Wednesday.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Memo to Liberals: Being taken seriously involves actual work
From Ta-Neishi Coates' piece: Liberal Sorcery:
Let me make my stance clear, in case it isn't already. I love Liberalism. I love its ideals.
Liberals, on the other hand...
The other day Tavis Smiley made the point that president's job plan didn't go far enough. I'd bet a lot of progressives concur and I think pushing the point is healthy, legitimate, essential and fair. But it's also healthy, legitimate, essential and fair to then ask, "What would make more progressive legislation possible?" That line of thinking has to confront the kind of statements and action by Democratic Senators who evidently feel little or no pressure from their progressive base.
One of the reasons why I've harped on the "flying while brownish" series is because I think liberals are much more comfortable attacking whoever seems to hold the most power, and much less comfortable examining the power of the "weak," as well as the power that they, themselves, wield. Power confers responsibility. In evading the notion that citizenship in a democracy confers power, you also evade the notion that it confers responsibility. It's comforting to believe in a narrative of liberal "betrayal," to argue that the game is rigged in such a way that the Hippie-punchers always win.
It's also pretty cynical.
Tom Carper [mouthing off that the best Jobs bill is a bill that reduces the Long-term deficit] from the comfortable environs of blue Delaware is a failure of Team Commie to be regarded as serious political force. People who talk of primarying Obama need to pick smaller targets--and thus elicit bigger results.
But being taken seriously involves actual work. It means a poverty tour that doesn't just bark (Obama the black mascot) but bites (voter registration in swing districts.) If you don't like the current iteration of America, you need to remember that you are America. The failure to build a more progressive America isn't merely a testimony to dastardly evil, it's a testimony to the failure of progressives.
Matt again:
If you're a progressive and you feel that the political system isn't doing what you want, it's misguided to look at this as a personal failure of elected officials. It's, if anything, a personal failure of you and people like you. Justice and equality doesn't just happen because it's nice, people need to make it happen. If it's not happening, then its advocates are failing.
Somehow we got in our head that the Civil Rights movement happened because Martin Luther King was a really nice guy. We don't really talk about the movement as an actual force, as applying force. We don't think about what SNCC was really trying to do when they were risking their lives to register voters in the delta. When we think about people trying to kill them we think about evil, but we should think about power and fear.
Let me make my stance clear, in case it isn't already. I love Liberalism. I love its ideals.
Liberals, on the other hand...
Happiest words of the day: Scott Walker has lawyered up...
This is from another Steve Benen story, and it brings joy to my heart:
About a dozen law enforcement officers, including FBI agents, raided the home of a former top aide to Gov. Scott Walker on Wednesday as part of a growing investigation into whether county employees did political work while at their jobs.
...
There’s also this tidbit of news.
There was no comment Wednesday from Governor Walker, who has retained legal counsel, although he claims not to have been personally contacted by federal agents.
Now, there may be nothing to this, but when a sitting governor retains outside counsel as part of a growing corruption investigation, and FBI agents are paying visits to his former top aides, it would appear Scott Walker has a bit of a problem.
It’s worth emphasizing that the allegations, according to local media accounts, are focused on potential misdeeds committed before Walker became governor — the accusations focus on whether county staffers did political work for Walker when they were supposed to be doing official work for the public — but the controversy can still do some real damage.
Walker, best known for picking a huge fight over stripping state workers of their collective bargaining rights, is already unpopular in his home state, and the threat of a recall election still looms on the horizon. It makes this story something to keep an eye on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)