We knew Obama was a fraud before it was cool...

CONTACT US

 




ENDTIMES CHATTER: CLICK HERE TO VISIT OUR STORE
BLOG HEAVEN
Barack Obama's Teleprompter
Olbermann Watch
The Confluence
Alegre's Corner
Uppity Woman
Ms. Placed Democrat
Fionnchu
Black Agenda Report
Truth is Gold
Hire Heels
Donna Darko
Puma
Deadenders
BlueLyon
Political Zombie
No Sheeples Here
Gender Gappers
That's Me On The Left
Come on, Pilgrims
Cinie's World
Cannonfire
No Quarter USA
Juan Cole
Sky Dancing In A Man's World
The Real Barack Obama
Democrats Against Obama
Just Say No Deal
No Limits
The Daily Howler
Oh...my Valve!
Count Us Out
Make Them Accountable
By The Fault
Tennessee Guerilla Women
Sarah PAC




  • March 2005
  • April 2005
  • May 2005
  • June 2005
  • July 2005
  • August 2005
  • September 2005
  • October 2005
  • November 2005
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  •  

    Sunday, January 31, 2010

    Links, etc.

    Don't miss: Obama is wrecking the country and the world.
    Seriously, the former Obots who've come to about the Lightbringer are going to end up being far more brutal than I - or any PUMA- ever was. After reading this piece my most furious, contemptuous posts about Obama over the last few years seem positively loving.

    Teenagers murdered at party. Mexico is failing. Does anyone in D.C. understand this?

    Mumbai Teen suicide rate explodes.


    Blubber attack. Obesity is taking the place once held by smoking.

    Obama the Inept. The bottom line: He isn't a good politician. Politics is an art, and Obama's basic competence is highly suspect. He lacks the personal radar an effective politician must have-the instinct to know when you're on solid ground and when you're tilting at windmills. Obama has spent a year tilting at windmills. Read more.

    Unraveling? Recent news indicates that tensions with North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, China are all growing. Greece is close to financial collapse, which would expose large sections of the E.U. Mexico is devolving by the hour. There is even genuine concern about the U.S.'s political stability.
    So...

    the single most inept president...

    "Barack Obama has now, in just a year's time, become the single most inept president perhaps in all of American history, and certainly in my lifetime."

    From Counterpunch. Read the rest here.

    Saturday, January 30, 2010

    A kind of dangerous stupidity.

    It was clear this decision was coming within a week of the announcement that KSM would be tried in NYC: Guantanamo eyed for 9/11 trial.

    Whatever one thinks about the proper venue for these trials - civilian or military - the most troubling aspect of this affair is the Obama Administration's suspect decision making process. The ramifications of choosing Manhattan seem not to have occurred to Obama, the DOJ, or the President's political apparatus. One might argue that they did occur to all of them - and they were ignored. I doubt that. The decision immediately felt similar to the rushed announcement in Obama's first week that Guantanamo was closing. Appearance mattered. Logistics and specifics did not.

    There seems to be two ways Obama makes decisions. One is to make a broad announcement without thinking ahead then hoping everything works out - with others doing the "working out" - Health care and the KSM trial are examples. The other is to avoid making a decision at all for as long as possible, then make a decision that covers every possible outcome - which is, of course, not a decision at all. Afghanistan comes to mind. Both processes indicate an empty mind, a kind of dangerous stupidity.

    It's disturbing that neither Holder or Obama could see that New York would rebel the moment the enormity of the trial became obvious. This is a separate issue from the civilian vs. military tribunal argument. That was, for better or worse, debated internally. That no one seems to have looked Holder or Obama in the eye and said "This location is trouble, here's why..." is beyond reckoning. As is the possibility that they did - and the concern was not taken seriously.

    A combination of imperiousness, fear, ideological blindness, arrogance, and resentment at something animates too much of Obama's decision making process. When decisions like the location of KSM's trial, or when Guantanamo is to close are made the desire to prove something outweighs what makes the most sense or what is best for the nation.

    (To be clear - I think Guantanamo should be closed and I'm torn about the proper venue for terrorist trials. It's the rashness of both these decisions that disturbs me deeply.)

    Understanding how the politics of the KSM trial would eventually play out in New York and taking it into account is actually the least political decision. Insisting that lower Manhattan would "show the world our system works" was purely political. It's like saying the Manson family should have been tried in the LaBianca's living room to prove to the killers that the neighborhood was resilient.

    How a President and his advisers make decisions is extraordinarily important. It's difficult to examine some of the Administration's biggest decisions and not be unnerved.

    Clinton 2012

    Clinton's 2012 campaign slogan:

    Experience Matters.

    Labels: ,

    and biggest news this week was?

    Friday, January 29, 2010

    The Republican plan is...

    I love the battle in politics. I want the real arguments to be joined. On this I am bipartisan. With that in mind I offer some advice to the GOP after what I think was Obama's best week in months.

    Here goes:

    2 things will save 2010 for Democrats.

    1. The economy.

    2. The Republicans.

    If the economy truly turns around Dems will still lose seats but not majorities. That said - the Democrats will also survive if the GOP fumbles. Inviting Obama to the House GOP retreat was a good move. Allowing it to be televised was not. That was boneheaded. Obama got what amounted to a press conference with combative questioners. This always favors a President. The only hope the questioners have is to catch Obama off guard, like his remark that ended with the "beer summit" last summer. Frankly, the bits and pieces I've seen clearly indicate that Obama won the day. Easily. Why was I able to see them? I favor open government - but I do wonder why the House GOP sponsored an Obama event.

    The Obama I saw today was one that should have shown up months ago. Some of his wording was condescending (I don't think that will change) but he was smoothly combative, defended his positions, and got in a few good sound bites. He was, to a certain extent, Bill Clinton. And the GOP gave him the forum...not smart.

    The GOP needs to let the "He did not move Right like Clinton in the SOTU" meme die. Firstly, he did move Right. Not much - but enough to seize a chunk of the argument about spending. All he needs is a chunk of the argument to stake a claim of fiscal responsibility. He doesn't need to win all of it. The GOP misreads this argument all the time. People do not loath government spending in and of itself. They loath wasteful government spending. Had the stimulus actually employed large numbers of people that 800 billion boondoggle would be considered a genius move and Obama would be polling at 70%. It could have been targeted to do just that. The New Deal did not end the Depression - but it gave people faith again. It got people moving. It may well have stunted a brewing revolution.

    Here's a fact: Obama has moved the conversation this week. The GOP is responding as if he hasn't. He hasn't moved it much. And it may not last. And it may be 90% perception (However, perception is 90% of the battle.) Still, responding to Obama as if his SOTU was some liberal, fire breathing campaign speech is knee jerk stupidity. Obama gave a measured, center-left speech that was moderate in tone. Conservatives have convinced themselves that they win all arguments with liberals by merely opening their mouths. They don't. Liberals win arguments all the time. The last 70 years are littered with examples of liberals winning arguments - convincing the public to move Left.

    The constantly cited poll that has 40% of Americans identifying as conservative, whereas only 20% claim to be liberals, tricks conservatives into thinking that they are America's natural fall back position. Not true. Far more than 20% of Americans embrace center-left positions on a host of issues. That poll is a reflection of successful branding, not ideology.

    When center-left positions are soberly stated and soberly argued - they often win over a majority. This is not a center-right country when all issues - economic, defense and social - are taken together. We are a center-center country. Conservatives are much better at branding. Therefore, those arguing for the center-left positions have a higher mountain to climb. What's interesting to me politically this week is my sense that Obama has finally become aware of this. He's no longer relying on some imagined mandate.

    Even though he was everywhere last year, Obama checked out when it came to the dirty work. If he's learned his lesson - the GOP had better be prepared to argue their side and not assume that they've won hearts and minds by simple virtue of Obama's screw ups.

    Finally, comparing Bill Clinton's SOTU in 2005 to BHO's in 2010 is misleading. Brown's win was a disaster for the Democrats. It was also one election. The Dems have gone from 60 senate seats to 59. Bad because of the filibuster. But the not the end of the world. In 1994 the House went GOP for the first time in 40 years. Insisting that Brown's election is equivalent to 1994 plays directly into Obama's hands. Clinton outflanked the GOP in the next few years by saying put up or shut up. He won re-election the moment he let Gingrich shut down the government. Obama will metaphorically do the same thing if the GOP lets him. He is already. Any Republican that thinks Americans will support a "conservative" view on the bank taxes because 40% of them claim to be conservative needs his head examined. This is one example of a "put up or shut up" that Obama can and will use.

    If I were a GOP advisor I'd say they need to find forums to "put up". Present a simple, appealing, plan that is not a bunch of recycled Reagan bromides. Don't assume those bromides win the day by default in 2010. The nation isn't dashing back to "government IS the problem" thinking. Even if it were the GOP has no one that approaches Reagan's political skills.

    There can be no excuses about not getting a message out either. Huge chunks of the media have a conservative bias now. Elections do have consequences. The biggest is the winner gets the bully pulpit. Obama's in it. The GOP isn't. Deal with it. Start every interview with "The Republican plan is..." Not some version of "Obama is a crazy liberal..."

    Scott Brown changed the landscape for both parties. Now the GOP has to act, not just react. Watching Obama this week it seems he understand this. Reading conservative columns this week indicates that they don't.

    Oh, and don't give the leader of the other party a free podium, lecture hall, and TV cameras and forget the office of the President doesn't have an automatic and huge advantage.

    Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

    Thursday, January 28, 2010

    Holden and Zooey.

    J.D Salinger, who died Wednesday, did not give us new worlds as a few great writers have. However, he did gave us a person, fictional, but real in so many ways, that has infiltrated our collective psyche. Holden Caulfied launched a million teenagers. He might be the first teenager. He birthed the idea of a "generation gap", of disaffected youth, of rebels without a cause - that in turn influenced rebels with a cause. I'd argue that Holden Caulfield is more important to post war America than any number of real people.

    Talk to any American teenager for 5 minutes - you'll hear echos of Holden Caulfield's disjointed psyche. Caulfield was the first latchkey kid. Traces of his DNA can be found in everyone from James Dean, to Boy George, to the entire wayward and lost Generation X - now in middle age. My people. Who are neither here nor there. Not Boomers and not young enough to be sucked in by "phonies" (Holden's word) like Obama. We are Holden if he'd aged.

    In rejecting all the phonies - he saw the celebrity culture coming years before it submerged American life. He understood it for what it was before it took off- an infection.

    So Mr. Salinger. Thanks. For Holden Caulfield. And my dear, dear, Zooey Glass. Who, it's safe to say, got me through my twenties. And for rejecting our mass infection. For refusing the movie offers, the interviews, the nonsense. For having presence enough to say what you wanted to say and then saying no more.

    state of the union transcript- first draft.

    L.R has obtained Obama's first draft of the SOTU speech. He wrote it on a White House mirror with Michelle's lipstick.


    We are a great nation lead by me. I won't quit. Me so smart. I like to talk about me. Everyone does. I came to Washington to get a burger with Biden. I stayed to save you're stupid asses. LOL.

    I am, I said. And no one else!!!! I, I, I, I, I, I. I think I'm a pretty cool dad. Let's finish health care now! I want to go golfing! Me so smart. Let me repeat to MY fellow Americans: ME SO SMART.

    Islamic republic of Iran. I say Islamic because I respect the Koran. And they will listen to me. They love me in Iran. Everyone loves me. People voted for Scott Brown because they love me.

    My nipples look nice. People admire my nipples. Chris Mathews wants to touch them. He texted me.

    Bush is so stupid! LOL. I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME I ME.

    I can't believe Conan was fired before I got to go on his show. Stupid NBC!

    I think I should play Tiger Woods in the Lifetime movie. Note to self: Tell Rahm to make some time for this to happen. We can shoot it on the south lawn. Nancy P. can play Tiger's mother in law. Landreiu can chase me with a golf club. People will love it! They love me!

    I won a peace prize! This makes our country great! Let's create jobs! Bush was stupid! I am smart! Green! etc! In Perpetuity! I'm went to Harvard law!

    Note to self: Make Hillary go away before the speech. She's a buzz kill.

    Me me me. I I I.

    Jobs are cool! Let's go jobs! I better be first to get an Ipad, dammit! Also war and green jobs! Recycle! Solar! Wind! Gas! Clean Coal! Jobs! Budget Freeze! Education! Just do it! I want my MTV! Got milk?!

    Note to self: don't mention Denmark. Denmark sucks. Copenhagen sucks the most. I hate the Danish. Stupid breakfast food. It's just flat cake with striped frosting! Why don't they just call it cake?!!! Belgium is better. Belginians are nice. I like waffles. Just let me eat my waffles.

    Now, let us go forth and make history for I am unprecedented. America is not second best with me in charge! It's time to cut the deficit which I made so big. For I am a big man!!! LOL. Let's Freeze Spending! Except when we spend money! Let's cut out everything except military. Those guys scare me....wait don't say that out loud. I wonder if John Roberts has a secret crush on me. I think he does. He's handsome enough. If I weren't totally straight I'd do him. I need a smoke.

    I support the gays! Go gays! Gays take state!

    I I I I I. ME ME ME ME. Good night, America!

    Okay, I'm done. Bring the car around.




    This draft was slightly altered before he delivered it last night.

    morning polls

    Wednesday, January 27, 2010

    The speech.

    Let's see if I can thread this needle.

    1. It was an interesting "folksy" speech. He expected laughs, he got them, and he waited for them. Further, it was solemn. Not over the top. His cadence was disjointed in ways that actually made him feel more human. More normal. He tried to speak as if he was talking to us, not at us. It felt as if he was, finally, trying to be a President.

    2. The speech felt Clintonian, without the benefit of Bill Clinton - Bill Clinton being a man who can both talk to us and lift us. Interestingly, without the soaring nonsense, Obama is rather flat. If there was inspiration in the speech it was directed at competence. "Believe me - not because I am the great agent of change - but because I am competent." This is 180 degrees from who Obama has long been. Obama has always used these moments to soar past us. He didn't.

    3. I don't care about what the DADT moment - except for "This year I will work...". This is what has been missing from this issue. His commitment to work on it. We shall see.

    4. He lied overtly and covertly and by implication - a lot. More than I can remember. Some blogger will catalogue the lies. I am, oddly, neither surprised or hugely upset by them. He rewrote much of 2009, tilting it to favor him.

    5. The speech was surprisingly uninspired. What I am amazed by was how different it was from the Obama of old. He was after the middle - even when he was throwing bones to the Left. He did not pivot Right in policy. He attempted to grab the middle in tone.

    I do not know how this speech will play. My hunch is it won't matter much. He wants the middle to simply believe him...as he got the Left to earlier. The left loves the soaring rhetoric. The middle loves sober assessment. That is what he attempted. He changed his tone to reach the middle. Did he reach them?

    I doubt it.

    Don't Miss...

    ..the Cannonfire post on the arrest of James O'Keefe for allegedly attempting to bug Mary Landrieu's office.

    Believe it or not...

    ...I'd like Obama to hit it out of the park tonight. I'd like to see the President forcefully rewrite the narrative. I'd like to see a man who knows he must now take total ownership of the job he's in. I want to see a President that knows he's the President. Not some "above it all" dandy who lets congress do the heavy lifting.

    His job is the power position in American politics. He must occupy it fully for anything beneficial to happen. To a certain degree - and only a certain degree - it almost doesn't matter if he veers left, right, or center - he just has to commit. He has to lead. The nation can't tolerate another year of hundreds of little presidents in congress. Maybe in a another era we could. Not now. I will be relieved if what comes out of the speech is a President who knows his job is to govern, not merely facilitate. The false vision of "hope and change" must yield to a fleshed out - realistic - vision of where we are now headed and what we must now do.

    Speeches are launching points. For Obama they are often end points, made in the belief that his presence seals some deal by virtue of some imagined gift he alone pocesses. They are, in the end, exercises in condecension. He knows. We don't. The speech tonight needs to be a start - not a finish.

    A friend said to me the other night that "Obama never appears to be working". He's right. It too often seems as if he's kicking back waiting for Congress, or flying off to make a speech that amounts to nothing, or appearing on TV, of golfing. He needs to be at work. 24/7. No excuses. No bull. No campaigning. I'd like to see tonight's speech introduce a President who is at work, who is as smart as we were told relentlessly he was. Actually smart. Not Harvard smart. Street smart. The kind of smart that thinks 12 chess moves ahead - and CAN think 12 chess moves ahead because his vision is clear, do-able and sane.

    Yep, I've been yelling that Obama is a fraud for 2 years. I'd like to be able to move past that point. Not because it's suddenly not true. Because that argument is settled. He is. He was. He mislead people on a grand scale. Case closed.

    Time to move on. Own the job, Mr. Obama. Become the President.

    On a personal note.

    Obama finally comes out of the closet. He's a Republican.

    Because I have moved on, but will never forget I'd like to add: Some of us knew this all along. For those who wrote me emails in 2008 telling me I was a racist nut job, who ended friendships, who threatened violence, who sold their souls for an illusion and refused to see the reality of Obama...I'd like to say, with love of course,

    KISS MY ASS.

    A.M. Stuff

    Get the word out: Three to cycle across the country this summer to raise money for a cure to diabetes. Please check out their site here and spread the word.

    I love Apple:
    Tablet announced today.

    Thought: Today is Obama's first State of the Union. Doesn't it seem like he's been President for much longer than a year?

    Poll:


    Why would he do this? Anti-ACORN film maker arrested

    Mona Lisa was not a vegan: She may have been suffering from high cholesterol

    Tuesday, January 26, 2010

    A perfect example of the inexperience and arrogance that so many warned about.

    The Senate Health care bill now appears to be in a coma. Democrats in congress slammed the brakes on HCR today, reversing what some reported yesterday.

    For those of us who wanted a real overhaul and a public option this battle was lost last summer. I'm glad the Senate bill is probably dead. It was a bad, retrograde bill. Obama should be glad too. If he wants to salvage this year, he needs the Senate bill disposed of quickly. He may not know it or accept it but this is best for him politically. Democrats can now spend time on issues that matter to people. They may even govern, which might, in fact, save their majorities in the fall.

    I suggested earlier that Obama needed to distance himself from Pelosi to regain some independents. It appears she's done it for him. Maybe she wants to remain Speaker more than she wants to suck up to Obama after all.

    Regardless, this needs to be stated clearly: Health care reform failed because of Obama. (Major reform has failed. Minor adjustments might still be made.) He was an anti-leader through out the process. He gave away the most important bargaining chips at the start. Then, as deadlines slipped by, he allowed awful deals to define the bill. He squandered an opportunity that comes along once a generation. What could have been a truly transformative bill became a soulless lump of corruption. His actions on health care became the perfect example of the inexperience and arrogance that so many warned about. The community organizer failed to organize his own party and his own thoughts on the matter.

    Comparisons to LBJ and FDR are obvious. Both those men used the bully pulpit to change the American landscape. Obama used it to preen. Hundreds of speeches and TV appearances and still no one knew his core beliefs on health care. (Does he have any?) No one had a cogent narrative. (Was there one?) No one felt invested in his central initiative of 2009. (There was no reason for personal investment.)

    He failed. Miserably.

    Open letter to Barry.

    By Jayne Payne,

    Dear Barack,

    I am really upset after last Tuesday night. If the first King, King George, had gotten these Teabaggers under control we wouldn't have this problem. My mind is spinning right now.

    Barry, I think we can turn this around. I am sorry to get so personal. (It is just a tingling I get. I don't even watch Tweetie.) I have a five point plan. I know you are shaking your head right now wondering what Gibbsey or Rham will say but hear me out.

    Number ONE: We bring back the Sugar Act. The twist being we tax Splenda. I know if these teabaggers have time to make their own signs they have to be agile. We tax Splenda and bingo! They either pay the tax or start using real sugar, which will slow them down. Barry that would be a plus for us.

    Number Two: We tax Poster board. This is brilliant. I mean we show up at every get together with printed signs...hope and change..They show up with signs, get this, printed out in magic marker. Sometimes I have seen crayons used. I mean how lame is an actual heartfelt printed sign. Can a sign that says "Shove this down our throats, and we will shove it up your ass in 2010" compare to us. There is no comparison. CASE CLOSED THERE.

    Number Three: Quartering act. We can actually kill a few birds with this stone.
    Get this. We take the census and add questions, like how many live in your household? We calculate and Bingo! You have a five bedroom waterfront house and only use one bedroom? We can move more needy people in. Share the wealth so to speak. But the best part is NO TAX DOLLARS needed. A win win situation.

    Number Four: Massachusetts Government Act, We deny any more town hall meetings. Simple...Oh man Barry, that wrote itself, and coupled with FISA...done deal.

    Number Five. We Impose the Boston Port Shilling Act. No more Red Sox Games. Period.
    That will teach them. I'm not sure who the Bruins are, but we should ban that too.

    There is something to be said for Power.

    Your Most loyal OBOT lieutenant,

    Jayne Pain

    PS. and it is time to break out the Greek Columns we all know and love.


    Disclaimer Jayne is not related to Thomas.

    Monday, January 25, 2010

    The ego that ate the Democratic party.

    The health care mess is certainly a conundrum with no good political answers. I find it fascinating that the White House, in cahoots with Pelosi and Reid, appears to favor forcing the Senate bill with 51 votes then somehow wrangling 218 votes in the House.

    Until, Brown pitched a monkey wrench into the works it was evident that a health care bill would be passed. Any health care bill. So they made a mess of a bill and smashed it through. Then after last Tuesday there was a pause. Many took a step back. Dodd called for a "breather".

    But, alas, calm reflection is not the Democratic party's strong suit. Now we are back to where we were a week ago: Just pass something. Anything.

    Politically, I understand this. If nothing passes Obama's first year is an epic fail. The trouble is that if the Senate bill becomes law Obama's second year may well be an epic fail too. I stated over a month ago that Obama needs to come clean on this bill. Kill it. Admit it is bad law and start again. Get something simple passed by March and move on. In the end Obama made the exact same mistakes that Clinton made. He was insular and arrogant. It's a damn shame, but there it is. Obama, unlike Clinton, still has the chance to bring lesser - but still helpful - change to the health care system. This year. Probably within a few months.

    The political crisis brought on by rejecting the Senate bill will be severe for a few weeks. It will pass. Then a simple bill that helps people immediately can be passed. Many Independents will forgive him the screw up if he signs a sane bill. If he signs this insane one, the middle is gone.

    Will Obama opt for a sober response to the Massachusetts beat down of the Senate monstrosity? No. His ego is too malformed. According to Congressman Berry, who said today he's quitting, Obama's stance in meetings toward blue dogs has been: 2010 is not 1994 and the difference is "me". There you have it. Obama will save the day. He, with David Pouffe's teleprompter at the ready, will swoop in to make sure the Dem majorities remain. There is no evidence that Obama has helped any Democrat this year - but facts have never mattered to him anyway. He must be "great" or he shall be nothing. In fact, he said he'd rather be a great one term President than a mediocre two term President. He will be neither.

    It's almost painful to watch Obama misread the country. He reads his election has a referendum on him. Still. They liked me in 2008 and by God, they will in 2010 too! As if he hasn't been President for a year.

    Obama ninnies keep saying "Change is hard" - assuming arrogantly that what they are doing is change people want. I keep going back to "epic". It's an epic failure of understanding. It's willful denial. It's a belligerent refutation of the year that just passed. 2009 was only about health care reform in the minds of a precious few in D.C. For the rest of us it was about economic anxiety.

    Obama is not smart. That needs to be repeated. Obama is not smart. He has a kind of intelligence, that's true. But he's not smart like Reagan or Clinton. He doesn't understand his job. A year doing it has not helped. I'm more convinced than ever that his intelligence is warped by his ego. He doesn't get that the Senate bill is soulless. Ramming it through won't give it a soul. It will not suddenly fire the imagination of the public. It's bad law and people know it. They will rebel. The question isn't who will be angry - it's who won't be angry? Obama appears to want to shackle the Democratic party for a generation.

    The only sane political choice is to kill the bill, and suffer the blow back. Then work with the GOP on a smaller reforms. Get some of the independents back. THEN ramp up the base before November. Doubling down on health care is foolish unless unemployment is about to vanish. No one will give a damn about healthcare "reform" that limps across the horizon in 2013 when they go to vote in 2010. If he was forcing real reform down our throats he might have a shot at changing attitudes by November. The Senate bill is a pile of shameful dung. It is now. It will be in 10 months. It's not Social Security. It's not medicare. It's an offensive, asinine, soulless concoction bought and paid for by soulless bureaucrats and passed by venal politicians.




    Then again, maybe Obama only wants one term. More time to golf.

    Sunday, January 24, 2010

    Morning links

    40 Corporate executives demand public financing of elections. It is essential that the SCOTUS ruling be upended. WalMart does not get more "speech" than you or me because they have more money. Money is not speech. Corporations are not citizens.

    Poll:


    This post about wild horses haunted me all weekend: Wild horses can be dragged away.

    The audacity of dopes: Miami is moving forward with the world's tallest tower. Because, you know, imitating Dubai is what everyone is doing these days...

    Finally: Venus has made the quarterfinals at the Australian Open. I have kept my secret crush on Venus secret for too long. Serena is loverly. But my heart belongs to Venus. And Ms. V. Williams has not won on hard court in 9 years!! Enough! If the GOP can win in Mass. Then, by god, Venus can win in Melbourne!

    Saturday, January 23, 2010

    Looking For A Few Good Liberals

    By 'tamerlane'

    I first came to Liberal Rapture in search of like-minded people, that is, other ex-dems, disgruntled dems and independents, who were immune to the Hopium, and who were repulsed by the atrocious behavior of the Democratic Party, yet who still embraced the principles of true liberalism. In other words, the pumish.

    I'd dallied at other PUMA blogs (I still do) appreciating their observations, while posting the occasional comment. But I never felt fully comfortable joining any of their commenter 'clubs' .

    Something about LR made me feel at home. JSOM's sharp wit, clear insight and directness certainly was the key. His and my sociopolitical outlooks, while not identical, were very compatible. And the intelligent, clever, sometimes hilarious comments from readers struck a chord as well. I felt I was finally among friends. So, little by little, I started chiming in, and it wasn't long before I was a frequent commenter and then regular guest poster.

    I do enjoy a stimulating debate, but I'm not so naive as to think that polemics can change anyone's core political views. My objective is to discuss ideas, and debate pressing questions with like-minded people. And there is plenty for us liberals to hash out, particularly getting down to brass tacks on how to rescue true liberalism from its current Obamalonian Captivity. We don't have time to waste on shouting matches with people who hold antithetical views.

    Something has changed at LR over the past few months. JSOM's posts are as on-target as ever. But the comment streams have gradually become filled with conservative talking points. The discussions have become shrill and unproductive, as fundamental liberal principals are first attacked and then defended in ever more strident tones. Many of those voices, who first drew me to this blog, rarely speak now, or have gone completely silent. Surely many more 'lurkers' sit mutely on the sidelines, hesitant to jump in the midst of the quarreling. How many, I wonder, simply don't bother coming 'round any more?

    This has happened before on at least one other PUMA blog. The comment streams at Hillbuzz, once one of the most astute and wickedly funny of the liberal anti-obama sites, eventually become so inundated with conservative junk the blog should have been renamed "Killbuzz." I'd been an Hillbuzz regular, but the party-crashing neanderthals induced me to leave long before the blog's authors altered their content to suit the new clientele.

    Pew Research periodically conducts demographic surveys of American political viewpoints. The most recent one, entitled "Beyond Red vs. Blue," is a bit dated (2005), but still illuminating. Pew identifies nine "typologies" - three left-leaning, two center, and three right-leaning - that transcend Dem / GOP labels. The largest group are the what Pew names "Liberals". Pew's website has a short test you can take to see what group you fit into.

    No shocker that I come up as a "Liberal", which Pew identifies as most strongly:

    - Pro Choice
    - Supportive of gay marriage
    - In favor of environmental protection
    - In favor of social programs
    - Preferring diplomacy over military intervention

    And least likely to:
    - Belong to a bible study group
    - Own a gun
    - Support the Patriot Act

    Interestingly, of the left-leaning groups, Pew's Liberals express the weakest identification with the Democratic Party.

    As I mentioned, I'm looking to talk with fellow anti-obama liberals. I'd even prefer debating a left-leaner who still supports obama, over a conservative who hates obama because he's too "socialist."

    Based on its content, I figured I'd be among fellow liberals at LR. I'm not so sure anymore. So I have two favors to ask of you, the person reading this. First, take the Pew political test. Then, even if you've always only lurked before, comment on this post by stating your result. If you're a true liberal or left-leaner, let's talk more often. If you are not, then we have nothing to say to each other.

    (c) 2010 by 'tamerlane.' All rights reserved.

    Tamerlane blogs regularly at True Liberal Nexus

    Extraordinary Offer!! Act Now!!!

    By Carolyn at Make Them Accountable.

    Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that whoever has the most money has the right to buy the most legislation, we offer this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the Wall Street executive, insurance industry CEO, oil company investor, corporate polluter or Washington lobbying firm to truly have it all at a bargain price.

    You are bidding on the Congress of the United States. The winning bidder will tell the Congress how to vote on every issue in Washington affecting your industry or personal income. You will tell them how to vote, and they will vote according to your instructions, once they receive the money of the winning bidder.

    Currently you are required to buy the Congress in pieces, issue by issue, dollar for dollar. This is inefficient and time consuming, and can be expensive because of the number of campaign fundraisers you are commanded to attend by legislators who will vote on your issues and demand your payment in advance on a piecemeal basis.

    Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the more money you have, the more you can control your Congress, we present this extraordinary to simply buy the Congress as a whole, in one simple purchase.

    We will use the proceeds to make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans, who have been completely forgotten by their government.

    Happy bidding!!!

    The American People

    Friday, January 22, 2010

    obama is not a liberal

    In insisting that Obama is no liberal, this blog is one of a few that have been on the vanguard. I am damn proud of that. I spent a year insisting, yelling, screaming that Obama was not at all who people thought he was. The limousine liberal portion of the left, joined up with the moneyed elites that knew a Republican - any Republican- would lose in 2008. The limo Left is chock full of shallow idiots. As is the "Evangelical" right. In this case the Limo Left was either too stupid or in too much denial to settle down enough to see Obama for what he was and is: A narcissistic Chicago buffoon. These Democratic ATM machines and envelope stuffers usually have a moment in the sun during the primaries then settle down into supporting the mainline candidate. In 2008, with the active support of the corporate media (including FOX - which gave Obama a pass for months in order to allow CNN and MSNBC free reign to debase Clinton. They only went after Obama after their demographic was clearly repelled by him.) the limo Left demanded their Barack illusion stay in place. By any means necessary.

    The corporate/Soros/Goldman Sachs elites had no such illusions about Obama. They supported him because they knew he'd pay off in power. For them, he has.

    Obama is a NOTHING. He's a Barack-ist, who was and is perfectly willing to be an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks to collect an unfair bill issued by big banks. After all, he gets a plane, a mansion, and all the TV time he wants.

    A liberal President would NEVER have agreed to TARP.

    A liberal President would NEVER have ditched the public option and taken single payer off the table.

    A liberal President would NEVER have allowed thousands more gay service men and women to be discharged for no reason.

    A liberal President would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER have ditched public financing.

    A liberal President would NEVER have made a secret deal with big pharma.

    A Keynesian liberal would have targeted the stimulus toward actual job creation.

    In 2009 a liberal President would have nationalized the most putrid banks, and spun off their investment banks. Instead, now we've had another year of banks screwing the rest of us with a broomstick and laughing about it - and a President who allowed it, only to see his supermajority ended. Now he's attempting to make up the ground that he lost last year because he was in the pocket of Goldman Sachs hacks and he suddenly realizes people are livid.

    A liberal would be in the process of re-negotiating NAFTA.

    No real liberal of any stripe would have hired Larry Summers upon election.

    A real liberal President would not have overseen the creation of a pro insurance/pharma cabal health care bill.

    True, thinking, liberals by and large have not been dipshits on foreign policy. (See FDR and Truman). Obama is.

    If the argument is that Obama is a liberal for having spent more than the government has, then Ronald Reagan is a liberal. George W. Bush is a liberal. And Bill Clinton is a conservative.

    Morning Poll

    Thursday, January 21, 2010

    Mitt Romeny brought to you by Citi

    Quite possibly the most vulgar of all Obama's broken promises was his flip flop on public financing. In that moment it was clear that liberals had utterly lost their way. The first round of the soon to become all pervasive excuses were made for Obama. Excuses on gay rights, NAFTA, the public option, indefinite detention...and on and on they went. With each excuse the Left degraded itself further. Selling off bits and pieces of its soul...and for what? Nothing. An errand boy, sent by grocery clerks...who made them feel good for a moment.

    This week it is painfully clear how badly Obama has gutted the Left. The loss of Kennedy's seat. The final death of an absurd HC law. (that some on the Left tried and failed to defend.) Now the Supreme Court has thrown Obama's flip flop on public financing into sharp relief.

    Exxon is now to be considered a "person" in our elections. And the S.E.I.U. And Wellpoint, and G.E., and the U.A.W., and Walmart, and Newscorp...all can now spend unlimited amounts of money to support a candidate. The final veil of legitimacy will be torn off. Expect to see

    Mitt Romeny brought to you by Citi

    or

    The Obama re-election campaign, sponsored by Goldman Sachs.


    The internet era's money bombs will now become quaint artifacts. What candidate would bother when they can whisper sweet nothings in Shell Oil's ear and get a massive ad buy?

    Individual citizens are now even less important - if that was possible.

    Can liberals fight this? Not easily. Their party has been degraded severely in 1 year. The great "liberal" hope has tanked in office. And he already threw public financing under the bus anyway. The Left refused to question Obama in 2008 and now they are all but castrated. Yes, if Clinton had won the Left would be vital. Engaged. Instead they chose a celebrity, not a President.


    Liberals might be able to stand and fight. On principle. Except, of course, they dumped their principles in 2008.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010

    Shooting Democrats.

    A brilliant analysis of the Coakley/Dem/Obama meltdown:

    The liberals just shot their first hostage. The candidacy of Martha Coakley, a solid if nondescript Democrat, was ceremoniously marched out and executed in broad daylight by the voters of the most liberal state in the Union.

    Read the rest here.

    To damn funny to pass by:

    Post Brown thoughts.

    1. Today David Axlerod said that stopping the health care bill was "not an option."

    Yes. It is. The Democrats would be wise to kill the current HC bills. But with a breathtaking stupidity and/or arrogance the White House is apparently refusing to hear the central lesson of Brown's election: people do not like what Obama and Democrats are doing. I say apparently because I suspect in reality we'll see a much more accommodating White House in the next few months. One that thinks and acts more incrementally. Obama must achieve something this year. A series of small victories is better than nothing. That's the plan for 2010.

    2. The health care bill ought to die for one reason: It's a bad law glued together in secret and chock full of onerous back room deals. It is everything Obama was allegedly elected to change. Brown's victory represents blow back against this particular bill and the way is was constructed. It's as if Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are determined to prove the worst conservative stereotypes of liberals correct in the public's mind. In 2009, (not now, the moment is gone) a center/left bill could have been written and passed - even in a center/right country. Obama had the opportunity. He needed to take command of the debate, demand basic elements be included (a public option, cost controls) and be unwavering. He had the wind at his back coming into office. Instead, he did the opposite throughout the year. He punted the details. He went missing for months. He gave ground to provincial concerns. He made noxious secret deals with Big Pharma. Would he have gotten a true center/left bill passed? I think so. Support for a public option remained strong for months. But even if he failed after making a strong case, he would have gone down with half the country with him.What we have now is a bill which is cannibalizing liberals, has moderates running scared and most citizens detest.

    3. It's striking how much Obama/Pelosi/Reid's current tactics on health care mirror the complaints against "Hillary care" nearly 2 decades ago. Secret deals. Arrogance. Lack of Transparency. Obama's team remembered Clinton's failure - but did not learn from it. Isn't it ironic that Hillary, who failed to get HC reform passed, most certainly would have remembered her mistakes and learned from them?

    4. The entire dynamic of the special election in Dem leaning Massachusetts would have been different had Obama stood firm for a public option. All Coakley needed was a committed Democratic base. Brown got 20% of Dem voters. If he'd only received 15%, Coakley would have won. A portion of the Independents would have stuck with the Democrats as well. If Obama had been a warrior for the pubic option blue states like New Jersey and Massachusetts would not have gone to the GOP. Would purple and red states still be drifting further right? Probably. But the new Senator from Massachusetts would be a Democrat. With the loss of Kennedy's seat the damage to Obama can't be overstated.

    5. I don't buy the meme that Americans are in open revolt against spending during the current depression. Had Obama targeted his spending wisely- quickly creating even temporary jobs - deficit spending would not be lethal politically right now. The issue isn't spending - it's wasteful spending. Reagan blew massive holes in the budget with tax cuts and deficit spending. He was popular. Why? His deficit spending and tax cuts created jobs - mostly in the military/industrial complex - but jobs are jobs. Voters will stomach deficit spending if they see a result. Instead we're further in debt and millions more are unemployed. Pelosi's stimulus was a colossal waste.

    -Of course, none of my "shoulds" above are connected to the real Obama. His mistakes spring from who he is. His missed opportunities go back to the circa 2008 complaints about him. He lacks experience. He's arrogant. He's a lightweight who lacks core principles. All those critiques were dismissed and vilified in 2008. Yet, here we are - at the end of a largely wasted first Presidential year - and all those complaints have come home to roost.

    Brown 2012?

    If Brown were to enter the 2012 Prez race - how would the Obama Pod People react? In 2012 Brown will have almost the exact same resume as Obama did on 2008. (Except Brown has not written 2 self indulgent - essentially vapid -autobiographies. And Brown never spent a year pretending to be a community organizer.)

    Labels: ,

    Tuesday, January 19, 2010

    He's done everything wrong.

    Mort Zuckermann is brutal in the Daily Beast:

    In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It's now worse than it was.

    He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we've been using polls. He's done everything wrong...

    Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. "We are convinced," he said, "that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned," he said "that he is not strong to support his friends." The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed.

    Headline January 20th 2010:

    Obama in office for 1 year.

    Ted Kennedy's seat lost to Republican.


    Stunning. It's hard to fathom the damage Obama has done in one year.

    Fox

    Fox is talking as if Brown has already won.

    5%

    Reports now have Brown up by 5% with 25% of the vote in.

    early

    turnout

    Turn out is high in Massachusetts. Given the Dem advantage in the state this should favor Coakley - but who knows at this point?

    Monday, January 18, 2010

    Food

    I've been bothered by the potential for a food crisis but my fear has been based on a hunch and too much time of peak oil doom blogs...

    But now this issue is moving into the mainstream.

    Legendary investor Jim Rogers remains bullish on commodities and says the world will soon face food shortages.


    The credit crunch, peak oil, and low inventories are creating the perfect storm. Even if there are no actual food shortages in the near term - I'd bet prices are going to rise. And rise.

    The "food" story is taking the same trajectory as the real estate bubble: A few peak oil sites and other outliers hammer away. Then it moves into more mainstream "outliers". Then the country is shocked by a crisis that never quite made it to the MSM until the moment after...This trajectory scares me if it plays out with food the way it did with real estate. It scares the living hell out of me.

    I do wonder if - by Fall - the central national issue will be food.

    Sunday, January 17, 2010

    20%

    The collapse of Obama's poll numbers over the course of the year is causing earsplitting cognitive dissonance among his last remaining apologists. As it was during the campaign when outright refusal to question Obama was the order of the day - the delusion now being foisted across the Obamasphere is "Blame anyone but the man himself." This post by Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly is one of a few of late that is sad, pathetic and will cause even deeper wounds. It's a return to the full blown Obama denial of 2008. "Odious" Republicans are to blame for Obama's fall. The difficult economy is to blame. Alien abductions are to blame. Pick an excuse, any excuse. Obama must not be blamed...even though it's self evident that all year he picked the wrong fights, at the wrong times, and deputized the wrong cowboys. HE picked them. Not "odious Republicans".

    President Obama has gone from near 80% approval a year ago to just below 50%. In a nutshell the reason is simple: President Obama.

    Obama's style is a problem but not THE problem. Obama's choices are the problem. (Therefore Obama is the problem.) Obama blew it this year. People are angry as hell about health care being the focus for so long. They are angry about the deals made in the Senate. They are angry that Obama lied about the debate being public. A majority do not want this bill and many are seething about it. And it's not all "tea party" people. Independents are running for the exits. Two states that Obama won have elected GOP govs. Brown has the entire Dem establishment in a panic in the bluest of blue states. Boxer is below 50% in blue California.

    Why won't Obama's fan base in the media assess the situation honestly? They do not have the intellectual acuity. They are, to put it bluntly, too stupid. It's takes too much mental power to accept that this man, their great Redeemer, made a colossal political misjudgement by not focusing on jobs in 2009. Or worse, that he never cared about governing, and is only about mincing before any nearby camera and throwing about words like "unprecedented" while tossing the real work to Pelosi - who wouldn't win an election as garbage collector in 99% of the nation.

    The health care "non reform" is the lightening rod. But it goes deeper than that. Moderates feel mislead by the man. True or not that's what is playing out. A vast segment of the population senses the wheels have come off. Not a majority to be sure. But more than enough to bury the Democrats. Revolutions are never lead by a majority, all it takes is a deeply engaged 20%. Especially in a country in which half the population can't be bothered with politics on even the most perfunctory level: voting.

    I'm not referring to a violent upheaval. Still, a brutal discrediting of the entire body politic is underway. Any of a number of "black swan" events is capable of crystallizing this contempt in a way that even CNN and the Washington Monthly can't ignore. The political class that still supports Obama should take no comfort in the GOP's awful poll numbers. In actuality, the political class would be better served if the GOP was more popular. The "throw the bums out" sentiment will go somewhere -one of the two devils we know - or someplace much rougher. Any good student of history will tell you that the dithering intellectual elites are the first to get the machete when the shinola finally, and abruptly, hits the fan.

    It's worth noting that even Obama himself understands this on some level. The pivot to what he should have been doing all along is going to be dramatic in the next few weeks. Jobs, jobs, jobs, will be the mantra as soon as heath care is disposed of. This is politically smart and it's also loaded with danger. Chanting "jobs" on MSNBC and creating them are not at all the same. Having spend the country into the abyss already won't help matters either. ( I'm an unreconstructed Keynesian on this point. Obama could have spent our last 800 billion in vaguely viable debt on a real jobs creation program. He chose to not to.) Unless jobs come back in leaps and bounds in the next 8 months his party will reap the whirlwind.

    Comparisons between this year and 1994 are already plentiful. There is a strong case to be made that congress will flip and a strong case it won't. Regardless, the difference in tone is already tangible. In 1994 there was frustration with Clinton and the Democrats. A sizable chunk of those who felt frustrated then feel threatened now. That's a huge emotional change. 1994 was a push back against a presidency and his party. What's coagulating now is a push back against the entire system. This too is lost on the Obama apologists.

    As long as Obama apologists keep blaming Fox News and tea party people and every little thing except the manner in which Obama chose to conduct his first year- the Dems will continue to sink. It's not "bad candidates" or Republicans who are, frankly, just doing their jobs. It's Obama and the political culture he threw into sharp relief. To avoid this narrative coursing through places like Massachusetts is to amplify the sense that those in power are tone deaf and dismissive. This, in turn, will further inflame scores of Americans. It only takes 20%.


    For a more measured take (ha!) on what is currently underway in Massachusetts - please read this piece at the L.A. Times.

    Saturday, January 16, 2010

    Who would you vote for?

    The Massachusetts special election has become fascinating and is worth a few more thoughts. I play the mental game of "Who would I vote for?" with all notable elections, wherever they are. Until the last few days, I would probably have cast my vote for Coakley. The Curt Shilling remark, while irrelevant to policy matters, was so incredibly stupid it gives me pause. Being a Red Sox fan and running for office in Massachusetts is politics 101. Is Coakley remotely capable of understanding her electorate? It may seem foolish, but not understanding who Shilling is in Boston mythology is disconnect of the first order. She would have been better off saying the Pope is a goof ball.

    Politicians kiss babies and swill beer with bar patrons for a reason. It bonds them with those they govern. Coakley's recent stumbles indicate she's a person who doesn't "get it" in a basic way. Or worse, she doesn't care about getting the job now that she's in a real race.

    It still seems to me that Coakley will pull out a win. Obama's nonsense about a bank tax this week is being used as a weapon against Brown. This populist bromide might be enough to salvage Coakley. On the other hand, Brown's job in the next 2 days is to hammer at spending, spending, spending. For the next 36 hours the election is about Obama and spending is Obama's weakness.

    In the week since I first predicted a Coakley win the tables have turned. Now she must muster every last voter she can get while Brown is in the position of having to shore up a thin lead. The exact opposite of where things stood on Monday. Currently 1 in 5 Dems are saying they will vote for Brown. Obama's job Sunday is to cut that by a few tenths of a point. The independent numbers are probably not budging and the Republicans certainly aren't. In one fly-by he must get to that very small audience and convince them to give a little. This is not a tall order. A Democratic President ought to be able of convince a portion of 20% of his own party to show up for their candidate. We shall see. Early on, compare turn out in Boston/Cambridge versus Western Mass. This will tell the story.

    Friday, January 15, 2010

    Top 10 Reasons to Still Deny Global Warming

    - by 'tamerlane'

    10. Those two phrases snipped from those two decades-old emails completely negate the other 15 million pages of evidence.

    9. Plants need CO2, and people need plants, so more CO2 is a good thing, right?

    8. So what if a few polar bears have to drown to preserve the American Dream?

    7. Al Gore says jet airplanes cause Global Warming, but Al Gore has his own jet airplane, so he's a liar.

    6. So long as a single TV weatherman has doubts, there can be no scientific consensus.

    5. Oil is the basis of our economy.

    4. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck can't all be wrong.

    3. The Europeans are very concerned about Global Warming, and they're a bunch of pussies.

    2. Nobody has the right to tell me what kind of light bulbs I should buy.

    1. We had snow at Christmas.

    (2) 2010 by 'tamerlane.' All rights reserved.

    Labels: ,

    Thursday, January 14, 2010

    Obama is still toxic.

    In February of 08 I wrote a piece called "Obama is toxic". It was the post that changed the trajectory of this blog. Suddenly it had an audience. Obama is still toxic. Cannonfire's post "What hath Obama Wrought?" brings us concisely up to date on Obama's toxicity. The level of the poison is currently evident for all to see in blue Massachusetts.

    The race in Massachusetts is no longer about Brown or Coakley. It's about health care. People do not want this bill. At all. Brown has made it the centerpiece of his campaign and it is working. Brown is ahead in the most recent poll. If Dems expect to keep a majority in November they need to kill the health care bill now while there is still a moment to spare. They need to get away from Obama.

    Democrats: Ditch Pelosi. Tell Obama to stuff it. Turn your backs on Reid. The health care bill is poison. You can recover from the bill's failure. You will not recover from its passage.

    If Brown even gets close (I still think Coakley will win by a whisker) it will thunderclap across the political landscape. Obama is toxic.

    Democrats kill the bill or it will kill your party.

    more than expected

    Generally speaking, I've come to the conclusion that economic analysts are idiots. Today we learned that: Retail sales unexpectedly fell in December, leaving 2009 with the biggest yearly drop on record

    So says CNBC at least. This is, of course, not true. The word that makes it untrue is "unexpectedly". It's hard to fathom any decent economists believing that a drop in retail sales in December was "unexpected". Do those who have these "expectations" live with Bin Laden in a cave? Or are they just mentally challenged buffoons? Do these analysts ever venture beyond the Hamptons and the Upper West Side? Apparently not. The briefest trip to a mall or chat with a neighbor in December would have dashed any "expectation" that people were shopping more.

    The second paragraph takes matters a step further:
    In another disappointing economic report, the number of newly laid-off workers requesting unemployment benefits rose more than expected last week...

    "More than expected" being the operative phrase. Who expected job losses to stem in the first week of the year? What are they taking? Can the rest of us have some? Wouldn't any reasonably intelligent person expect the opposite - more job losses directly following the Christmas season?

    With everything that the majority of economists have gotten wrong or missed in the last 2 years why should any of us listen to a word out of their mouths?

    Morning poll

    Wednesday, January 13, 2010

    simple, direct, legitimate way to help

    You can donate $10 to relief efforts in Haiti through the American Red Cross by simply texting the word Haiti to 90999. If you text the word Haiti to the number 90999, ten dollars will be added to your phone bill. It goes straight to the Red Cross' International Relief Fund for Haiti. I did it - it's legit. You'll receive a text back asking to confirm, so then you text back the word Yes.

    Shep Smith on Haiti and Pat Robertson

    Haiti

    Like the Indian Ocean tsunami, the earthquake in Haiti is nearly beyond comprehension. Ways to help are listed here.

    Haiti

    Bankers throw us the middle finger again.

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010

    I predict Coakley will win. Barely.

    I must confess that my computer time this week is being spent reading up on potential USC football head coach replacements. (Since I'm sure everyone here is interested in this matter of great import - which, as we all know, will make or break Western Civilization as we know it - I am putting L.R.'s considerable weight behind Steve Mariucci.)

    I was hoping those first few sentences would lead me somewhere...into my usual land tortured prose to make a point....but they did not. Therefore I shall turn to Mass. Senate race.

    I predict Coakley will win. Barely. However, let me remind everyone that I also predicted Corzine would win in New Jersey. My view from the far Western shore has recently been rendered suspect. Obama called on volunteers to help Coakley. This is a bad sign for her. Had he asked for money it would be a different story. Money makes little difference this late in the game. A fundraising letter with a week to go is gilding the lily. The concern is for "boots on the ground". This means they know the other side is energized. Even a moderate Dem turnout probably gives her a win. A low Dem turn out is trouble. If anyone thought Obama could still appeal to the independents he'd show up in the Bay State this week. The calculation must be that Obama turns off independents at this point. And Kennedy is not a factor. In the last decade Kennedy was a habit in Massachusetts more than a force to be reckoned with. Ted endorsed Obama, Hillary clocked Obama in the Mass. primary.

    In watching clips from the debate last night I will say this: Brown did himself a world of good. His "It's the people's seat." moment will serve him well for years to come. A star was born for the GOP. It may be in the next few days that moment will achieve the nearly impossible. It was compelling. If Brown wins it will be because of that moment in the debate.

    I'm going with a Coakley win by 3%. The third party candidate is working for her at this point. Regardless, unless she wins by double digits, the "Obamacrats" are the losers. The Obama machine of 2008 will be officially dead. A close contest or a Brown win means that the Clinton Democrats - in a very blue state - have defected to a GOP candidate. Those voters tell the most intriguing story. It will be interesting to see the exit poll demographics. A big swing of working class voters who voted for Obama into Brown's column will make Donna Brazile's "We don't need 'em" remark among the dumbest things ever said by a political operative.

    Morning Links.

    Doom Patrol 1:
    10 predictions for 2010 - some are compelling. Some I don't see happening. Number 9 increasingly concerns me.

    Poll:


    Doom Patrol 2:
    Celente on 2010 "It's only going to get worse". Yet, he's actually hopeful in some respects. Predicting a return to real beauty being valued again, replacing the inane youth/celebrity culture...

    Stimu-less:
    Few counties, for example, received more road money per capita than Marshall County, Tenn., about 90 minutes south of Nashville. Obama's stimulus is paying the salaries of dozens of workers there, but local officials said the unemployment rate continues to rise and is expected to top 20 percent soon.

    Keeping Health Insurers happy:

    Of the 22 names on the host committee--meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley-17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients.

    Monday, January 11, 2010

    More.

    In the last post I did not say Reid's comment weren't racist. They were. Though, I must admit to not understanding what qualifies as "racist" anymore. The word has become all but useless. But his foolish remark is certainly odious in the extreme.

    What I was trying to get at in that post is that - in 1950s era language - Reid was reflecting what many white voters thought. Therein lies the real conversation -the conversation this asinine dance of outrage and apology obscures. Candidate Obama was a "safe black" for whites. To refuse to air this calculation in many white voter's minds is flat out dishonest. But we keep doing just that - refusing to own the calculation. We keep pretending it wasn't a factor.

    Reid's problem isn't that he is some racist outlier but that he said what he said in a stupid, offensive way. Whites dashing to the bullhorn to declare Reid a horrible racist are disingenuous in the extreme. Reid's no different than legions of whites of in this country. Most would never say "Negro dialect" because most are not stuck in 1957. But plenty mentally updated his archaic phraseology to make peace with Obama in their minds.

    And it's ugly but it's true: light skinned blacks are more acceptable to whites. Is that racist? Yes. Is "Reid saying 'light skined' racist? Yes. But I see no reason to deny what is reality to many.

    To some degree what I'm saying is that these periodic eruptions on race - with their specific plot points of outrage, apology, then fade out until the next one - are a way of submerging deeper conversations. Conversations that go to the actual pain, resentment and confusion throughout this issue on both sides. And they damage blacks more than whites. This moment will be neatly packaged and disposed of in a few more news cycles and the long awaited conversation of race will, once again, be shunted aside. White Americans are being let off the hook here, not black Americans.

    These moments have turned into a game in American culture in which nothing is resolved or moved forward because white people won't own that Reid's comments reflected what a lot of whites thought. I want that truth owned.

    Right now Reid is getting retrofitted, by blacks and whites alike, as a good and decent man who misspoke. This is bullshit. Reid meant exactly what he said. (He used the words he used because he's of a generation that thinks in those terms.) Why not start the outrage from there? What if Reid was speaking for millions? Regardless of the neanderthal wording - the fact remains: Many whites voted for this particular black man because he was just white enough and it made them feel good about themselves. Not only is this no way to elect a President - it's smug and condescending.

    Sunday, January 10, 2010

    Can we please stop being full of shit on race issues?

    Am I the only one on God's green earth that thinks Reid's comments about candidate Obama are first and foremost - a reflection of the facts on the ground as many saw them?

    Let me explain so as to avoid having the "racist" anvil dropped on my tender head.

    Here's what Reid said:

    ...the country was ready for a "light-skinned" African-American president with "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."


    What are people really twisted up about here? My guess - the truth.

    A. He was right. The country did elect a black man. It was "ready". Whatever that means.

    B. The wording is archaic. ("Negro" being unacceptable. It may be offensive - but, let's face it "African-American" is overwrought and annoying. Black and White are just fine. Imperfect - but they do the job without lilting over into a form of deceit.) The intent of his words was widely accepted among whites, though rarely spoken, in 2008.

    C. Any white American over 40 who tells you that it's just as easy for them to stomach a dark skinned black man speaking with the thick rhythms of a southern preacher as it is a light skinned Harvard educated college lecturer speaking with a standard American accent is either

    1. In a small minority.
    2. Lying.

    D. He's calling Obama a fraud who can turn the "black" on and off. That is an absolute truth.

    For God's sake, I heard white voters in Iowa say nearly the same damn thing on C-span. Reid's word choice is retrograde to be sure. But millions - and I really mean millions - of white voters had the same thought about Obama in 2008. He's black in a way that I'm comfortable with. He's "articulate". He doesn't go off into Jesse Jackson type rhyming harangues. Sure, I can vote for him - and I'll feel liberal minded to boot. Are we are supposed to pretend that this calculation was not a fact of American life in 2008? It's absurd. Can we PLEASE , for once, stop being full of shit on race issues?

    Here's what really going on; another round of the race denial dance. White person says something, often in an awkward manner, that many white people think,. Since the white person said it at all - forgetting to keep it locked in the secret white vault of things that we think but do not say - every group that wants to seizes the moment to extract a pound of flesh. The white person then apologizes, not for being a racist - they usually are not in any real sense- but for inadvertently pointing out the elephant in the room. The apology has nothing to do with the remarks. It's all about protecting the racial ecosystem's balance.

    In that ecosystem whites pretend they never have a wayward, un-PC thought about race so other whites, who are also pretending, don't have to confront and own their real feelings on race - which, at this point, mostly add up to helpless annoyance with the whole thing. Because who wants to be the first prominent white person to say:

    "Sure, I sometimes judge people based on race. Who doesn't? I get judged for being white by non -whites all the time. Yes, I judge black culture and sometimes is bothers me a great deal. Other times not at all. Still other times I'm grateful as hell for all of it. All in all it's not nearly as important in my mind as every thinks it should be. This may sound unfeeling but there it is.

    What white leader would dare speak that truthfully - even though it would ring true for a huge number of people?

    These periodic eruptions about race have become primarily about white people keeping their comfort zones in tact. Obama, as much or more than most white politicians, knows how important white comfort is in the ecosystem. Please note that the president accepted the "apology" by differentiating Reid's words from his "heart", skipping over completely the annoying fact that the words, however backward, actually pointed to a reality for many.

    Black "leaders" exploit this dance too when it suits their needs- but in truth they are ancillary. Many white Americans act as if they are concerned with what black leaders are saying. Cold, hard fact: Most aren't. No one should think for a second that the white elite who funded Obama saw his race as anything other than a selling point that closed the deal. A white Barry Obama, even with all those soaring speeches, would been dismissed out of hand after New Hampshire as a one term nobody who got ahead of himself.

    How do I know the black leadership is ancillary to these dramas? History. How many times have we been down this road? Does the black leadership's narrative ever change? Do the white "offender's" plot points ever have a twist? No. Comment, reaction, heartfelt apology, everyone goes back to their corners. If tangible consequences result it's only because they can - not because of any set standard. Reid won't resign anything. He can't be lost. Ferraro could. So she was.

    Wouldn't it have been refreshing if Reid had come out and said: I said that. Shoulda used different words but hey, I'm old that's the way we spoke in my youth. Bad habit. What? You think most of the white Obama voters in the country didn't think the same thing? They did. I promise you. Get over it.

    That would be the whole truth. We can't have that.






    None of this should be taken as a defense of Harry Reid. He's a malignant wart on the body politic. When he gets shown the door in November I will shed no tears...

    Saturday, January 09, 2010

    Stunner

    Stunner. Mass Special Election: Brown 48 Coakley 47.

    Obama is destroying the Democratic Party. This is in Massachusetts. This is Ted Kennedy's seat. Even if Coakley wins - if it is remotely close the Democrats are in deep, deep trouble.

    Update: I feeling like jumping back in on this one. On reflection, the poll cited above strikes me as truly odd. I'm not comfortable calling it an outlier as I really haven't followed this race at all. It's just odd. I've read that Coakley coasted through December - a mistake. It seems Brown is running a solid campaign and that he has taken large chunks out of her lead. However, Brown shooting ahead is a bridge too far. I'm not buying yet. There are internal polls in both camps that tell the real story. Of this I am sure. If they favor Brown the RNC will start spending money quickly. If they favor Coakley the RNC will hold on to its cash.

    This is not to say that I don't think Brown has a chance. He does. It's official: He has a chance.

    2 things to look out for:
    1. The weather on election day. Bad weather favors Brown.
    2. Turnout. Not get out the vote machines - just turnout. Independents in very large numbers on election day also favor Brown.

    Coakley must win by double digits for this election to be a non story - which is the goal. Everyone move along. Nothing to see here. If her win is by single digits, the GOP will claim a moral victory. If Brown does pull it off it - Democrats are in a world of hurt. The tactical damage in the Senate would be real enough - the symbolism of replacing Kennedy with a Republican - shattering.

    The C-Span promises

    Obama's C-Span promises keep giving. On the Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee flattened the president.

    The clip of Obama repeatedly promising to broadcast the health care negotiations on C-Span could easily take on the same life as Nixon's "I'm not a crook": A constant reminder of what many suspected - the president is a liar. The difference is Nixon was on his way out. In less than nine month's he was gone. Obamacare will haunt Obama for the next three years. Anyone attacking his broken promises on health care now has a concise, visual, and damning launching pad.

    The politics of this are hellish for the White House. This story fits all the criteria of "game changer".

    -Easy to understand promise: Obama made explicit, direct promises about C-Span and health care.

    -Flip flop on promise: The current flip flop is easy for anyone to see- even those who don't pay attention to politics. (Think: "read my lips..")

    -An issue the public is engaged on: The bill is unpopular and health care, like taxes, affects everyone.

    -The narrative is already in place: The health care news has been dominated by the "cornhusker kickback" for the past 2 weeks seeding the perception of corruption before the C-Span story unfolded. The C-Span promise clips prove and expand this perception.

    - Credibility is already being openly questioned on another major issue: This story erupted on the heals of the Christmas day bombing attempt and the ensuing perception that Obama's team - and Obama himself - were asleep at the switch. Napolatano's "The system worked" moment was only a few weeks ago.

    In a compact series of news cycles Obama's credibility and competence has been assaulted on the two fronts: National security and health care.

    For those of us who watch politics closely it might be easy to miss the damage "C-Span-gate" is causing. There he goes again was my initial reaction. In fact, with Obama's attempt to right the ship in the days after Napolatano's inane remarks I thought he'd recover a bit. This debacle has nullified any potential recovery.

    The story hammers one of Obama's weakest areas -the perception that he is all hat and no cowboy. That he's "just words". He doesn't mean what he says or say what he means . This complaint has been hovering around the edges for months now. It's now taken center stage. It has legs.

    If the health care bill was popular this story would be D.O.A. Because a belligerent Democratic leadership is about to pass it into law despite the popular blow back, (or to spite it) the clips of Obama promising an open process will live on for months and probably years. Obama's radio address today tauting the immediate changes in the bill - some of which are popular - is an attempt to blunt the C-Span disaster. But it begs one easy question: If the bill is so beneficial why can't the negotiations be public?

    The complaint that Obama is a socialist out to wreck the country only resonates with those already predisposed to distrust him. The C-span moment is of a different political magnitude. It goes to credibility. No president can survive without credibility. Obama's has taken a severe hit.

    Labels: , , ,

    Friday, January 08, 2010

    Body blow

    The decade is now, officially, over. USC coach Carroll headed to Seattle

    Obot grief.

    A spitting contest broke out over at NQ in the comments section of a post about Brit Hume's brutal assessment of Obama's first year in office. The initial response hammers Hume for looking the other way when Bush screwed up. (An allegation I cannot confirm since I never watch Fox news - though - what the hell- I'll boldly say this claim is almost certainly true in general even if Hume occasionally criticized Dubya.) The usual argument ensues. A few comments down a reader hits at the stage of denial we are in with the Obots - which is summed up with: Bush sucked too. In this case it's used smartly by an Obama detractor - effectively detonating the excuse. Granted, the person attacking Hume didn't write "Bush sucked too" and probably never was an Obot. Still, it's a teachable moment. Variations of Bush sucked too can be heard across the Twitter/ Facebook countryside. This is a step further away from denial. The previous "At least he's not McCain" is tired and "He's still better than Hillary" has become too absurd for even Obots to utter much anymore.

    The five stages of Obot grief are unfolding with deliberate speed and it's worth a moment (and also fun) to observe them. The stages are: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Bush sucked too falls in the grey area between Anger and Bargaining. Denials of the death of the imaginary light bringer of 2008 are almost gone....except in Astrid Passionfroot's world. Anger broke out into the open in the Fall as it slowly...oh so slowly...dawned on the likes of Jane Hamsher and the Daily Kos that Obama was full of shit on issues like gay rights and health care. (It was a slow realization because, as a rule, the Obots are smart but not intelligent and Palin's book tour was a distraction they all savored.) Besides, Bush sucked too is an admission of complete defeat by Obots even if they don't realize it yet. Obama was different in their addled minds. An outlier. A saviour. Comparing him to any previous president, in any context, puts the lie to the entire Obama Festival of Light. That W is now the baseline must be devastating to the internal workings of any respectable Obot. (Is "respectable Obot" and oxymoron?)

    We have moved, in one short year, into bargaining - the least comfortable - and most likely shortest - phase of Obot grief. The health care charade is too complete for any but the most sturdy Obot to defend. That Obama kept his campaign promise on Afghanistan shocked many as well. The double think on this point remains breathtaking. Our beloved Barry is sending more troops to war??? (He said he would all along - a non-idiot responds. Yes, but he opposed the Iraq war...in a speech...in a basement...in the olden times!!! How could he did this?? says the Obot. )

    As Obama moves into the "jobs, jobs, jobs", portion of his burlesque the bargaining will get some traction. But not much. What a come down "work for grease monkeys on wind turbines" is from "the oceans have begun to recede."

    Let us look to the last 2 stages of Obot grief, depression and acceptance, dull though they may be. Most Obots will simply vanish in these phases, moving into resigned contempt. Some will occasionally lash out when a random Republican is caught with his trousers on the floor. The Andrew Sullivan types will keep their battered spouse syndrome intact but on mute - meekly scrubbing floors when asked and otherwise staying in the horrific marriage with quiet agony.

    Then we reach Post Grief...which will come for some but not all. Pretty soon, too. Obama will be demonized as broadly as he was deified. The anger will no longer be directed at the messengers but at Obama. If I'm correct, this part of the adventure will - ironically - be the most difficult to navigate for those who kept their wits about them all along regarding Obama. The blessing is that many of us gave up on the Democrats before the roof fell in. The curse is that for many of us there truly is nowhere to go without our fingers pinching our nostrils, the two party system being a vice grip for the time being.

    Most Obots will process their grief all the way through and re-emerge. What is less certain is if any of them will have learned anything. Obama is vaporizing what was once called the "Democratic coalition". Unless the Obots look in the mirror and own their part in this disaster - before moving completely into vilification of the man - an alternative to right wing government will not possible. The reason is simple: We were right. They were wrong. If we'd been wrong then the situation would be reversed. If Obama had become the president they said he would, (an intelligent, left of center executive - at the very least) many - including me - would have to suck it up and admit we'd missed the mark in our assessment. Didn't happen. Likely never will.

    For any real movement to be possible on the "alternative to the Republicans" front, the Obots must first own the duplicity of Obama's campaign, completely and without excuse.

     

     
    Website-Hit-Counters
    Website-Hit-Counters