Liberal Rapture

2012 V.P. Candidate

2010-02-02T07:43:00.000-08:00

Who Should Hillary Clinton choose as her vice presidential running mate in 2012?(answers)

Leave Beck out of it.

2010-02-01T18:09:00.000-08:00

NQ has a post up about the mini battle between Roger Ailes and Arianna Huffington. Ms. Huffington's issue du jour is the "hate" language she perceives from people like Glenn Beck. I suppose one could easily find words to prove her point. Ailes responds with the obvious - her site is full of inflammatory nonsense and has been since it began. Again, easy to find examples. Any decent soul who spent 30 seconds at Huffpo in 2008 came away needing a Karen Silkwood scrub down.

At this point, I'm adjusted to ridiculous straw men from buffoons like Huffington. Ailes I have little invested in -but he's at least somewhat intellectually consistent. Glenn Beck isn't sold as a smug, know it all, genius. Whereas the Huffington Post is the national repository of smug hysteria. She has no standing to call out Fox on language or hysteria. She's stupid to bring this up. The Huffington Post not only has never taken the high road - it doesn't even own a map that contains the high road.

Huffington needs a windmill to tilt at. Obama adoration is spent. Hope and change has sunk into its creepy, weird nostalgia phase- like pop rocks or Madonna. It mattered once for reasons no one can quite remember and no one will own even if they do. Obama love was the reason for Huffpo. It can be so no longer. So let's attack Beck...

The withdraw pain we hear Huffington excreting is actually the dull, aching knowledge that Obama's words didn't matter. His words amounted to nothing but distraction and deceit. Not only is he not the great and powerful saviour - he's not even a run of the mill politician. He's an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks....

Of course, Huffington and her ilk feign disgust with Beck and Rush and their words. The 2 projects Huffington oversaw in 2008 were the vilification of Hillary Clinton and the deification of Obama. Both done with words. Both failures. Clinton is riding high and Obama is overseeing one retreat after another. The Obama illusion Huffington carried water for has been destroyed as completely as Port Au Prince. Obama's words didn't matter and the millions strewn across the Huffington Post didn't either.

It be easy if Obama's collapse into managerial sub-mediocrity was the fault of the evil Glenn Beck or that devil Roger Ailes and their awful hate speech. Of course, this is top of the line, grade-A bullshit. Obama's first year was a failure because of Obama. End of story. The Huffington Post's Obama narrative collapsed under the weight of reality. Fox News didn't ruin Obama's year. Obama did. Accept it, Arianna. Leave Beck out of it.

Links, etc.

2010-01-31T17:38:00.000-08:00

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...

What crisis is most likely to boil over into a military confrontation in 2010?(polls)

the single most inept president...

2010-01-31T09:17:00.000-08:00

"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.

A kind of dangerous stupidity.

2010-01-30T18:15:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-30T09:00:00.000-08:00

Clinton's 2012 campaign slogan:

Experience Matters.

and biggest news this week was?

2010-01-30T07:42:00.000-08:00

What was the most important news in the past week?(polls)

The Republican plan is...

2010-01-29T16:15:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-29T07:49:00.001-08:00

Holden and Zooey.

2010-01-28T18:16:00.000-08:00

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.

2010-01-28T06:58:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-28T06:18:00.000-08:00

Grade Obama's State of the Union Address(survey software)

The speech.

2010-01-27T19:03:00.000-08:00

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...

2010-01-27T17:00:00.000-08:00

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

Believe it or not...

2010-01-27T16:08:00.000-08:00

...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.

2010-01-27T08:39:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-27T06:32:00.000-08:00

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:

Which event today will have a more lasting effect?(survey)

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

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

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

2010-01-26T15:39:00.000-08:00

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.

2010-01-26T05:56:00.000-08:00

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.

The ego that ate the Democratic party.

2010-01-25T17:00:00.000-08:00

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.

Morning links

2010-01-24T20:06:00.000-08:00

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!

Looking For A Few Good Liberals

2010-01-23T16:54:00.000-08:00

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!!!

2010-01-23T05:50:00.000-08:00

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

obama is not a liberal

2010-01-22T12:02:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-22T08:37:00.000-08:00

What's the most important news story this week?(survey software)Who should be the Democratic nominee in 2012?

Mitt Romeny brought to you by Citi

2010-01-21T14:00:00.000-08:00

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.

Shooting Democrats.

2010-01-20T21:11:00.000-08:00

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:

2010-01-20T19:03:00.000-08:00

Post Brown thoughts.

2010-01-20T14:01:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-01-20T08:44:00.000-08:00

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.)

He's done everything wrong.

2010-01-19T23:40:00.000-08:00

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:

2010-01-19T18:08:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-19T17:49:00.000-08:00

Fox is talking as if Brown has already won.

5%

2010-01-19T17:43:00.000-08:00

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

early

2010-01-19T16:48:00.000-08:00

Early numbers Brown up by 3%

turnout

2010-01-19T14:00:00.000-08:00

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

Food

2010-01-18T21:04:00.000-08:00

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.

What are your feelings about a potential food crisis?(online surveys)

20%

2010-01-17T18:18:00.000-08:00

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.

Who would you vote for?

2010-01-16T14:09:00.000-08:00

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.

If you lived (or live) in Massachusetts who would you (or will you) vote for Tuesday?(polls)

Top 10 Reasons to Still Deny Global Warming

2010-01-15T15:36:00.000-08:00

- 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.

Obama is still toxic.

2010-01-14T22:00:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-14T08:55:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-14T07:52:00.001-08:00

In a sane society what would happen to bankers taking huge bonuses after destroying the economy?(trends)

simple, direct, legitimate way to help

2010-01-13T19:01:00.001-08:00

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

2010-01-13T18:55:00.001-08:00

Haiti

2010-01-13T16:01:00.000-08:00

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

Haiti

2010-01-13T10:56:00.000-08:00

Clintons are mobilizing assistance for their beloved Haiti

Bankers throw us the middle finger again.

2010-01-13T05:47:00.000-08:00

Makes me want to cause some hurt: Bankers at Goldman Sachs and Chase are anticipating bonuses of more than $500,000 a piece, on average

In a sane society what would happen to bankers taking huge bonuses after destroying the economy?(poll)

I predict Coakley will win. Barely.

2010-01-12T14:59:00.000-08:00

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.

2010-01-12T05:52:00.000-08:00

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.

More.

2010-01-11T16:17:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2010-01-10T17:44:00.000-08:00

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...

Stunner

2010-01-09T21:04:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-09T14:09:00.000-08:00

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.

Body blow

2010-01-08T20:49:00.000-08:00

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

Obot grief.

2010-01-08T16:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Friday

2010-01-07T20:01:00.000-08:00

Friday links, clips and a poll here. Vote for the best GOP President. Best Dem coming on Monday...

Kamikaze Democrats

2010-01-07T15:41:00.000-08:00

The attacks on the WH for ducking C-Span keep coming. Jack Cafferty appears to have expunged all the Kool-Aid he swilled in 2008. Though there is no reason to suddenly trust the noxious gasbag, his broadside is welcome:

The Widow Gibbs is having a particularly hard time with this issue, falling back on "We covered this yesterday.", which is, of course, a lie. The question was avoided yesterday, as it was today.

The similarity in vibe between the Bush Cheney push for war with Iraq and the Obama Pelosi Reid demand for a health care bill that the majority oppose is striking. The main difference being that before we invaded Iraq only half the nation opposed the war. In the case of health care "reform" well over half oppose. The level of arrogance is astounding even by D.C. standards. In trying to get a handle on it I keep coming up empty. The bill must be a payoff of extraordinary magnitude. Much of the Democratic leadership is acting like kamikaze pilots, willing to give their political lives for a bill next to no one wants. And they're willing to do it in secret - throwing the middle finger just before they self-immolate. The mindless belligerence is a sight to behold.

worst prez poll etc.

2010-01-07T07:06:00.000-08:00

The worst Prez ever finals are here, along with morning links. Go. Vote. Remember, if you vote - an angel gets its wings. If you don't vote - you will be forced to spend eternity trapped in an elevator with the cast of Jersey Shore.

I've spoken to Satan about it and them there's the facts...

No public option. No public hearings. No shame.

2010-01-06T15:06:00.000-08:00

Obama promises 8 times to televise the health care hearings on C-Span:

Some days it's fun pointing out Obama's lies. Other days it's painful. This lie is so in your face it's hard to respond in any way except contempt.

Given the news of the day, - 2 Democratic senators quitting - the continuing free fall of the Democrats in the polls, and the mind numbing arrogance of Reid, Pelosi and Obama on health care - it seems clear that one of BHO's primary goals is the destruction of his own party.

Side note: The Governor of California used his state of the state address today to withdrawal his support of Obama's health care "reform".

He called for California's congressional delegation to "either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State. He got the corn; we got the husk."

Dodd the latest retirement.

2010-01-06T06:21:00.000-08:00

Democrats are running for the exits - plus a poll on why so many are quitting.

Shameless

2010-01-05T16:27:00.000-08:00

Even I - a thousand posts later - sometimes can't believe Obama's shamelessness.

Check it out:

What do you suppose the chances of any of the remaining heath care negotiations being put on C-Span?

There will be hell to pay and none of seem to give a damn about it. Either the bribes are so extraordinary that no one in the Democratic leadership is willing to pass them up and will pay the political price. Or an event so massive is brewing that all involved figure health care will be forgotten in a few months.

Doom Patrol

2010-01-05T08:23:00.000-08:00

I'm on Doom Patrol here. Michael Ruppert is damn near apoplectic..and he is often absolutely correct whether he's apoplectic or not...

It's about me.

2010-01-04T17:19:00.000-08:00

In this relatively quiet moment of the first few days of the decade and after a year of Obama in the White house I am wondering..again...how to classify the man. He's not a liberal in the modern or classic sense. Socialist is just wrong. Real socialists should be taking offense at the claim that Obama is one of them. If anyone knows what a "Democrat" is at this point feel free to share. Statist is closer to factual but still leaves too many questions.

If we must attach an "ist" to the man the only true label emergent after his first year in power is "Obamaist". Obama believes in himself and seems to have a well honed internal grip of the majestic ideals that flow from his personal "ism". The problem is that no one else does. Not those trying to sell the Afghan build up. (The Hokey Pokey policy...put 30,000 in, take 30,000 out. ) Certainly not Janet Napolatano, who took the lead in the underwear bomber debacle by insisting the system worked. She clearly has not internalized Obamaism - whatever it is - since her employer coldly announced that the system failed miserably 60 political dog years later. (A few days in real time.)

I had an extremely gifted acting teacher in college whose brilliance often left him when trying to give to direction to A.D.D. addled undergrads...like me. In frustration he'd blurt out "Don't do what I say! Do what I mean!" Which, of course, was the opposite of helpful and had the added bonus of being meaningless. The difference between Obama and my theater professor is that down in the tangled mess beneath his verbal ability Professor Criss had a working idea of what he meant.

Obama's "talent" is the opposite, though it leads to the same place: Confusion. He can get the verbiage out in a coherent manner - but the words themselves lead nowhere. While Obama is intellectually coherent...there is nothing much to "cohere". There is no guiding set of principles, only some general beliefs stapled together.

-Working class people "cling to religion and guns" is a generally held belief among the cocktail party demographic that gave us Obama. Many rich liberals are all for an egalitarian society - as long as they retain the right to condescend. Jane Hamsher's derision toward a "certain class of women" expresses this belief perfectly. Obama's political upbringing is a case study in this brand of limousine liberalism.

- Another belief is the overall sense that American power is to be mistrusted at all times. There are plenty of cases in which this mistrust is earned. The problem among the "Hamptons /Brentwood" axis is that the belief is decoupled from the rest of planet earth and reality in general. It is American exceptionalism backwards. When intervening overseas the United States is always in the wrong - without exception.

- Bizarre ethnic resentment is another nurtured and highly esteemed belief among this group. Bizarre because those most forceful in reciting litanies about racial injustice are often privileged and white. Obama's knee jerk reaction to the arrest of Louis Gates is an example of how this belief exposes itself. White=bad, not white=good, almost without fail. Ms. Garofalo's insistence that criticism of Obama was "racism, straight up" is worth citing here. That any criticism might have been earned and have merit is not possible in this belief system.

These beliefs do not add up to a set of principles. They can't. The internal contradictions are too great. Bridging the cognitive gap between being pro-labor while retaining a smug claim on the right to insult perceived intellectual deficits among laborers, or attacking American interventions in the Middle East while blithely driving a gasoline powered car to shop for Tofutti that arrived at an upscale market in a refrigerated truck - powered by gasoline-, or using "social justice" to avoid being bothered by facts, nuance or personal responsibility - is all too much bother.

Since the beliefs won't coagulate into principles, personality is the fall back. Which brings us back to Obamaism. 12 step groups have a saying at meetings: Principles before personality. The final arbiter for the group is a set of principles - not the personalities involved. The politics of the Obama era have stood "principles before personality" on its head. Few of his most ardent supporters expressed even a fleeting interest last year in the principles that drove the man. (This was necessary since there weren't any.) Now they - and the rest of us - are left with a personality in lieu of a President.

As the Obama years unfold, those who demanded answers all along are secure intellectually. There is no cognitive dissonance to contend with. We were either right or we were wrong. So far we're right. Since Obama doesn't appear to understand that he was raised - politically - without principles - he almost certainly won't discover he has them in the next 3 years. He may get better at his job, which would be helpful, but it's doubtful a core will emerge at his center that drives anything like the "transformative change" he promised.

On the other hand, the Obamaists of 2008 have some rough sledding ahead. The more astute may reflect enough to realize that the betrayal and confusion directed Obama is actually a personal indictment. Some will look in the mirror, knowing that is where the answers are. Truth be told, Obama hasn't changed. He merely in a different job. One he's not at all suited for and one that accentuates a lack of principles by its nature.

Many Ex-Obamaists will mentally rearrange their histories, re-narrating 2008 - this time claiming they didn't take part in the Obama hysteria. Many more will just slink away and hide until the next "transformative" personality comes on the scene.

In the broadest sense Obama has kept his central promise which always was nothing more and nothing less than: It's about me. His limping, former fanatics would do well to to realize that not only did we tell you that - but with every pronouncement, and every flip flop, and every excuse, and every self serving speech, and every fake Presidential seal, and every roman columned set piece, and every pompous rally - he did too.

9 things Obama can do to turn it around.

2010-01-03T15:15:00.000-08:00

How can Obama turn it around? I have a few suggestions for him below. Please note that I make them as a political observer - not as a partisan. I do not necessarily agree with what I suggest.

Obama can still swing enough independents back to his "column" to have a moderately successful Presidency if he seizes the current moment.

Dear Mr. President,

Here are my suggestions to revive your standing:

1. Lay down the law on Iran. Iran has just given the West (that means the United States) an ultimatum. Yes, that's right: They gave us an ultimatum. The circle is complete. Your year of living ambivalently regarding Iran is over. The Iranian government wants a confrontation to be sure. It shouldn't matter to the U.S. what they want.
A. Come out swinging in support of the Iranian dissidents. Speak in unqualified terms about their right to protest and have a say in the Iranian government.

B. Give Iran one month to stop enriching uranium and open nuclear sites or suffer sanctions. At the same time make clear that "everything is on the table".

A confrontation is coming regardless. We ought to come at it from a position of strength and moral authority. In short, channel Hillary Clinton

2. Get involved with the health care reconciliation in a visible and tangible way. Have some lower functionary state that the administration has been to passive thus far. Demand removal of the Nebraska bribe. Get out ahead of the brewing mandate debacle. It's a huge political risk but you must insist that the mandate and the public option are interlocked. If one goes, the other must go too. I have no illusions that this will save the public option. Fine. Then the mandate must go. If the mandate goes then the bill is essentially destroyed. Fine. If the bill passes as it is now it's a monster that will rampage through the rest of your term. Retrench and focus like a laser beam on the end of denials of coverage to the sick and the end of pre-existing conditions denials. Seize the megaphone on these 2 points. Get a simple, popular bill passed by March.

If it seems like these actions would be a catastrophe for you it's because they would be. But the Senate bill is a far worse catastrophe on all fronts. It will seal the Democrats fate in the midterms and could well make you a very early lame duck. You could triangulate a GOP congress into a second term like Bill Clinton did. However, I suspect you haven't the personality or skill. Give the House subpoena power in 2011 and the dam breaks. For this reason alone, you ought to seize control of the heath care debate at the last minute and save your majorities while you can. Even if liberals go ballistic. They'll come back by 2012. They always do.

Regarding "triangulation" saving the day - remember 2011 isn't 1995. Clinton was presiding over a resurgent economy during peace time. There was little reason to dump him. You will have a number of wars and a limping economy on your hands. Besides, the GOP is not going to nominate a Bob Dole in 2012. The Republican candidate will be strong, vital, and convincing. You should not count on "triangulation" to save you in 2012. It won't.

3. Pick a fight with Pelosi. A fight over spending is ideal. You've allowed the creation of an entity called PelosiReidObama to emerge by taking a back seat. This perceived merger is doing damage. Pelosi is unpopular and it doesn't matter a bit to her. She'll have a job in congress as long as she wants one. You, on the other hand, need to be above 50% approval. (See your media narratives. Now that you've been below 50% for a number of weeks you're lovers in the media are turning sour on you...like clockwork.) As long as you're attached at the hip in the public's mind to Pelosi you'll be hard pressed to rebound. It's not like you've never thrown anyone under the bus before.

4. Genuinely go after Wall Street corruption. Not for show. For real. Direct Attorney General Holder to prepare indictments against the worst of the Wall Street offenders. Shame anyone who fights back. Not only does Wall Street's worst have it coming...it will galvanize and inspire the public. People are angry. So far you've ceded this anger to the Tea Partiers.

5. Reverse Holder's decision on the terrorist trial in New York. You should make a public statement that you have faith in Eric Holder but in this case you've reviewed the ramifications of a public, civilian trial and decided it would do harm to the nation and is not the proper course. There will be hell to pay - for 3 news cycles.

6. Stop golfing. Get over it, dude. you'll be a relatively young, unemployed, gazillionaire in a matter of years. Golf later. The imagery around golfing is not politically tenable in 2010. Simple political rule: During good times Presidents are allowed to golf. During bad times they are not. George H.W. Bush was always getting off a golf cart to make a statement to the press. He looked out of touch. He lost. George W. Bush golfed for a bit - then swore it off as the war worsened. He won.

7. Use Michelle more. She may not like it - tough - but she needs to be out with people. Working people. Normal people. Think Eleanor Roosevelt.

8. No more TV shows...at least until 2012....late in the year...The law of diminishing returns has long since taken affect. Again, it's not 1997. Times are tough. People don't want you on Leno. They want you at work. People have, ironically, decided you are "likable enough" even as they've turned on your policies. This will change if you keep popping up on TV shows every third day.

9. Finally, no more blaming Bush - even by implication, even if it's clearly Bush's fault. It's your job now. Own it. Even the stuff that makes you look bad. Use your collapse in the polls as a "teachable moment". The lesson? Stop being a defensive celebrity and start being a President.

We knew Obama was a fraud before it was cool.

2010-01-02T19:48:00.000-08:00

The attack on the devious Jane Hamsher by Riverdaughter and Alegre's Corner (H/T to Make Them Accountable) is a blast of clean spring air. Pacific John is particularly refreshing:

"But I believe in redemption, and would welcome back everyone this side of Markos. All it takes is a simple admission - to themselves and to the base of the party - "We were wrong."

Emphasis mine. Anyone who has ever recovered from anything knows the first step is an admission of culpability and acceptance of responsibility. It does not matter how they go after Obama now if they do not see, admit to, and amend their psychotic behaviour in 2008 - which lead to the current state of affairs. The childish, misguided "creative class" acted as the willing mercenaries of the DNC, Donna Brazille, David Axelrod, and Goldman Sachs. Until they own their malfeasance, THEY REMAIN TOXIC.

This is not merely a matter of one candidate defeating another by any means necessary, or a group vilifying one of the most accomplished women in American life for the benefit of an unqualified, ninny of a man. What's on the table here is the studied, planned neutering and enfeeblement of an entire political party ( a process that is well underway.), the castration of the real Left, the end of the progressives for a generation, and the final seizure of the government by the most rapacious elements of the financial elite. That was the plan. That's what is happening. The infantile prog-o-sphere must be held to account for their part in it.

Not only would it be foolish for former Puma blogs to show support for Americablog, FDL, Huffington, or Kos now that they are coming to and questioning their former god - it's dangerous. The colossal lack of judgement can not and should not be papered over with a few sane (er) blog posts.

A real, public, apology is a start. But only a start.

Is it legal?

2010-01-02T13:48:00.001-08:00

Update: Diane pointed out that Kenneth A. Klukowski does not represent the ACLU as I claim below. She's right. He represents the ACRU - a right wing legal group. In my excitement that some sanity may have appeared on the Left I misread the WSJ piece. I'll let my mistake sit there for all to see. It doesn't affect my sense that the legal troubles for this bill are substantial.

As predicted the constitutional issues raised by the health care bills are getting more play. This should not surprise anyone. The most unconscious American can gut check what we know about the bill and know it's not right. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to sense real problems. Ironically, the current President is - allegedly - a constitutional scholar. But even Obama's previous criticisms of a mandate were never based in its constitutionality. It is unclear what Mr. Obama's "scholarship" entails. It is quite something that his signature policy thus far will probably to litigated to death on constitutional grounds.

The mandate is the problem that most obviously yells "unconstitutional". The drive to force citizens into buying a private product has been so unexamined that it seems no one writing the bills even bothered to ask if it would be legal. Or if they did, the question was treated as a silly annoyance.

No more.

The good news is that both the right - and a representative of an organization many view as "left"- the ACLU - have written a piece in the Wall Street Journal questioning the constitutionality of much of the Senate bill:

It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

So write Orrin G. Hatch, J. Kenneth Blackwell and Kenneth A. Klukowski.

It's disturbing that we've gotten this far in the process without the most basic matter of legality being taken into consideration. Those who wrote the bill are blind, stupid, arrogant or all three. Possibly they thought no one would notice and they could service their insurance company masters with impunity.

I increasingly suspect that the final bill will be tied up in court for years. Given that the bulk of the law will not come into affect until 2013 it seems evident that Pelosi, Baucus, and Reid knew full well that large portions of the law would be D.O.A. They determined to get something - anything - passed under the guise of "we can fix it later." In fact, it will be gutted later. Like the foolish Guantanamo announcement a year ago, or "last minute" Obama's 'deal' in Copenhagen - this law is for show only. Without a "big event" on the agenda, Obama does not exist. His empty, cold, delayed statement about the Detroit bomber is an example of my seemingly grand pronouncement about our President: If there's nothing in it for his ego - the man barely shows up.

The health care law is in deep trouble legally and politically. Even if it does somehow get through the courts - it won't survive politically for three years and take affect. It's poison. If there are any Democrats left who don't see this they'll find out 'on the ground' soon enough.

If we are lucky the only thing left of the law after Republican state attorneys general and the ACLU are done are a few regulations that should have been in effect years ago. Possibly, in a decade or two, heath care reform will be revisited by smarter, humbler politicians.

Astrid explains: How to spot a Hater.

2010-01-01T17:00:00.000-08:00

cross posted with johnwsmart.com

Astrid asked to post something tonight. Since L.R. is an open forum I happily agreed.

Astrid explains: How to spot a Hater.
By Astrid Passionfroot.

I am sorry to have to write this post. But certain things have come to my attention and I feel it is my duty to speak up on matters concerning us all and the welfare of the universe. My words are blunt as we may be entering a difficult energy field. My astrological charts indicate that earth is converging into retrograde with the lunar trapezoid of Venus rising in the house of orbiting Neptune on the solar reef of cosmic ring nodes. We all know what THAT means!!! Trouble is brewing!

For example: A friend told my recently that my love for our Barack was misguided. He said I was like a Japanese soldier living in a cave that did not know the war was over. This boggled my mind. Why would a solider from the peaceful land of Japan be at war? Plus, I don't live in a cave. Plus, I'm from Marin County and I live in communion with nature. In a condo.

I knew my friend had become a "hater". So I had to take action! The haters are back! Just as the charts indicated! So I must help fight them any way I can! I said to myself "Astrid, yes I can write a post!" So...this is:

"How to spot a hater! and fight back!

As our Barack moves into his second glorious year as our leader it's important for all of us to stand on guard against the resurgence of the haters. Let's review so we can spot the haters in our neighborhoods, communities and families.

What is a hater?

1. A hater is anyone who questions our most exceptional President in any way - politically, personally or most exspecially: Spiritually.

2. If they are white, haters are racialists no matter what. But if they are persons of color they are just misguided and oppressed. Unless they are conservatives, then they are haters.

3. Women who are haters can also be known as "bitches" or "mothers-in-law" or "whores". It is okay to use these words for clarity and ease.

4. Haters are stupider than normal, Obama people. Haters ask questions like "Is this health care reform a good idea?" How stupid is that? Or "Why are banks getting so much bailout money?" Totally stupid.

5. Haters have secret hater meetings in basements and also different places, like Kmart parking lots and Denny's. At the meetings they offer burnt offerings, which they burn. With fire.

6. When our Barack is on TV, haters watch sports instead.

7. Haters try to pass in everyday life. They dress normal but underneath they have on secret underwear, which is not clean, and contains hand stitched pictures of Sean Hannity.

8. Haters smell like bacon.

9. Haters do not blame everything on George W Bush. This is a dead giveaway since we all know everything is Bush's fault. Some even insist that our Barack is "Bush 3". That is most stupid!!! Our Barack is not from Texas and doesn't live on a ranch. How can they be alike?

10. Haters don't watch Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow. And they don't even want to.

11. Haters never go on retreats.

12. Haters don't think Barack should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize. (That's just crazy talk!) And they don't like cap and trade. I trust Obama so much that I can say I don't really know what cap and trade is but I know it's very excellent. And might have to do with hats. Which are very important. Everyone needs one good hat!

13. Also Haters say big words to try and confuse people. Like "flip-flop" and "gay rights". Don't be fooled! Barack loves the gays. He talks to them. And agrees they should have nice things. I have some gays in my condo complex. Bruce and Gary. I tell them Obama is coming to save them from their empty lives full of racisms and Restoration Hardware debt servitude. Once I even had them over for a snack.

These are my pointers. If you know or see a Hater please report it to the White house web site: Rahmisgoingtotakeyouawayinthenight.gov.

It is sad to report that I've heard reports that some former people of Obama's light have become haters. The pull of the haters is strong and pungent, like a nice old lady who makes cookies or yoga gas. I hope this helps to spot those who want to stop the marvelous progress we've made in 2009. The glorious time of renewal and transformation with Our Barack can only continue if we are vigilant against the haters! Beware!

And always remember Barack Obama came to save us...from the haters! Let's stand firm and do whatever Barack says! Just like it's 2008 all over again!

Worst ever.

2010-01-01T07:12:00.000-08:00

I am on my annual football bender. So I continue with the polls until Monday...or i get bored with football and decide to write something...Happy 2010!

Two Presidential polls:

Who is the worst Democratic President Ever? Finals(survey software)

Who is the worst Republican President Ever? Finals(online surveys)

Potus guest appearance- finals

2009-12-31T12:06:00.001-08:00

Mid day/year end poll:

This contest is my favorite....though, I must say that I am sorry Quest for the Goblin Shark did not make the finals. (in fact, I am the only one who voted for it.)...

Barry O. is addicted to being the center of attention...what show should he appear on next?

What Television show should POTUS appear on next? Finals(answers)

Happy New Year!

2009-12-31T05:52:00.000-08:00

Posting various year end polls for the next few days...Enjoy the last of the holidays!

Predict the future! Vote for at least 2...

The biggest news event of 2010 will be....round two(polls)

Obama doesn't get it and Bush caused the crotch bomber

2009-12-30T14:43:00.000-08:00

I've stated a number of times I think bipartisanship is overrated. (This isn't to say that collegiality is overrated...we need a lot more of it right now) Still fiercely held positions bring out the best in the system and force decisions on us. The main political arguments in this country are important.

But most of the arguing should stop at the waters edge. Not all. Most. Certainly the nonsense being spewed this week from both parties regarding the crotch bomber is asinine and pathetic. Cheney said ""We are at war, and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe, a statement that is weird and false. Obama just committed 30,000 more troops to one of the wars he doesn't seem to be pretending we are not in. Since Obama came into office drone attacks on Pakistan have skyrocketed and Obama has signed off on Bush's policy in Iraq. That's an odd batch of pretending we are not at war. An honest criticism from Cheney here would be: "The president does not give the war (s) the priority he ought to. But that's not verbally poisonous enough for Dick.

Meanwhile the Dems - in post Janet "heck of a job" Napolitano cringe mode - have decided to blame Bush for the crotch bomber. I can't say that Cheney didn't ask for it or that the complaint doesn't have some resonance. However, it's beside the point. The central issue here is the safety of airplanes and the people on them. The system failed in this case. Whereas George W Bush made major mistakes, he did not let that sad, homicidal kid on the plane.

Both Cheney and certain Democrats are using this moment to distract and score points. Neither side is helping. It is disheartening. But mostly it's pathetic.

Morning links

2009-12-30T06:41:00.000-08:00

Cross Posted at JohnwSmart.com

Epigenome, Freemium, Geoengineering, Ecohacking, Minute mentoring, Paywall, Unfriend: The new words and phrases of 2009.

Debt Slavery. How it works: 93 percent of all financial wealth is controlled by the top 10 percent of the country. That is why these people are cheering their one cent share increase while layoffs keep on improving the bottom line.

Honorary Gay of the Day: Zelda Rubinstein. Ms. Rubinstein, a fierce gay rights advocate, has been taken off life support. Do not Go into the light, Zelda!

Mexico Failing: Given that legions of police officers and politicians have been bought off by the drug capos...

Husker revolt: In recent poll Nelson Gets his teeth kicked in over heath care

Poll:

For God Sake: Profile.

2009-12-29T15:43:00.000-08:00

And now to piss a few more people off....

I have little problem with profiling. There seems to be technology out there that would stop future crotch bombers. It also seems that it will be years before it's in place everywhere. When, and if, it finally is - there will no doubt be ways to evade it. Nothing will stop the smart and determined killer intent on killing. However, we can make it much harder for them to kill.

In the (very) mean time we ought to profile. It's an immediately available tool. And it's do-able. The plane bombers from 1993 on are pretty consistent demographically. The Detroit incident would not have happened - and nearly succeeded - if the Nigerian kid who paid cash and checked no bags had been pulled aside. The Fort Hood massacre would not have happened had the killer been profiled and had that profile been acted on. It's a damn shame many innocent and good people will be picked out of a line, embarrassed, and inconvenienced. And some will be the brunt of bigotry and discrimination. That is awful. It should offend the sensibilities of all good people. And all good people will have to deal with it and get over it.

It's hard to stomach seeing our elected officials insisting they are doing everything in their power to stop these events when they are not. For God's sake: Profile.

The deification of feelings needs to end. It is poison. Potential hurt feelings are not more important than the possible murder of scores of innocents. Our national history of discrimination does not take precedence here either. We are not obligated to treat everyone exactly the same at airline ticket counters.

Though I must add that even profiling of certain demographics will fail. Lily white jihadists pop up and will continue to. I'd even say that working class white men with mass murder on their mind will see a growth spurt in the coming years....if not months... Frankly, white American dudes in pick up trucks outside Federal buildings ought to be profiled as well.

Is it unfortunate that it's come to this? Yes, it surely is. Yet, it has. Get over it.

morning links 'n such.

2009-12-29T06:37:00.000-08:00

Today's section of the mural titled, "Oh my, How did I miss that Obama's a full of shit fraud?" is painted by one of 2008's most voracious Barack ass lickers and the former President of the B.D.O.P.P. - Brain Dead Obama Pod People - David Sirota.

Saw this at Deadenders. It sez it all in 40 seconds.

Goldman Sachs = deadly bacteria

TSA = Terrifyingly Stupid Administration.

Gay of the Day: New U.S. Marshal Sharon Lubinski.

Poll:

Creepiest talking heads in 2009 - Round two/Vote for 2(polls)

Morning Links at night!

2009-12-28T14:50:00.000-08:00

Do not miss the brilliant How the Bro Stole the Country.

Cine gets better and better....Is Hillary hiding in plain site?

To slur with love: Baucus drunk?

Astrid Tweets: Did u c r great leader take on the leg bomber? He knows all about rich bombers cuz of his old friend Bill Aryes! Barack will protect us 4 sure!

Oil jumps.

Short and not at all sweet: Stop the Cornhusker kickback, YES WE CAN!

2009-12-27T22:01:00.000-08:00

No special treatment for Nebraska. Citizens in the other 49 states must stand up and reject Nelson's bribe. It is immoral, unjust, unethical, unfair, untenable and unconstitutional. We will be footing the bill for Nelson's backroom deal and Harry Reid's criminal malfeasance.

NO. This corruption must not stand.

predictions

2009-12-26T15:43:00.000-08:00

Tonight I'll cross into the danger zone and make a few predictions for 2010. Note that I'm working only with hunches based on observation. My psychic abilities rank just below my basketball abilities.

So here we go:

1. Obama will recover a bit in the polls in the first few months of 2010 putting him above 50%. This will occur because:

2. He and the Democrats will pass some sort of health care "reform" and with whiplash inducing abruptness move toward talk of jobs and the deficit. It will be jobs and the deficit 24/7 in the new year. Though the health care bill is enormous and game changing, next to no one will see any changes in 2010. The law is set up as a negative inducement for the next 2 elections....They want to reverse the amazing Obama's historic progress and take away your health care. That is its primary political value in the near term. After January, talk of the health care will be shoved aside until October.

Also please note then whenever an abrupt change in meme is being planned Obama heads to Hawaii....where he is now with his family. Rahm also tends to be "out of the country" just prior to a shift in WH talking points. There is nothing special about this - it just seems to work that way.

3. The Obama bump in the polls will peter out by April, jobs being easier to talk about then to create. The mass psychological stance toward Obama has changed from hope to tolerance in 2009. He must now put up or shut up. This will be difficult for him to say the least.

4. The economy will bump along in an alleged recovery at least into the first quarter of calendar 2010. Possibly the first two. Something will give in the markets by summer...or before. The market will fall below 10,000 in 2010.

5. The probability of an act of domestic terrorism is high in 2010. By this I mean a criminal act perpetrated by an American on Americans. Hope I'm wrong.

6. The GOP will make huge gains in congress. The house could very well become GOP. I believe the Senate will remain Dem. However, a new majority leader will be elected as Reid will lose his seat.

7. Oil will pass the 100 dollar a barrel mark again by summer.

8. Iran...oh Iran....I thought this crisis would have come to a head by now. It will in 2010. Obama's ego driven need to "engage" has removed his natural fall back position - splitting the difference. The gray area has evaporated. W and crew desired confrontation - but now it's the Iranian regime that will want a confrontation. The mullahs have outflanked Obama all year. Still, the domestic clock is ticking and they know it. Nothing ensures their continued power in Iran like a confrontation with the West.

9. Cap and trade is dead and will remain dead in 2010.

10. "Chicago style" thuggery within the administration will become more apparent as the year progresses. The GOP - smelling blood - isn't likely to go along with much that Obama proposes. Both Rahm and Obama have little experience not getting their way. Their tactics will will get harsher.

Yes, Mr. Reid, but is it constitutional?

2009-12-25T19:57:00.000-08:00

It's good to see the HC mandate getting some traction in the blogosphere. It's bothered me for a while - mostly from a political standpoint - but also because the constitutional questions are so apparent. It seemed to me that the mandate needed some selling to go over. Instead it was ignored in the media and the public debates - which have focused on "government takeover" and expense. Yet, the imposition of a law to force the purchase of a product from a private entity is clearly the most radical element of the bills. It has never been done before on the Federal level. Even a public option or expansion of medicare pales in comparison. Both would have extended or expanded a structure already in place: A tax is imposed and a service is rendered.

The idea of a federal mandate is not settled law. Medicare-for-all invites the normal American arguments about the size of government. The mandate is something else entirely. The nonsensical car insurance analogies have been discredited. (The Feds don't demand one drive. The states merely say if you do you must be insured.) The mandate itself is weak - that does not matter though . The problem is the precedent. If Congress can force one to purchase health insurance - what else can it force one to buy? Stocks to support the private militias? Defense also provides a group benefit. What stops the congress from demanding that I spend less on Coke and more on bottled water - since it's better for me? Or more broccoli and fewer donuts? If we all ate more vegetables the country would probably be better off. Type 2 diabetes rates would plummet. That's bound to save some money.

Those who are pro mandate point to the commerce clause:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

I don't see how this covers the individual mandate. You and I are not states, countries or tribes. Both the Senate and House HC bills regulate an individual's use of a portion their money. YOU MUST BUY THIS. Again, if a tax was imposed to provide a service - paving the roads, a standing army, a public option - one could rightfully call it representative taxation. Our representatives are free to impose taxes then stand for reelection defending them. Congress cannot force us to buy private insurance any more that it can force us to buy cantaloupes. Or, if they can, I'd like to know on what constitutional basis.

A large number of conservative groups - and a few liberal groups - will contest the mandate in court. (I would not be surprised to see the ACLU bring a case on behalf of a mandate dissenter who refuses to either buy insurance or pay the fine.)

The mandate will become the lightening rod of the health care debate going forward. It's one of the few places where the over use of the word "liberty" is not disingenuous. Real Constitutional questions are raised. Even if courts initially side with the mandate, the politics on the ground will be ugly. If the GOP has any sense left it will hammer at the mandate. In GOP and "blue dog" districts it is red meat. Conversely, the best political argument for the Democrats is Social Security - though that is a weak. Whereas workers are forced to pay upfront - the money is not going to a privately held corporation.

The arguments over the mandate will be loaded and rich. I'm looking forward to the battle.

"That kid of Loudon Wainwright's, you know the gay one, sure is a dandy song writer...."

2009-12-25T07:48:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas...Again! See you all Saturday....

People love the working man
Who does the best that he can
But don't forget all the horses and toys
Never could fix the poor little rich boys
People say they love the maid
Who sweats and toils just like a slave
But don't forget all the diamonds and pearls
Never could fix the poor little rich girls

You can measure it in blood
You can measure it in mud
Let us say for these twelve days
Put the measuring away

Cause it's Christmas
And the spotlight's shining on Christmas
And the spotlight's shining on us

People love and people hate
People go and people wait
But, don't forget Jesus, Mary, and Joseph
Once were a family poor but rich in hope, yeah
Don't forget Jesus, Mary, and Joseph
Running from the law, King Herod had imposeth
And they were each one quite odd
And mensch, a virgin, and a God
But don't forget that what kept them aflow
Floating through the desert doesnt take a boat no
Don't forget that what kept them above
Is unconditional love

And, you can measure it in blood
You can measure it in mud
Let us say for these twelve days
Put the measuring away

Cause it's Christmas
And the spotlight's shining on Christmas
And the spotlight's shining on us
And the spotlight's shining on Christmas
And the spotlight's shining on

People love the working man
Who does the best that he can
But, don't forget all the horses and toys
Never could fix the poor little rich boys

Merry Christmas

2009-12-24T16:45:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas to all!

Morning links

2009-12-24T01:05:00.000-08:00

Good news: And surprising too. The crime rate is down.

Obama is a fierce advocate of Gay rights...not...FDL: In the midst of all the outrage against the Senate health care monstrosity spectacular once-in-a-lifetime triumph, we should remember that women are not the only demographic getting thrown under the bus

Facebook is a disease: Social networking joins addiction list.

Reid and Pelosi to American people and government by and for the people-"go to hell": Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a "ping-pong" game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors

Poll:

Ice skating downtown:

John Smart is so gay- An awkward Christmas post about religion, being gay, marriage and me.

2009-12-23T17:57:00.000-08:00

A conversation erupted about my sexuality in comments below. This came out of a comment about gay marriage and is weirdly flattering....so sure I'll bite....here are my thoughts on subjects I find only moderately compelling: My religion and my sexuality. Which are somehow (no sure how) connected in my head tonight.

Religion
So I don't write much about my sexuality or my religion. (When I've touched on religion I've usually regretted it. ) My religion influences vast swatches of my thinking. Not all, but a hell of a lot. Since I'm often angry as hell, this blog is often angry as hell - so feel free to do what ever you want with the statement that religion influences me. I might muster a defense. But probably won't.

Here's another truth: My religion doesn't matter here. I do not have an evangelical bone in my body...a few tendons here and there sure...but I don't give a damn what most people believe in the "god" department - or if they believe anything at all. Sometimes atheists piss me off - but certain Christians anger me much more often. Further, I don't think "God" has an agenda except possibly "watch closely and try harder". If God has an agenda and god is God then the current state of affairs really speaks poorly of God. In my version God is radically impersonal and unconditionally loving. Look close enough and one concludes that God could not be the latter without being the former.

Here's a tidbit I've found true for me: My conversion was of a type that rendered evangelising moot. In general I find it dangerous and beside the point. Even if I did believe in the version of religion that gets the most play in the U.S. (I don't) it's doubtful I'd trust anyone who led with it. Leading with one's humanity is hard enough. Leading with some version of "god" is usually a way to avoid one's humanity.

So, lets get this out of the way. Straight up: I believe in the major "plot points" of the Jesus religion - except the virgin birth. I believe with all the Anglo-Catholicism I can muster in the Beatitudes...and I don't have a handle on them. I believe the beatitudes and the prodigal son story are the core of Christianity and I sense most Christians can't abide either. (How could the wayward punk possibly be given a party!!??) I believe the word "saved" is the most misused, misunderstood word in the religious lexicon. Everyone is saved already. That's the point. The lesson of the Christ story from beginning to end is this: You are already saved....here's a charismatic Jew who will prove it...allow wisdom to re-emerge (The Christmas Story) and do not fear death (The Easter Story) and along the way things that seem like miracles will occur (the second act/ministry portion of our narrative). Whatever "original sin" may have existed is now and forever nullified. For me follow me means follow my lead. No more. No less. Allow wisdom, don't fear death...see what happens.

That's it. My evangelical tendon hath been given its 15 minutes. Onward to the gay stuff:

As for me being gay - I'm pretty gay all in all. I don't like the label personally. I use it for clarity and ease...and I've fallen in romantic love with women in my life though generally I'm clearly more oriented toward my own gender.

The sub culture usually attached to gay men doesn't appeal to me. I try - and often fail - to avoid judging it. It evolved into its current state out of self preservation. Most places it is a safe ghetto for young gay men. Most straight people do not understand how truncated gay people's development is in this culture. This is because most straight people don't understand their own development. The blossoming of sexuality happens in youth for most people. Gays are not allowed this. They must go off and find their way later. For men at least gay ghettos are the first place this can happen.

Like old Jewish ghettos, I hope gay ghettos fade away. Jewishness is now almost fully integrated into our national life and Jewish contributions have not faded. "Gay of the day" is my little effort to inform people that gay people's contributions are important and valuable. And everywhere. One example: without the Jews and the gays we'd be at a huge humor deficit, not to mention a huge intellectual deficit....or another: a same sex oriented man - Alexander - pretty much created the world we live in. The way we speak English and think about the human mind is hugely influenced by an almost certainly bisexual Shakespeare. Patriarchy being what it is, the contributions of lesbians are less apparent to me. However, the arts, literature, politics...everything owes a debt to gay women.

Marriage:
The problem many straights have with gay marriage is the word marriage. This is seen by many heterosexuals as their special right. Those who say "gays are equal in all areas except this one special area" are more pernicious than out and out gay bashers. They are in the "I have black friends! I swear!" group. Or the uglier "Colored folk are fine but I don't want them in my neighborhood." category. "You can have all the rights of everyone else except one" makes second class status brutally obvious and is an attempt to normalize degradation.

As for Jesus - well, the new testament Jesus I read would not only support gay marriage he'd put on the Rabbi clothes and perform marriages. Paul had issues. He had a quick conversion - not a slow evolution - which as we know - often leads to stridency. His letters are beautiful and important. I choose to look past his blind spot.

There it is. My sex and my religion. Pah Rum Pum Pum Pum.

My Christmas/Solstice/December hope for everyone: May everyone let wisdom in. Give it room to emerge. Yes, let "light" in...but remember that light means wisdom. If you are a worshiper, I hope you put on your Wise man Sunday best and pay homage to your better angels. At home or church or Walmart or alone in your room..actually, preferably alone in your room...If you're not religious I hope you ignore the rest of us - and I hope you take inventory of your knowledge and allow the wisdom in it to become apparent.

Finally, I have no idea how to write a post like this with all the important element humility. If it reads as arrogant please forgive my trespasses...or don't and let me have it.

Wednesday night thoughts.

2009-12-23T14:39:00.000-08:00

Slaughter the bill. Rep. Louise Slaughter said today: Supporters of the weak Senate bill say 'just pass it-any bill is better than no bill,' I strongly disagree... a moment of sanity in D.C. this Christmas week. It now looks as if the final bill will not be ready before the State of the Union...though I question this floated meme. We shall see. Obama is so driven by the need to be seen as a saviour I wonder if the poll numbers on the health care bill are finally spooking him. It may be politically advantageous to pass it after his next big speech - then move abruptly to jobs creation talk. POTUS can use the speech to emphasize jobs...the health care debacle concludes disconnected from an Obama speech. Imagine BHO triumphantly entering the House the day after the most partisan, least popular bill in 100 years has passed. Well over half the nation would fine the imagery revolting.

Move on malfeasance. Tamerlane forwarded an email from Move On arguing against the Senate HC bill. I'm so disturbed by the bill I find any opposition gratifying. Move On's 5 reasons:
#1 Deny Americans the choice of a public option. In contrast, the House bill contains a national public option, the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs.#2 Leave insurance unaffordable for some lower income and working people. Both bills require virtually all Americans to buy insurance. But even with the subsidies provided, some families could have to pay up to 20% of their income on health care expenses.#3 Impose dangerous restrictions on women's reproductive health care. Unfortunately, both bills do this and the House provision is worse. Both versions would be a dangerous step and neither should be in the final bill.#4 Tax American workers' health coverage to pay for reform. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the hard-won benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on only the wealthiest Americans-a far better approach.#5-Allow insurance companies to remain exempt from anti-trust laws.

I mostly agree on these points. However, Move On deserves what it is going to get soon enough- pitched into the rubbish bin of irrelevancy. Their despicable ass kissing of Obama in 2008 is not forgotten or forgiven.

Finally: A horror story. A number of thinkers have wondered aloud when Mexico will become a failed state. One must now ask - has it already collapsed in all but name? Mexico drug raid hero's family slaughtered

morning links...a day without morning links is like a day without moonshine.

2009-12-23T06:50:00.000-08:00

MJ: Obama's Wall Streeters.
As Predicted: HC Bill faces legal challenges. The mandate has a huge constitutional problem. If it isn't unconstitutional - it ought to be. H/T AnonoMouse
Sorry, have throw the F bomb:Obama's a fucking liar..."I didn't campaign on the public option,"
Gay of the The Day: American photographer Alice Austen
Olbermann Style Fisty Cuffs: Darwin V Creationists.
Poll- Most Admirable - round two

Most Admirable American Political/ Public Figures 2009 - round two(trends)

Christmas Tree at The Grove

Thanks Obama!

2009-12-22T15:22:00.000-08:00

Open call for writers. (John is tired.) Almost any topic. Send to john@liberalrapture.com

No Post tonight. Enjoy this place holder:

H/T Jay...

Late Links!!!!!

2009-12-22T07:53:00.000-08:00

Why he's failing: We have seen the same pattern of pretty speeches followed by empty exhortations on issue after issue. (H/T James)

Negative 21: Chicago Slim's approval today.

Fisty Cuffs: Four Adulterers go into a room....

Gay of the day: Alexander. Cuz I started re-reading a bio of him last night...

Poll: Buffoon of the year: round two. Top two move to the finals.

Scandals of 09:

On ignoring the people.

2009-12-21T14:43:00.000-08:00

Having watched politics for so long, I have to admit, I've never seen anything like what the Democrats are doing with health care. To use the most overused word of 2009 - it strikes me as unprecedented. With every controversial issue in my lifetime the views of the population were taken into account. Enough of us were massaged, convinced, or convincingly lied to before leaders made a move. Even when the goal was duplicitous, politicians labored under the conceit that citizens mattered. With health care - convincing the country has been abandoned. It does not matter.

If something like the Senate version finally becomes law it will be a tragic, watershed moment. Government by the people - even the idea of it - will be lethally damaged. This is so obviously and openly a gift to a small elite of voracious companies one can only conclude that the operating assumption with Obama and the Democratic leadership is fuck the people. It's not sneaky earmarks, it's not quietly inserted political payoffs - it's blatant commandeering of the process to benefit the few. There isn't even a pretense that the governed matter.

Why? Of course, money is a main factor. This is obvious as Louisiana and Nebraska get pay days. Health care insurance companies get a forced revenue stream. Still we should not take the power of money as the ultimate lesson here. The Rubicon being crossed is more essential. Two branches of our government have decided that even pretending we matter is irrelevant. We're past Bush and Rove massaging us with hysterical lies. The oligarchy is now openly and shamelessly dictating. And why shouldn't they? Since 2000 they've gotten whatever they demanded. War, wiretaps, TARP to name some biggies....there does come a point when the pretense of democracy is tiresome. Corralling an entire population for a single group of corporations is hard work. Who has time to take the people into account? Effort is better spent bribing senators.

We have moved into uncharted waters. I don't know how people will react when the full scope of this new law becomes commonly known. That those who created the law don't give a damn what we think is obvious already.

Finally, there is one other reason this pile of horseshit is being shoved down our throats...one man's fragile ego. He's got a big speech to make next month after all - that's more important than us.

morning links, etc

2009-12-21T06:13:00.000-08:00

Send some love to No Sheeples Here. They featured this blog "in the spotlight" a few weeks back and I appreciate it. It's a Conservative blog...and I - wearing my faded blue - check it out regularly.

Because I love it....

Honorary Gay of the Day: The Rev. Mark Tidd...leader of a conservative evangelical church that openly invites and embraces gays.

Real Gay of the Day: Lily Tomlin...let's face it Lily could be the gay of all days. Check out her video on California health care here.

I hope the GOP kicks his ass in.

Olbermann rules Fisty Cuff: Pagans V Christians? Who wins?

Today's poll....vote early vote often...

What's the best part of christmas?(polling)

Lambs to the slaughter.

2009-12-20T16:54:00.000-08:00

Obama's planned slaughter of the Left is nearly complete.

The Sham Wow President.

2009-12-20T10:12:00.000-08:00

Don't usually post on Sunday...but.. While discussing with a friend how much easier it is now, in our Los Angeles liberal circles, to state dislike for Obama openly - He referred to Obama as the "Sham Wow" President....He's not just a sham he's SHAM WOW

I am nearly certain nothing will make me happier today than hearing a true blue liberal calling Obama the Sham Wow President.

The Nebraska Compromise. (bend over, you're about to be f***ed)

2009-12-19T16:21:00.000-08:00

Wanna know why the Senate of the United States may be the most corrupt institution on earth? Nebraska does not have to pay for Medicaid...while the rest of us chumps in the other 49 states do.

All of us should be raising holy hell about Nebraska's payoff. The system is broken. If this bill finally passes the system will be beyond repair.

Saturday Thoughts.

2009-12-18T22:34:00.000-08:00

I'm sorry - what happened in Copenhagen exactly? The narrative lost me. The nations of the world get together to negotiate an agreement. They fail miserably. So 5 nations negotiate an "agreement" which amounts to a list of hopes and good intentions except this alleged agreement is non-binding so it's not really an agreement at all.

Huh...okay...so how is this progress?

The good news is that our POTUS got to make another speech (Are these speeches like blood to a vampire? Without one scheduled regularly does Barry wither away?). He also got pics snapped for the MSNBC/White House web site (same thing) with various "concerned" and "on the job" poses. The POTUS then high tailed it out of Europe because of bad weather...an obvious, yet still sublime, final plot point.

Speaking of odd narratives...I saw Nine last night. It's an aching mess of a movie that I found absolutely compelling. Not because of the skilled performers (they abound) or the musical numbers (some are good, some are not.) or because it honors or recreates the vitality of Fellini. It does not. Fellini's 8 1/2 is about being blocked artistically. This version of Nine, which is based on 8 1/2, is about exhaustion. Every character is worn out; the mother, the wife, the confidante, the mistress, the leading lady, the "blocked" director - who isn't blocked at all, he's just bloody tired. Everyone is. The main character's genius has long since lapsed into narcissism - and even the narcissism has lost its aplomb -which gave this movie about an Italian movie director from the 1960s a timely American quality. This seems to be where much of the country is right now: Exhausted by decades of narcissism.

Nat Hentoff

2009-12-18T14:40:00.000-08:00

Tonight: Please read the interview of Nat Hentoff here. As bombastic as I can be about Obama I rarely state my deepest suspicions. I still won't. However, I will say I take very little issue with Hentoff's critique of him.

Friday morning grab bag...

2009-12-18T06:49:00.000-08:00

Don't Miss: Sketchy Santas (Thanks Jay!)

Gay of the Day: Actor Steph en Fry. Note to Self: over holiday find and view Stephen Fry/ Hugh Laurie comedy show from the 90s.

You Lie! Ratigan kicks wall street pimp/congressman in the nuts.

Olberman style Fisty Cuffs: today Texas v California.

In case you missed it: Clintons revenge on Chicago Slim in full swing.

Poll

What's the most important news story this week?(online surveys)

The errand boy runs aground on a reef of tea.

2009-12-17T16:15:00.000-08:00

Way back in the olden times (say March or April) this blog suggested that the "tea party" protests hit a core American nerve and should not be dismissed. The use of "tea" to protest taxes was a giveaway that at least the theatrics would have deeper appeal than most were willing to admit publicly. After all, a tax protest is the reason the country emerged in the first place. Tax protests land somewhere after Apple Pie and before Mom in our mythology.

Astroturfing is an overrated phenomenon. Big money and big interests can prime the pump - they cannot force a sea change in attitudes for long unless masses of people really do feel a certain way or are ready to buy in.

The phrase "Tea Party Movement" now out polls both the GOP and the Democrats. On the one hand this means little. Many have turned sour on Obama and the Democrats this year, yet the GOP has no single, clear leader. One might replace the phrase "tea party" with "committee to rescue cats" and it would poll well against the two exhausted behemoths in D.C.

On the other hand, we should assume that most people have a general sense that 'tea party' equates to "tax revolt" or "stop the out of control spending". They know exactly what "tea party" means and are supportive. The shift in attitude on this point is stunning. Not even a year ago a majority supported both the stimulus and health care reform. This has reversed. Last December we were in the midst of a moment of renewed "hope". There was a sense that a new era of good feeling was dawning. No more. Government is seen as the problem again. Could the attitude be reversed again? Maybe. I do not see Obama leading the way however. He has many political skills. Resilience after taking a hit is not one of them. Note that when Hillary refused to quit - he limped to the nomination with the entire media and the DNC establishment pushing him to the finish line.

What does this mean politically? A shift to the Right in D.C. - though not necessarily in the nation which isn't shifting so much as at is reasserting a position it's been in all along...slightly right of center. Obama won the middle because he implied he was a man of the middle. (He's not) The middle bought it. He also won the Left because he implied he was a man of the Left. (He's not.) The Left bought it.

What is Obama then? An errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill. A bill none of us feel it's fair to pay, a bill that is exorbitant extortion, a bill that does not reflect services rendered. It is an invoice from the moneyed elites demanding even more money from the middle class. Obama's job is to extort the cash while pretending he's not. Mrs. Clinton didn't have the gall or duplicitous nature to succeed at this task. The elites knew it. Therefore she was buried in the 2008 primaries.

I won't predict the next election's outcome. The GOP should do well but that's hardly a prediction. It's a weather report. The "tea party" surge could overrun the GOP as well as the Democrats if the jobs picture does not brighten drastically and the inner elites of the GOP remain ossified. Also, don't think once health care is put to bed as a daily story that the Democrats won't high tail it back to the land of job creation and deficit control. They will. For 10 months. The huge raise in the debt ceiling now is to avoid doing it at election time. Politics 101.

I WILL predict another 'black swan' event as the deciding factor in the mid terms. (The choices are GOP gains or GOP tidal wave.) In August of 08 I predicted an 'unforeseen' event dictating the outcome...the crash happened right on cue. The same financial elites who mowed down opposition to Obama are now demanding deficit control. Funny, that hardly mattered to them when the banks were at the teet. Do not be surprised if the 'black swan' is financial.

Astroturfing the beginning of the tea party movement was never the story. With Obama's agenda the movement was going to happen regardless. Post populist outburst astroturfing is the story now. Who will seize the moment and the movement? The story of power in this country is one of harnessing the emotions of the masses to be used for the benefit of the few. Many will claim the mantle of tea party populism while taking boatloads of cash from not so special interests. The GOP ought to benefit. But if Republicans morph the anger into support for the same corporate cabal that is traditionally in their camp it will successfully castrate the tea party movement. Replacing Blue Cross and ACORN with Haliburton and Exxon-Mobile does not a revolution make.

Watch. Closely.

Agree or not, the tea party movement should be taken very seriously. Unlike Obama's election, it may actually be a watershed moment.

Morning links etc.

2009-12-16T17:27:00.000-08:00

The country of no: those believing President Obama's health-reform plan is a good idea has sunk to its lowest level. Just 32 percent say it's a good idea, versus 47 percent who say it's a bad idea.
A bit of proof that McCain would have been better: Senators McCain, Cantwell Propose Reinstating Glass-Steagall Act.
Gay of the day: Portia De Rossi schools Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
Urban Dictionary: Tiger's Wife Mad.
Olbermann Rules Fisty Cuffs: Sarah P. v. Arnold S.
Poll:

Who is the worst Democratic President Ever?(survey software)

Life in Libertopia

2009-12-16T14:09:00.000-08:00

by 'tamerlane'

It's fashionable of late to flirt with Libertarianism. As everyone seems to have their own definition of "libertarian," I thought it best to go straight to the horse's mouth. The national Libertarian Party ("LP") declares:

"Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions."

The 250,000 odd members of the LP are convinced most Americans will realize they are libertarians, too, once they know the LP platform. So let's take a look at what sort of life, based on official LP positions, awaits us in "Libertopia."

Personal Freedom / Personal Responsibility

"Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make."

The cornerstone of life in Libertopia is absolute personal freedom, and the LP often gets praise for supporting gay equality and women's choice. The LP also extends "personal freedom" to things like: no formal IDs or drivers' licenses, no obscenity laws, no eminent domain, and the legalization of all "recreational" drugs, including heroin, cocaine, and meth.

The obverse of the coin is "personal responsibility," meaning no one should ever be assisted in any way by government-no unemployment benefits, no medicare, no food stamps, no children's protective services-it's sink or swim. An exception will be made for the neediest among us-big businesses, who'll get assistance via the opening of markets and the removal of all regulations.

Crime & Public Safety

In Libertopia, you're free to do whatever you want, but you're also personally responsible for preventing others from doing whatever they want to you. For "a society can only be safe from crime when its citizens are armed." Which explains the rampant crime rates in Denmark and England, and the orderly safety of places like Houston and Oakland.

To facilitate converting your home into an impregnable fortress, there'll be no "restriction, regulation or licensing of the manufacture or private ownership of weapons." With a claymore on the porch, and a flamethrower on your night stand, you can sleep soundly.

But, if you do perchance fall victim to a crime, don't worry: your attacker will be personally responsible for reimbursing you for damages. If your own private criminal happens to be broke, you can always sell one of his kidneys on eBay.

Crime will in any case be virtually non-existent in Libertopia, since all drugs will be legal and cheap. People who chose to be addicts will be able to support their lifestyle choice with their wages from Kinkos, and won't need to rip off your stereo. Police can divert resources from drugs to catching the robbers that somehow evaded the IEDs buried in your lawn.

Role of Government

In Libertopia, the role of the government will be limited to: 1) protecting individual & property rights; 2) defending against foreign invasion. Those antiquated responsibilities of regulating commerce, providing postal service, 'promoting the general welfare', etc., will be outsourced, since "every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business." The government will be permitted a limited role in the economy to provide laissez faire encouragement of tree trade.

Education

As "education, like any service, is best provided by the free market," there'll be no public schools in Libertopia.

Health Care

It goes without saying that government will stay out of healthcare, since "federal programs are the cause of skyrocketing healthcare costs. A free market without regulation will ensure the highest quality healthcare." To help reduce your medical bills, there'll be no pesky oversight of doctors or hospitals. Insurers will be free to decline coverage to the disabled, or for any diseases or conditions. And by abolishing the FDA, big pharmas won't have the tedious burden of proving their drugs are safe & effective, and they'll pass the savings on to you.

Social Security

Everyone will be permitted to opt out of Social Security and open private retirement accounts. To cover the benefits of people still in the program, the government can simply sell off its assets. Like Yellowstone, or NASA.

Poverty & Welfare

The way to end poverty is to emphasize personal responsibility. The free market "allocates resources in the most efficient manner;" programs that "redistribute wealth" are simply not "proper." Public assistance in any case only promotes poverty, as does public education. But if you chose to help out ne'er-do-wells privately, your charitable contribution will receive a 100% tax credit.

Budget and Taxes

Since the government will have so little to do in Libertopia, the federal income tax can be repealed. By law, the government will be forced to balance its budget annually, always by cutting programs and never by raising taxes.

Business & Labor

Your personal prosperity and well-being will be secured by liberating business from the shackles of government interference. In Libertopia there'll be:

-No zoning laws;

-No regulations of any kind on industries;

-No restrictions on monopolies;

-No regulation of claims made in advertising;

-No mandatory retirement age;

-No workplace safety regulations

-No minimum wage.

Banks and financial institutions will not be supervised. With no FDIC around to

babysit you, you'll be personally responsible for making sure the bank that has your life savings doesn't go belly-up.

Barter will be encouraged in Libertopia-a good idea, as there won't be a national currency.

Immigration

The booming economy of Libertopia will require more immigrant workers, "who take jobs Americans don't want." Borders will therefore be completely open-just walk right in; no need to show us your non-existent passport.

Environment

Since "government is the primary cause of pollution," the environment will flourish in Libertopia. As "it is in their own self-interest for private businesses to protect the environment", private ownership of ecosystems and even of species will be the best way to preserve them. Naturally, all national parks and wildlife sanctuaries will be auctioned off.

Foreign Policy & Defense

The Libertopian military will be limited to resisting direct invasions. All oversees military bases will be closed, and "entangling alliances", like NATO, cut. In event of an attack, it's hoped that citizens will volunteer to fight, but of course there'll never be conscription. All government documents will be unclassified, so everyone can keep abreast of our military plans.

There'll be no foreign aid, but our government will support struggling foreign nations by sponsoring private investment by US corporations. All tariffs and trade regulations will be eliminated, allowing you and me to compete toe-to-toe with foreign workers.

A Long Legacy of Success

'Life in Libertopia sure sounds idyllic,' you're probably saying, 'but could it really work? Isn't it just a fantasy?' Not at all! At the heart of Libertarianism is the concept of anarchy-all government is bad. History is replete with examples of successful anarchist societies. Mankind's progress is a legacy of gradual movement from big, centralized governments to small, local, or even non-existent ones. In fact, the greatest achievements of civilization-the arts, medicine, science, cultivation, aqueducts, roads, cities, sanitation-have all come under the benevolent wing of anarchy. In a Libertopia, anything is possible!

Morning Poll

2009-12-16T08:12:00.000-08:00

No links today. Overslept. Except- smackdown: B. Walters versus L. King - who wins?

Vote for the worst Republican President? Can't decide? Vote again!(answers)

Kill the Bill

2009-12-15T15:47:00.000-08:00

Update: Dean is right: KILL THE BILL.

For the first time in recent memory I agree with Markos Moulitsas, master of all things Cheeto. This is his "tweet" from last night: Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate.

As far as I can tell "monstrosity" is exactly the right word. What the bill boils down to now is a mandate forcing people to buy a service whether they want it or not, ( A proposition I'm still convinced will wreck the entire bill once litigation commences.) a huge transfer of tax payer money (all borrowed in our name from the Chinese) to health insurance companies, and some stricter regulations that are past due and could easily have been passed in this Congress this year - with a 2 page bill.

Yet the bill won't die. Democrats, throwing self preservation to the wind, will pass this beast - and they will call it reform. They and Obama will claim "victory", with the main talking point being something about "trying to get this passed for 60 years...". Though, one has to wonder if FDR and Truman aren't spinning about now.

The excuses for all the bills flaws are on deck:

"We can fix this bill later",

"Social Security wasn't perfect when it passed either" and so on and so forth.

These bromides have little relationship to reality. Congress will certainly move Right in 2010 - and there will be no "fixing" of the bill in the next 11 months. Increasingly desperate Blue Dogs won't have it. After the midterm the Democrats will be severely weakened.

Further, the "Social Security and Medicare needed work after passage too" excuse misses one essential fact: It's not the 1930s or the 1960s. The nation was in debt then too - but we were still a good bet for lenders. Fiscally, the United States is a shadow of what it was even 15 years ago. Going forward the health care bill is not "fixable" for one simple reason: The country doesn't have the resources to fix much of anything. The congress seated in 2014 is not going to be ponying up cash to make health care work - it's going to be trying to keep the heat on in the capital building...and, one presumes, throwing what bones it can to the Chinese.

Like all things in the Obama era, this bill is about short term theatrics. (See Obama parachuting into Copenhagen on the last day of the conference for another example.) Reid is perfectly content to go over the falls for Obama. He's probably already ceded his own re-election and figures what the hell... As for the rest: they are either in safe seats, not running, or too drunk on being "historical" to see their political doom in the rear view mirror.

I shall mark this day in my calendar: I'm with Cheeto Man today.

Kill the Bill.