Pope refuses resignations of Irish Bishops involved in child rape scandal

Wow. This really is really disturbing. It's further proof that the Pope really doesn't get the magnitude of the child rape scandal that has engulfed the Catholic Church:

In a move that has stunned critics Pope Benedict XVI has rejected the resignations of two Dublin auxiliary bishops.

Bishop Raymond Field and Bishop Eamonn Walsh had both tendered their resignations in 2009 in the wake of the Murphy report into clerical child abuse.

Both men had come under intense pressure because they had served as bishops during the period investigated by the Murphy Commission into clerical child sex abuse in the Archdiocese of Dublin.

The Murphy Commission in Ireland found that sexual abuse was 'endemic' in boys' institutions but that the church hierarchy protected the perpetrators and allowed them to take up new positions teaching other children after their original victims had been sworn to secrecy.

Church leaders have enabled and protected child rapists for decades. Decades. Pope Benedict is the leading enabler. Still. Read More......

Dear Ruth Marcus, how was George Bush so effective when he didn't have 60 votes in the Senate?

I just find all this "woe is us" talk -- about how we don't have 60 votes in the Senate, and that being the reason that Obama fails to fight for so much of what he promised -- to be incredibly naive. To wit, today's article by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post:

Indeed, for all the derision from the left about the Bush administration not being "reality-based," many lefty bloggers and talking heads have failed to be reality-based in assessing the Obama administration.

Health-care reform, in this glass-half-empty world, is a disappointment because it lacks a public option. The president's failure to close Guantanamo or end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a betrayal. If only President Obama was willing to bang heads, name names, stand tough, he would have been able to get -- fill in the blank -- a bigger stimulus, tougher financial reform, new legislation to help unions organize.

Excuse me, but can these people not count to 60? Have they somehow failed to notice that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have not exactly been playing nice? That while the left laments Obama's minor deviations from party orthodoxy, the right has been portraying him, with some success, as an out-of-control socialist?

So much to respond to.

1. It's the President who said the public option was "the" best way to cut costs and ensure competition. So forgive us if we believed him.

2. The problem with the public option not being in health care reform is less about it "not being there," and more about the President not even trying to get it in there.

3. I'll let Glenn Greenwald tackle Guantanamo.

4. DADT. Seriously, you want to talk about DADT? Okay, let's. When do the discharges stop, Ruth? Under the White Houses's "compromise" being debated in Congress when will the discharges actually stop?

That would be the sound of Ruth Marcus's crickets.

5. The stimulus. Seriously, you want to talk about the stimulus? And then blame its insufficient size on the Republicans? You do realize that the powers that be in the White House didn't even tell the President that we actually needed a bigger stimulus? They just cut Christine Romer's proposal from the memo, dumbing downing down the stimulus right out the gate. We call that negotiating with yourself. It's a common theme in any analysis of the Obama policymaking. And now we have a stimulus bill that wasn't enough, leaving us with unbearably high unemployment, about to lose control of the House. You call that success?

6. And now for my favorite. 60 votes. Yes, but for 60 votes in the Senate, Obama would be king. It's all the fault of the Senate rules.

Funny, then, that George W. Bush had far fewer than 60 votes during his entire term, and he rocked against our Senator minority. In fact, Bush never had more than 55 votes in the Senate, and at times he had as low as 50.

How exactly did he do that, Ruth? Not having 60 votes and all. I thought not having 60 votes was sort of a killer deal. You're exonerated from screwing up, from not fighting back, from not even trying to get your full agenda passed because you just don't have those 60 votes, and without them, you're surely doomed. Then how did George W. Bush do it?

And finally, yes, the right has been portraying President Obama as a socialist. And no, the Republicans aren't playing "nice." I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time Republicans have demonized a Democrat, nor the first time they haven't played "nice." So what's your point? Here's an idea. Maybe, rather than trying to give the Republicans a collective hug, President Obama could start fighting back? The socialist thing stuck because candidate Obama, and then President Obama, didn't want to fight back. Again, that recurring theme.

Yes, I know, being President is hard work. And the Republicans are mean. That's simply not an excuse for not even trying to fight for what you promised.

Someone clearly is naive about politics, but it's not the bloggers. Read More......

Grayson on Gibbs: Playing the insider hand

Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson was on MSNBC recently discussing Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' now-famous rant against the Democratic base. Here Grayson calls for Gibbs to be fired, and gets press for his "Bozo the Spokesman" remark. But that's not why I'm presenting this video.

Watch Grayson carefully. He's asked point-blank to rat out members of the administration as complicit, and dodges each time, bringing it back to Gibbs and the Republicans. That's really important.

Watch first, then my take:



You and I are Dem outsiders; it's our job to kick unresponsive Dem butt, and frankly we've been doing that.

But if, as I've asserted elsewhere, our best hope is to take the Democratic party the way the pre-raptured and post-money freaks have taken the Republican party — then we will need insiders who won't dismantle the whole thing at once, but pick it apart thread by thread.

To put it bluntly, you can't kill the horse you hope to ride.

You have to tame it, via the efforts of people exactly like Grayson. So far, at least, Grayson has not violated my sense of his integrity, so I trust his calculus. And he doesn't violate that sense here; what he does do is play his current hand carefully and well.

It's a fine line, I admit, but we need people who are walking it. And good on him for that. I'd like to vote for him for president some day, sooner rather than later.

Ratting out the unworthy, that's our job, and we're glad to do it. Being in position to replace them, that's the job of people like Alan Grayson, Howard Dean, and Elizabeth Warren.

GP

(Yes I know, net neutrality; let's see how that one plays out, vis-à-vis Grayson. A man can be wrong without being corrupted.) Read More......

Please, please, please. Interview an actual liberal as to why they're upset before just assuming why they're upset.

If I see another story that talks about Democrats being upset because Obama isn't moving fast enough. Speed isn't the issue. First, an example of what I'm talking about:

He was making the point that once Obama achieved his ambitions -- passage of a health-care bill, financial reform, education reform, economic stabilization -- the carping from both the right and the left would fade.

It hasn't.

The president has succeeded in passing the bulk of his agenda over the strenuous objections of a resurgent Republican minority. But his critics, particularly those on the left, are still grumbling and unsatisfied. They say the president is not moving fast enough.

Actually there are a few fallacies in this piece.

That the President has passed the bulk of his agenda because he has passed a number of bills that bear the title of his agenda. It's really not the same thing. While a rose may smell as sweet under any other name, legislation is judged by its substance not by its title. Health Care Reform was a serious disappointment because the President simply didn't try to push for what he promised during the campaign. Just because he passed a bill is not sufficient reason for praise. We wanted him to at least try to pass the bill he promised us during the campaign. And he not only didn't get it passed, he didn't try to get it passed.

Same thing for the stimulus. Rather than fight for what he knew the economy needed, he opted for the path of least resistance because the goal was to pass a bill that could get 80 votes, rather than to pass the bill that had the best chance of helping the economy. Yes, a bill called "stimulus" passed. It wasn't big enough. We knew it wasn't big enough. But the President, for whatever reason, refused to fight for the amount he knew was needed. And now we're stuck with near 10% unemployment, the Fed is warning of another contraction, and we're about to lose control of the House in three months. I'm sorry, just not feeling laudatory.

Let's talk gay issues. Speed isn't quite the problem. It's more an issue of political homophobia, as Joe calls it. An irrational fear of gays and their civil rights, even when the 70% of the public is routinely on our side, as it is with repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Rather than simply repeal the damn law, and institute a stop-loss order in the meantime to stop the discharges, the President continues to defend DADT in court, continues to end the careers of patriotic gay and lesbian service members, and now we're debating "repeal" legislation that does everything but repeal DADT. If you think this legislation repeals DADT, then ask anyone in the White House "under this legislation, when do the discharges finally stop?" Good luck getting an answer.

For some reason, the media, en masse, is fixated on this notion - perhaps fed to it by the White House - that the left is upset with Obama because we're all so politically naive that we just don't understand how hard it is to pass legislation. Well, I worked for five years a legislative attorney for Ted Stevens. I wrote and passed legislation. I think I understand how it's done, thanks. And it's not done by negotiating with yourself and by being afraid to take on your opponents.

People aren't ticked at Obama because of the speed of his legislative accomplishments. They're ticked about the substance, and the President's unwillingness to fight for what he says he believes in. And no amount of legislation with the right title and the wrong policies is going to change that. Read More......

Scientists accused of only studying cute furry things, and ignoring the ugly

NYT:

Conservation researchers argue that only by being aware of our aesthetic prejudices can we set them aside when deciding which species cry out to be studied and saved. Reporting recently in the journal Conservation Biology, Morgan J. Trimble, a research fellow at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and her colleagues examined the scientific literature for roughly 2,000 animal species in southern Africa, and uncovered evidence that scientists, like the rest of us, may be biased toward the beefcakes and beauty queens.

Assessing the publication database for the years 1994 through 2008, the researchers found 1,855 papers about chimpanzees, 1,241 on leopards and 562 about lions — but only 14 for that mammalian equivalent of the blobfish, the African manatee.

“The manatee was the least studied large mammal,” Ms. Trimble said. Speculating on a possible reason for the disparity, she said, “Most scientists are in it for the love of what they do, and a lot of them are interested in big, furry cute things.”

Read More......

Administration gagging scientists studying BP oil disaster

From ThinkProgress:

In an explosive first-hand account, ecosystem biologist Linda Hooper-Bui describes how Obama administration and BP lawyers are making independent scientific analysis of the Gulf region an impossibility. Hooper-Bui has found that only scientists who are part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process to determine BP’s civil liability get full access to contaminated sites and research data. Pete Tuttle, USFWS environmental contaminant specialist and Department of Interior NRDA coordinator, admitted to The Scientist that “researchers wishing to formally participate in NRDA must sign a contract that includes a confidentiality agreement” that “prevents signees from releasing information from studies and findings until authorized by the Department of Justice at some later and unspecified date.”

Read More......

'La Izquierda Profesional' ain't too happy either

I guess they need a drug test too:

President Barack Obama has lost the most trusted man in the Hispanic media.

Univision’s Jorge Ramos, an anchor on the nation’s largest Spanish-language television network, says Obama broke his promise to produce an immigration reform bill within a year of taking office. And Latinos are tired of the speeches, disillusioned by the lack of White House leadership and distrustful of the president, Ramos told POLITICO.

“He has a credibility problem right now with Latinos,” Ramos said. “We’ll see what the political circumstances are in a couple of years, but there is a serious credibility problem.”

Hmm, that sounds familiar. So do this:

The shift in tone among Hispanic opinion makers is helping solidify a narrative about Obama among Latino voters. They held great hopes for the president — given his promise in a May 2008 interview with Ramos to draft an immigration reform bill during his first year in office — but he has deeply disappointed them so far.

“Latinos voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, and they expected him to keep his promise and he broke his promise,” said Ramos...

And this sounds familiar too:

An administration official pointed to the president’s accomplishments on immigration reform — his work with senators on a legislative framework, pressing Republicans to step up and delivering the speech last month to restart the discussion. But until a few Republicans break ranks, the official said, Obama is stymied.

For years, they said, Democratic leaders told Hispanics to be patient; now, their patience has run out.

This is the way President Obama operates. At some point Democrats, including the crowd that still thinks Barack Obama is their boyfriend, need to wake up and realize that the guy we voted for isn't going to do squat unless we force him to. Read More......

BREAKING: Lt. Col. Fehrenbach asks Judge to block his imminent DADT discharge

Via James Dao at The New York Times, a critical move by Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach and his attorneys at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and Morrison & Foerster. Fehrenbach has gone to court to prevent his imminent discharge under DADT:

On Wednesday, Colonel Fehrenbach’s lawyers filed papers in Idaho federal court requesting a temporary order blocking his discharge. The petition contends that a discharge would violate Colonel Fehrenbach’s rights, cause him irreparable harm and fail to meet standards established in a 2008 federal court ruling on don’t ask, don’t tell.

For advocates of abolishing the ban against gay men, lesbians and bisexuals serving openly, Colonel Fehrenbach’s case has become something of a line in the sand. Though President Obama has called for ending the ban and Congress has begun moving in that direction, gay service members continue to face investigations and discharge, albeit at a lower rate than in past years.

Lawyers for Colonel Fehrenbach assert that his case is among the most egregious applications of the policy in their experience. The Air Force investigation into his sexuality began with a complaint from a civilian that was eventually dismissed by the Idaho police and the local prosecutor as unfounded, according to court papers. Colonel Fehrenbach has never publicly said that he is gay.

However, during an interview with an Idaho law enforcement official, he acknowledged having consensual sex with his accuser. Colonel Fehrenbach’s lawyers say he did not realize Air Force investigators were observing that interview; his admission led the Air Force to open its “don’t ask” investigation.

The request for the TRO was filed this afternoon in Federal Court in Boise, Idaho.

Fehrenbach's legal team is playing hard ball with the the Air Force, the Pentagon and the Obama administration -- and they should. If the TRO isn't granted, Fehrenbach could be discharged any day.

According to the memo accompanying the request, which is posted below, "The Court may issue a TRO to prevent “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage [that] will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard” at a hearing." Victor meets that standard. His discharge is imminent.

Basically, under Air Force regulations, as explained in a footnote to the memo, when a servicemember is told that his case is being decided by the Secretary, it means that the Air Force Personnel Board has recommended a discharge -- and that's what just happened to Fehrenbach. His attorneys were told that his case had been referred to the Secretary's office:

On August 4, 2010, counsel fpr Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was informed that the Air Force Personnel Board (AFPB) had met and made a recommendation to Secretary Donley’s designee, Mr. Joe Lineberger. (Declaration of M. Andrew Woodmansee in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctipn at ¶ 13.) Pursuant to AFI 36-3206 Chapter 6.10, a recommendation by the AFPB that Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach should be retained would not need to go to the Secretary or his designee for further action. Under Air Force regulations, further action by the Secretary or his designee is required if the AFPB recommended discharge. Woodmansee Decl. at ¶ 13.

Hence, Fehrenbach knows the recommendation is for a discharge. Plus, the Pentagon admitted to the NY Times that "Fehrenbach’s case was under final review by the Air Force secretary." That's why this action was taken today -- to prevent that discharge from happening. It's a ballsy move by Fehrenbach, SLDN and his lawyers. Otherwise, one of these days very soon, Victor would be escorted off his base.

Because this is playing out in Idaho, the higher standards for discharge (must laid out by the Ninth Circuit in Witt v. Department of the Air Force should control. That works to Fehrenbach's advantage. Also, remember that in March of this year, the Pentagon imposed new "more humane" standards for DADT discharges earlier this year. That should also work to Victor's advantage as he was outed by a third party who wasn't considered credible by local law enforcement authorities.

A Federal District Court Judge in Boise should hear the request on Friday. The Department of Justice be on the opposing side and will have to argue against issuance of the TRO. Just weeks ago, the DOJ was arguing that the Log Cabin Republican's case against DADT shouldn't move forward because DADT was going to be repealed. Then, why discharge Fehrenbach?

You may recall that last year, at the LGBT cocktail reception on June 29, 2009, while so many of our "leaders" were enjoying their cocktails and reveling in their A-list status, Fehrenbach actually had a very important and substantive conversation with President Obama about his situation. According to Victor, who appeared that same night on Rachel Maddow's show:

[Obama] looked me right in the eye and he said, “We‘re going to get this done.” And then he continued to say, you know, everyone seems to be onboard. We‘ve got about 75 percent of the public that supports this. He said, but we have a generational issue. And so, there is some convincing to do, that there is a generational gap it seems and some of the senior leadership.

Well over a year later, it hasn't been done. And, Victor's lawyers know that his discharge is imminent.

So, this presents a conundrum. DOJ knows that there's a recommendation to discharge Fehrenbach on the desk of the Secretary of the Air Force. If they fight the TRO, Victor will be discharged. But DOJ told another judge that DADT is going to be repealed. So why would they want to lose a decorated war hero?

The next couple days will be very interesting. Can't wait to see how the DOJ responds.

And, while the decision to discharge Fehrenbach is on the desk of the Secretary of the Air Force, it might just as well be on the desk of President Obama, who is, after all, the Commander-in-Chief. The President has stated repeatedly that DADT presents a national security risk -- and he's vowed to end the policy. Obama said to Victor, “We‘re going to get this done.” Now is the time to do it.

I understand we'll see Victor on Rachel Maddow tonight.

Here are the Application for the TRO and Permanent Injunction and the Memo in support, which were filed this afternoon at the Federal Courthouse in Boise, Idaho:
Lt Col. Fehrenbach's TRO to prevent DADT discharge and memo. Read More......

Biden's chief economic adviser: 'John Boehner wants a lot of people to lose their jobs'

From Jared Bernstein on the White House blog:

John Boehner wants a lot of people to lose their jobs.

We were awfully surprised to hear Rep. Boehner come out for killing jobs en masse in his own state and district by stopping the Recovery Act on last Sunday’s news shows.

Though we’re sure he didn’t know it, the Congressman is advocating to kill the expansion of the Butler County Community Health Center and bring some of the twenty-five highway projects across the district to a grinding halt. Across the state of Ohio, he said that approximately 4 million working families should get an unexpected cut in their paycheck as the Making Work Pay tax credit disappears, unemployed workers should go without unemployment benefits, and major Ohio road projects like the US-33 Nelsonville Bypass project and the Cleveland Innerbelt Modernization project should be stalled or stopped. Oh, and some of the more than 100 clean energy Recovery projects employing workers across the state should be shut down.

Read More......

Kevin Drum explains the Google-Verizon anti-'Net Neutrality' deal

Kevin Drum:

[T]here are real benefits to providing routine, high-speed internet infrastructure to everyone. It means that small, innovative net-based companies can compete more easily with existing giants. It means schoolchildren can get fast access to a wide variety of content, not just stuff from Microsoft and Google. It means we have a more level playing field between content providers of all kinds. Sometimes universal access is a powerful economic multiplier — think postal service and electricity and interstate highways — and universal access to a robust internet is to the 21st century what those things were to the past. If, instead of an interstate highway system, we'd spent most of our money building special toll roads for Wal-Mart and UPS, would that have been a net benefit for the country? I'd be very careful before deciding that it would have been.

For now, then, count me on the side of a purer version of net neutrality, in which the backbone infrastructure stays robust because everyone — including the big boys — has an incentive to keep it that way. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but Verizon and Google are going to have to do the persuading. And it better be pretty convincing.

Read More......

Rand Paul didn't kidnap young woman and try to force her to do drugs 'in a legal sense'

Glad we have that one settled. Read More......

Gibbs stands by statements about 'the professional left'

From the Hill:

On Tuesday, deputy White House spokesman Bill Burton said Gibbs had answered the question about White House frustrations honestly.

Gibbs said "I would not contradict my able assistant" on that response.

So much for the not-really-an-apology. More background here. And more on Gibbs' comments today from Sam Stein. Read More......

Flexing progressive muscle — Send Boehner home to stay

Digby is right to highlight this. Here's Ed Schultz with the Beat Boehner ad, two days in a row, along with post-ad commentary by Joan Walsh:



Digby adds (my emphasis):

Blue America and our partners at Americans for America are on our own with this. The DCCC had no intention of helping Justin Coussoule run a campaign against John Boehner and as far as I can tell no intention of taking any message national. So, if we want to keep this ad on the air we're going to have to pay for it ourselves.

I don't know independently that the bolded assertions are true, but they sound right. In any case:

If you'd like to contribute to the effort you can click here. I can tell you one thing --- Boehner hates it and the local press loves it.

Action opportunity — I strongly suggest funding this ad to take it national. Strongly. Handing a pink slip to "Eye of Tiger Woods" Boehner would not only put the ball on offense (for a change!) but it would send a stunning message about how serious progressives are about this generations-long battle we're in.

Ex-Representative Boehner. Has a nice aggressive ring to it, doesn't it?

Bonus point — When I went to the MSNBC site to see the Ed vid in situ, I was given 30 seconds of agitprop on the theme "Verizon loves you and your mobile device; look at these nice shiny pictures." It's starting, folks. Watch both Google and Verizon pour millions into making you disbelieve your eyes.

What can you do? Ditch Verizon — and tell them why. Then ditch Google Chrome and do the same. Google feeds on its ads — it's their Achilles heel — and Chrome lives to show them to you.

Proactively yours,

GP Read More......

Lead religious right group wants no more mosques built in US, period

This is the "action" off-shoot of the group that led the failed boycott against Ford a few years ago (Joe and I beat them), the American Family Association. We tried to tell Ford, and every other company they try to bully, what big nuts these guys really are. And they just keep showing their true colors:

Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.

Each one is a potential jihadist recruitment and training center, and determined to implement the “Grand Jihad”...

Because of this subversive ideology, Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment. They are currently using First Amendment freedoms to make plans to destroy the First Amendment altogether. There is no such thing as freedom of religion in Islam, and it is sheer and utter folly for Americans to delude themselves into thinking otherwise.

Bottom line: it’s suicidal for America to allow terrorist training cells to crop up all over the fruited plain. And each mosque is an actual or potential terrorist training cell, as Anwar al-Awlaki has demonstrated.

American Muslims are being radicalized every single day in American mosques. We are sowing the seeds of our own destruction by allowing these improvised explosive devices to be established in community after community.

Funny how people who are bigots when dealing with gays are also bigots when dealing with other minorities. Who'd have prepared you for that? (H/t Political Correction) Read More......

Shattered Expectations: My 2 Cents

I'm paraphrasing here, but a wise boss of mine used to say the way to lead was to "energize the base and inspire the middle," and instead, President Obama has been "alienating the base and confusing the middle."

I disagree with a lot of how the now well-read Hill write is framed, but I do understand the frustration many feel when it comes to the President's performance so far. He ran on this incredibly inspirational platform of hope and change. There was a real sense that Obama could be the guy to stop business as usual in Washington and redeem government. I know I'm not alone in believing he recognized the time had come to remind lawmakers whom they worked for - the people - and remind the people that government could be on their side.

However, it's been almost 2 years, and no one feels that way.

What permeates is the sense that the President has compromised his alleged values and backtracked on his campaign promises in a way that jaded insiders would say was to be expected but the general population hoped wasn't the case. We wanted to believe. We really did. I know I did.

Advocates embroiled in the fight for financial reform, marriage equality, climate change legislation, and host of other issues can offer their insights better than I can in those particular arenas. But my personal discontent stems from my experience in the battle for health care reform. I'm glad we got something done. I'm not convinced what passed was good enough. As of last month, my insurance premiums went up once again.

Had Obama run the first two years of his presidency the same way he ran his campaign - with guts and gusto - he would have solidified the full support of his base and the middle. They would have been ecstatic to get what they voted for. But when the President almost instantaneously cloaked himself in compromise and became the guy who just wanted to be liked, he showed a weakness that disenfranchised those of us who truly believed.

We don't want Canadian health care. We don't want the feds to run it all. After 8 years of feeling cast aside, we simply want things to get better. We voted for our elected officials to put our interests first, for civil rights to apply to all citizens, for government to work for us again, and for hope and change to have meant something.

I don't understand why the White House finds that so difficult to comprehend. Read More......

Chinese News' take on the Jet Blue flight attendant flip out

You'll recall that the other day we wrote about a Jet Blue flight attendant who pulled a Robert Gibbs and creatively flipped out on the job, in this case after a passenger was rude to him. Well, it seems the story has made its way around the world, and now the Chinese news (I think) has it. The re-enactment of the scene is priceless. It's hard to imagine that this video won't make its way to Jon Stewart.

Read More......

The Fed is worried about the economy

What? The economy isn't on the path to recovery? I do wish these professional Democrats would stop trying to undermine the President.

Federal Reserve officials, acknowledging that their confidence in the recovery had dimmed, moved again on Tuesday to keep interest rates low and encourage economic growth. They also signaled that more aggressive measures could follow if the job market and other indicators continued to weaken.

The Fed, led by Ben S. Bernanke, its chairman, has shifted away from its more optimistic outlook earlier this year. “The pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months,” said the Federal Open Market Committee. The statement added that the nation’s economic recovery was “likely to be more modest in the near term than had been anticipated.”

Read More......

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Congress is gone again. The House convened yesterday to pass the jobs bill, then left town to get back on the campaign trail. Speaker Pelosi has stayed truest to the progressive agenda over the past eighteen months. She's been the real leader. It sucks that she and her caucus are bearing the brunt of Democratic voter apathy. We need her as Speaker.

The President has a meeting this morning with his national security team to discuss the situation in Iraq. Let's hope they're really talking about winding down the U.S. presence in that country. Of course, according to Robert Gibbs, those of us who want to end the war in Iraq really just want to shut down the Pentagon -- or something like that. It's disturbing how disdainful the professional Democrats in DC (electeds, long-time staffers, consultants) are towards those of us who expect politicians to keep their promises.

I just watch NBC's ace reporter, Jenna Bush Hager, interview George W. Bush on a trip to Haiti. I guess that's why NBC hired her in the first place. It was, as you can imagine, an awesome interview. Just awesome.

And, one more thing: Servicemembers United Action Fund has begun airing ads in target states that challenge the opponents of DADT repeal. And, there's a new website: militaryreadiness.org. Here's the first ad:
Read More......

Digby on Gibbs

Digby:

It's embarrassing to have David Frum point out the obvious --- that the Republicans fear their base and the Democrats hate theirs, but it has been so since I was a kid --- a long time ago. At some point they are going to realize that their demanding activist base is the way it is and that they need to figure out a way to deal with it rather than rail against it. You cannot browbeat people into loving you and you can't argue them into being enthusiastic. Certainly characterizing them in cartoon terms by saying "they want to eliminate the Pentagon", they are on drugs and --- worst of all --- suggesting they are not part of America --- isn't going to get you there.

On the other hand, if they just want to use them as doormat as a way to appeal to "the center" then they take their chances that their activists won't turn out to volunteer --- or worse. Sometimes all it takes to lose is a quixotic third party bid, 535 disputed votes in Florida and Antonin Scalia. Why would they ask for that kind of trouble?

Read More......

Stephen Hawking: Our only chance at long term survival, past next 100 years, is to colonize space

I do wish these "professional Democrats" would stop trying to undermine the President's message of hope.

The audio is only a few minutes long.
Read More......

Greenwald on Gibbs' outburst against the Democratic base today

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs went off against the Democratic party base earlier today in an article by The Hill. I responded here. And here is some of Glenn Greenwald's response:

So, to recap: (1) The Professional Left are totally irrelevant losers who speak for absolutely nobody, and certainly nobody in Real America who matters; but (2) they're ruining everything for the White House!!! And: if you criticize the President, it's only because you're such a rabid extremist that you harbor a secret desire to eliminate the Pentagon -- that's how anti-American you are! You're such a Far Left extremist that Dennis Kucinich isn't far enough Left for you, you subversive, drug-using hippies! As David Frum put it today: "More proof of my longtime thesis, Repub pols fear the GOP base; Dem pols hate the Dem base." The Democrats have been concerned about a lack of enthusiasm on the part of their base headed into the midterm elections. These sorts of rabid, caricatured, Fox-News-copying attacks on the Left will undoubtedly help generate more enthusiasm -- more loud clapping -- for the Democrats. I know I'm eager to go canvass and clap for Democrats after reading Gibbs' noble, inspiring vision. If it were Gibbs' goal to be as petulant and self-pitying as possible, what could he have done differently?

Perhaps one day the White House can work itself up to express this sort of sputtering rage against the Right, or the Wall Street thieves who destroyed the American economy, or the permanent factions that control Washington. Until then, we'll have to satisfy ourselves with White House explanations that the Real Culprits are not (of course) them, but the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything. I'll give credit to Gibbs for putting his name on this outburst: these are usually the things they say anonymously and then deny afterward on the record that it's what they think.

UPDATE: On September 9, 2008 -- roughly two months before the election -- Barack Obama addressed a large, enthusiastic crowd and said: "As president, I will lead a new era of accountability in education. But see, I don't just want to hold our teachers accountable; I want to hold our government accountable. I want you to hold me accountable." In 20 short months, we've gone from "hold me accountable" to "get drug tested," you wretched ingrates.

Read More......

More on MN Forward, Target & Best Buy

An alert reader sent us this link as follow-up to our own coverage of anti-gay Republican Tom Emmer and MN Forward, the infinite-money PAC set up to test corporate giving in the post-Citizens United world.

It's a terrific explanation of why corporate giving to troglodytes like Emmer is fundamentally (and dangerously) different than all the other ways corporations can insert money to clog the populist drain.

Carey Alexander at The Consumerist:

[Corporate] PACs were the vehicle corporations used to spend money on elections, which sounds an awful like what is happening now, but isn't. The difference is in the funding. Corporations weren't allowed to donate directly from their corporate treasury to PACs. Instead, the corporation's employees needed to donate money to the PAC as individuals. That meant a few thousand dollars from the CEO and the other board members, and anyone else who trusted the corporation to represent its interests. The PAC was limited by whatever money it could collect—that Target had millions in its corporate treasury meant nothing if they could only collect thousands from their employees. From those limited funds, the PAC could then donate to candidates and make independent expenditures.

The Supreme Court didn't like this system one bit and tossed it out in a case called Citizen's United. The reasoning . . . boils down to this: corporations, like people, have a right to speech, and because money is speech, limitations on corporate spending are unconstitutional. As a result, corporations are now free to promote their views by making unlimited independent contributions that flow directly from their corporate treasuries.

So now, [Target CEO Gregg] Steinhafel's ability to spend isn't limited by his ability to collect contributions from his individual employees. Instead, as the CEO of Target, he can use his corporation's treasury to spend as much corporate money as he wants to support whoever or whatever he wants. That's how Best Buy and Target were able to give $250,000 from their corporate treasuries to a group with a shadowy name that supports anti-gay bigots.

The article also contains an excellent discussion of what's wrong with corporations "expressing their views," and also why corp spending like this inevitably supports the most backward-looking fellows among us.

About boycotts — Keep in mind that if money is speech, your money is speech as well. So is your neighbor's. Buy at Target, get a talking-to is a rule you can apply anywhere you're standing. (And don't forget Best Buy.)

MoveOn is organizing a boycott — you can join it here. They also suggest selling the stock of early-testers of the Citizens United decision, such as Target and Best Buy. Target stock has fallen recently in the wake of the Emmer story. Our Betters are getting careless; shining a light is not a bad tactic at all.

GP Read More......

'I'm at the stage where if no one's going to give me anything on the social issues, I'll take the tax cuts.'

An interesting point in an email from a reader. Your thoughts? Read More......

More on the Robert Gibbs–Sam Youngman rant

John has responded beautifully to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' painful — and to my ears, desperate — rant in The Hill. I'll just emphasize one point that John made: It's beyond dumb to insult your paying customers the day before you open your brand new store.

But I'd like to focus on the article itself, and its writer, Sam Youngman. If you knew nothing at all about Mr. Youngman other than his profession (DC-based political writer for insider publication), what could you deduce from these comments?

Don't focus on the Gibbs' quotations; focus on the writer. Just a few snippets from the article (my emphasis):

1. The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological purity.
   
   
2. . . . the $787 billion economic stimulus package, which some liberals said should have been larger.
   
   
3. PCCC is now pressing Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren, a hero to the left, as the first head of the new consumer protection office created by the Wall Street reform bill.
   
   
4. [Obama] also added diversity to the Supreme Court by nominating two female justices, including the court’s first Hispanic. Yet some liberal groups have criticized his nominees for not being liberal enough.
   
   
5. The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right . . . Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.

I don't know what you get from this; I get that Sam Youngman is doing Gibbs and Obama a huge favor by adopting all of Gibbs' messaging in his own "reporting," as though Gibbs comments were prima facie correct. Which would be fine if Gibbs were right; but each of the statements above contains fallacies and errors:

1. Straw man argument; no "liberal" says that.
   
2. Misrepresents the economic objection — Stiglitz and Simon Johnson are hardly liberals. And they, along with Krugman, certainly carry a tad more gravitas than the label "some liberals" would connote.
   
3. Ignores the real reason for wanting her nominated.
   
4. Change "yet" to "and" — why wouldn't liberal groups want liberal judges? But it's not a complaint without "yet".
   
5. Adopts Gibbs attack phrase as his own.

And then there's this — you can almost hear them both spit when the word "liberal" comes out their mouths. And as for "professional left" — nicely crafted to inspire contempt. Almost as bad as "professional politician" or "professional PR writer" in its ladies-of-the-night implications.

Conclusion: This is not just Gibbs' rant — it's Youngman's rant too. Fair enough, but he needs to own it as his.

And we need to see the whole piece for what it is — either a gift or a trade. If it's a trade, pay attention; perhaps down the road you can spot what Youngman got.

GP Read More......

Borosage on why Obama's having problems

Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America's Future:

1. The left was right. The president is in trouble because his historic reforms were too timid, not too bold. The recovery plan wasn't big enough. The banks were rescued, but not reformed and no heads rolled. These two alone have been lethal to the economy, to working people, and not surprisingly to the president's popularity and Democratic prospects.

2. The left was wrong—but not because it was too independent, but because it was too cooperative. Instead of building an independent populist movement with a moral voice driving opinion outside the Beltway, much energy and resources were devoted to the legislative sausage-making process, largely in support of the president's agenda. This White House would have been far better served with an independent movement, such as those FDR and LBJ suffered and benefited from. One result is that the ersatz Tea Party formations captured the voice of populist outrage.

3. The left isn't the problem; the corporate wing of the party is. The left hasn't gotten in the president's way, for better or worse. It's the corporate right of the party—the Blue Dogs and New Democrats—that have stood in the way. They joined with Republicans to weaken the recovery plan. Sen. Max Baucus did the dance with so-called moderate Republicans like Charles "Death Panel" Grassley that ate up the first year in useless negotiations. Blue Dogs largely sabotaged energy legislation. New Democrats weakened already inadequate financial reforms. And the deficit hawks now sabotage needed jobs programs in an economy in big trouble. The problem with the left is that it has been too weak, not too strong.

4. The left hasn't been a rebel; it's been too good a soldier. Amazing that the White House would be upset at carping from the Beltway left which has embarrassed itself by its willingness to absorb insult and salute. Women rallied to support a health care bill that weakened choice. Progressives supported the bill despite the president's unwillingness to fight for a public option, the taxes on good (read union) health care plans, and the grotesque deal with drug companies to sustain the ban on Medicare getting bulk price discounts. Environmentalists went so far as to embrace off-shore drilling in the failed effort to get the energy bill. Black leaders like Al Sharpton argued against any targeted economic programs, even as the African-American community was suffering depression levels of misery in the economic collapse. The antiwar movement gave the president a pass on Afghanistan. Gay people have been remarkably patient at delay in repealing the indefensible don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Progressives pushed financial reform hard, even after the Treasury Department helped defeat amendments to break up the big banks and more.

5. The White House has been hurt less because the left is critical, but because the White House isn't listening. The left correctly understood the White House faced a pitched battle over the direction of the country, not a post-racial, pragmatic, bipartisan era of good feelings. The president's search for bipartisan cooperation compromised his greatest asset -- the bully pulpit. From day one, he should have been teaching Americans, over and over, how failed conservative ideas and policies had driven us over the cliff, just as FDR and Ronald Reagan had done from opposite ends of the political spectrum. The failure to do that has allowed conservatives to revive without changing a whit. Now, three months from the election, the president says he's ready to draw the contrast and start pushing, far too late.

6. Reality counts. Gibbs accuses the professional left of being congenitally dissatisfied. I should hope so. But the White House problem isn't temperament, it is reality.

Read More......

Dem House member calls for Gibbs to step down

We almost forgot for a moment that Gibbs was also excoriating Democratic members of Congress. And they noticed.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), an active member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Gibbs went too far. "This is not the first time that Mr. Gibbs has made untoward and inflammatory comments and I certainly hope that people in the White House don't share his view that the left is unimportant to the president," he said. "I understand him having some loyalty to the president who employs him, but I think he's walking over the line."

Ellison said that Gibbs's resignation would be an appropriate response. "I think that'd be fair, yeah. That'd be fair, because this isn't the first time. And, again, people of all political shades worked very hard to help the president become the president. Why would he want to go out and deliberately insult the president's base? And why would he confuse legitimate critique with some sort of lack of loyalty. Isn't this what the far right does? Punishes people who are not ideologically aligned with President Bush?"

It's wrong to suggest that progressives want to eliminate the Pentagon, said Ellison, adding that he doesn't know a single Democrat who has espoused that view. "I know of none. So I think that was an inflammatory remark that is emblematic of his careless use of language and is an example of why he may not be the best person for the job," he said. "Gibbs crossed the line. His dismissal would be fair."

Read More......

Self-Fulfilling Idiocy

I realize I have to admit I flipped on daytime cable in order to bring you this nugget, but if I tell you I was looking for news on the Stevens crash, I suspect you'll forgive me.

Anyway, MSNBC is switching between coverage of the plane crash in Alaska and the jobs bill that just passed the House:

House Democrats on Tuesday pushed through a $26 billion jobs bill to protect 300,000 teachers and other nonfederal government workers from election-year layoffs.

The bill would be paid for mainly by closing a tax loophole used by multinational corporations and reducing food stamp benefits for the poor. It passed mainly along party lines by a vote of 247-161.

(Note the use of the phrase 'election-year layoffs.' Was 'layoffs' insufficient? Did we really have to inject the assumption of political posturing into the lede?)

But back to my initial frustration. Several times now, MSNBC anchors and reporters have asked whether Rep. Charlie Rangel's comments on the floor will take away from coverage of the jobs bill. I don't know, MSNBC reporters and anchors, will it? How about this: Not if you don't let it.

To be clear, the exact issue they're raising is whether or not Rangel's comments will be a distraction while they are actively making it a distraction.

This is why I should not be allowed to watch this crap. It just makes me angry. Read More......

John Boehner & David Gregory on Meet the Press

So over the weekend, David Gregory seemed to put the wood to Senate minority leader John Boehner ("John of Orange" in Keith Olbermann's formulation) over the Bush tax cuts on Meet the Press. Here's the vid:



As interesting as that exchange is, I don't want to focus on Boehner, but on David Gregory instead. Newsman Gregory is the famous "MC Rove guy" (see below), and in my book he's a made man until he proves otherwise. So why's he laying into Boehner so ostentatiously? His aggression in this interview really jumps out, at least to me. Is Gregory off the reservation, or is he doing someone's bidding?

I'll let you provide your own answers. Me, I've got suspicions. I don't think he's off the reservation, since his whole career is Village–signed and sealed. That leaves two possibilities; either:

1. The fix is in to kill the rich boy tax cut extensions (see Geithner's support for expiring them), and Gregory's getting on the right side of the admin by publicly tanking Boehner, or
   
   
2. The fix is in to extend the rich boy tax cuts, and the Big Boys are letting him (and Geithner) burnish his populist cred, knowing that nothing can stop them.

My bet is on No. 2 to win, but No. 1 has that election-year edge.

As an added treat, here's David "1 Live Crew" Gregory dropping the hammer (heh) with Karl "MC Rove" at the 2007 Radio and Television Correspondents' dinner. He's the Fresh Prince on Rove's immediate right (screen left).



Like I say, a made man until he proves otherwise.

GP Read More......

House passed bill to save jobs: 247 - 161

245 Democrats, joined by two GOPers [Cao (LA-02) and Castle (DE-AL)], just voted to pass the $26 billion bill to save jobs:

House Democratic leaders, intent on showing disenchanted voters their commitment to economic recovery, insisted on the one-day session to pass legislation they said would save the jobs of more than 300,000 teachers and other public service workers. Republicans shot back that Democrats would spend more money the government doesn't have while bowing to the wishes of teachers' unions.

The roll call vote is here. 158 GOPers and three Democrats [Bright (AL-02), Cooper (TN-05) and Taylor (MS-04)] voted no.

Twenty-five members (18 Rs and 7 Ds) didn't vote.

This legislation passed the Senate last week. Via Twitter, Speaker Pelosi reports, "President will sign tonight!" Read More......

Stevens confirmed dead in plane crash

ABC has the story. So does ADN. The family spokesman has confirmed that Stevens did not survive. Read More......

The Google-Verizon pact to destroy Net Neutrality: It's pretty bad

So much for the denials from Google.

1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.

2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.

3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked,and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If Real Player had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)

4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" - one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-pay platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to deicide what the rules should be.

Read More......

The Netroots is out of touch, and apparently so are the majority of the American people

I enjoy articles like this. On their face, they make a lot of sense. But then, when you dig deeper, the entire thing falls apart.

To wit: New poll shows liberals really DO like President Obama. So his critics in the Netroots, and among progressive organizations in town, clearly don't know what they're talking about, and are clearly out of touch with real America, just like Robert Gibbs said!

Okay. Then if the President is so popular, and we're so out of touch, why is his approval rating stuck around 44%? (Check out how the pretty lines come together in one big bipartisan hug.)

Evidently, the Netroots is so out to lunch that our view of the President is consistent with the majority of the American people. Pretty fringe.

The White House can delude itself all it wants by pointing to these numbers, and you know they are. But if the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue actually talked to people around the country, I think they'd find a lot more angst about this administration than the one set of rosy poll numbers are showing. And Gibbs' outburst today shows that they already know they have a problem.

In the end, there's a reason the President is at 44% in the polls, and we're about to lose the House. And it's not because everyone thinks the President is doing such a fine job. Read More......

Two ways to look at the current jobs situation

Both of these are thanks to Ian Welsh. The first is a chart from Calculated Risk. Ian asks, "Does this look like a recession to you?" Notice the dotted line near the end that takes out census hiring.


And here's an animation of the jobs picture, month-by-month and county-by-county.



The creator of the map, Latoya Egwuekwe, is interviewed on CNN here. It's interesting to see the stain spread — I'm not sure I knew that up-the-Mississippi would be a path.

Your county may be different, but mine went dark awfully fast. Time for governments to sell off that pesky infrastructure and plow under some old roads.

And a tip for you — in these weird times, what's bad for the country is good for the individual. If you really think things are headed further down, pay off debt, reduce expenses, and stock up on cash and cash equivalents, to the extent you can.

GP Read More......

Former aide claims Stevens among the dead in plane crash

UPDATE: According to Breaking News on Twitter, "Source who said Sen. Stevens had died tells msnbc.com the information he received was not confirmed". More from ADN.

A local CBS affiliate:

Dave Dittman, a former aide and longtime family friend of former Sen. Ted Stevens says Stevens was killed in a plane crash near Dillingham Monday night. Nine people were on board, including former NASA Chief Sean O'Keefe. Five people were killed in the crash, but other identities were not known, nor are the conditions of the survivors.

Read More......

WH spokesman: I was just out of control and winging it when I criticized the Democratic party base

Huh?

The White House spokesman would now have us believe that he wasn't in full control of his faculties when he did an interview with the Hill in which he blasted the Democratic base, and suggested we all needed to take a drug test. Really? He couldn't control himself? Then what is he doing remaining in the job as White House press secretary?

Oh, and the part about how his criticism of the base is not "a view held by many" is also interesting. So the White House's top spokesman usually pops off to the press about his own personal opinions that have nothing to do with what the President or the White House in general thinks, even though he claims he's speaking for them? And, just coincidentally, those lone personal opinions of his match up perfectly with certain unnamed White House sources who continually blast the Democratic base in the press.

Seriously? That's his excuse? I was just using the office of chief spokesman for the President to sound off about my own personal views, views I know I shouldn't have shared, views I don't think anyone else has, and I attacked the very people who helped me get my job, because sometimes I just can't control myself when speaking on behalf of the President.

I feel better.

One more thing. Note Gibbs' excuse for the anger that forced him to lash out at the Democratic party base. He was upset at conservative Republicans criticizing the teachers aid package as a "bailout." Republicans criticized a bill in Congress, so Gibbs attacked the Democratic base.

I watch too much cable, I admit. Day after day it gets frustrating. Yesterday I watched as someone called legislation to prevent teacher layoffs a bailout -- but I know that's not a view held by many, nor were the views I was frustrated about.

Again, huh?

Maybe the White House should take Nate Silver's advice:

I don't know whether Gibbs was going "off-message" out of frustration, or whether the White House has become so jaded that they actually think this was a good strategy. Either way, it speaks to the need for some fresh blood and some fresh ideas in the White House. The famously unflappable Obama is losing his cool.

Sam Stein has more. Read More......

BREAKING: Former Senator Stevens may have been aboard crashed plane in Alaska

UPDATE 11am: NTSB says five died, four survived, plane crash. Stevens is 86.

UPDATE: 10:53am ADN:

A U.S. government official told The Associated Press that Alaska authorities have been told that Stevens, a former longtime Republican senator, is among several passengers on the plane. The official, who spoke on grounds of anonymity, says Stevens' condition is unknown.

UPDATE 10:44am Eastern: Susan at DailyKos quotes Reuters as saying Stevens was on the plane. Chuck Todd says Sean O'Keefe was too - he was the former administrator of NASA, and he also served as acting Secretary of the Navy under Bush.

Anchorage Daily News:

Severe weather has hampered the rescue operation for eight people believed to be on board a GCI-owned aircraft that crashed near Dillingham on Monday night with possible fatalities, according to state and federal officials.

The Alaska Air National Guard was called to the area about 20 miles north of Dillingham at about 7 p.m. after a passing aircraft saw the wreckage, spokesman Maj. Guy Hayes said. Eight people were reported to be on board the aircraft, though their status wasn't immediately known, he said. There were possible fatalities, he said.

Friends of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens said he was traveling Monday to the GCI-owned Agulowak Lodge near Lake Aleknagik, and they were concerned for him.

A woman who answered the phone at the Anchorage home of retired Air Force Gen. Joe Ralston, a good friend of Stevens, said Ralston was with Stevens' wife, Catherine, comforting her and trying to find out what was going on.

No one answered the phone at the homes of Stevens' daughter, Susan Covich, in Kenai, or his son, Ben, in Anchorage.

Read More......

Gibbs: People who are upset with Obama don't live in real America, didn't help get Obama elected

From the Hill:

Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.

Progressives, Gibbs said, are the liberals outside of Washington “in America,” and they are grateful for what Obama has accomplished in a shattered economy with uniform Republican opposition and a short amount of time.

Let's put aside for a moment Gibb's adoption of a really nasty, and un-American, Sarah Palin talking point in order to smear the Democratic base (has it really come that?). (And heck, even Palin apologized for using that smear.) Let's look instead at the substance of the smear. Gibbs is now claiming, on behalf of the White House, that anyone who is upset with the way President Obama is handling his job clearly did not organize, campaign, or raise money for candidate Obama back in 2008.

Really? That's the latest White House response to Obama voters who are sincerely concerned about the direction this White House is taking on so many issues. To smear everyone and suggest that they didn't lift a finger to get the President elected? Seriously?

Joe and I are upset with Obama, and we, for example, raised nearly $43,000 for the man, According to the White House, our money now doesn't count. Great, would they like to give it back? I for one, would love the $1000 back that I personally donated to the Obama campaign. Joe gave even more. I suspect a lot of our readers wouldn't mind their contributions back too, since apparently they're not appreciated.

Then there's all that work we did for the campaign, all the dirty work they asked us to do - and we did it, gladly, and quietly - none of that counted either, apparently.

This interview with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is really quite remarkable. Not in its substance - President Obama's staff smears the Democratic base, and our issues, on a regular basis. No, what's remarkable is that a senior White House official has finally gone on the record in order to smear the Democratic base. That's unprecedented. It also puts to the rest the White House's prior defense, whenever a senior unnamed official went after the base, of claiming it was a rogue employee who didn't represent the President. Gibbs clearly does.

More from Gibbs:

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

One hopes that Gibbs doesn't truly believe this, otherwise the White House really is in trouble. The left isn't upset with the President because we're just too darned demanding. We're upset with Barack Obama because he never seems to try. He talks a good talk, but when it comes time to actually follow through on his promises, he winces.

Take health care reform. The President was AWOL for a good year while health care reform floundered in the Congress. Rather than get his hands dirty, and spend some political capital actually pushing for what he promised - a public option, which Barack Obama himself had repeatedly said was the best way to increase competition and lower prices - the President, other than a few speeches here and there, disappeared for a year. Finally, when it looked like everything was doomed, Obama got involved, at the very end, and we got a bill that did some nice things, but not nearly as much as he'd promised, and not nearly as much as would have been possible had Obama engaged a year earlier.

And that's the crux of the criticism. Obama supporters are not upset with President Obama because the supporters' own expectations are unrealistically high. We're upset with Obama because we believed his promises, and we thought he'd actually fight for them. Better to have loved and lost, as they say. But if you're not even willing to try, then what's the point?

It's not a transformative presidency when you flinch in the face of every challenge.

Gibbs talks about how difficult it is for the White House to get anything done in the face of a uniform Republican opposition. Except, of course, the GOP wasn't uniform at all in February of 2009, when the White House caved on the stimulus and showed its true colors to the Republican party. If anything, this White House helped unify the Republicans by constantly, and unnecessarily, pandering to them at every turn.

Let's talk about the stimulus. The reason we're suffering from 10% unemployment, with no improvement on the horizon, is because someone at the White House thought it was politically too difficult to ask for the "real" amount that was needed to stimulate the economy and save the country from another Great Depression. So rather than go to the country, and tell the American people what medicine was needed, the President flinched in order to avoid a fight. And then he flinched again, and gave 35% of the already-too-small stimulus away to the GOP in the form of near-useless tax cuts.

And what did the President's approach of negotiating with himself get us? 10% unemployment, approval ratings in the 40s, and the imminent loss of the House. And it's not like this wasn't predicted. Both Stiglitz and Krugman told everyone they could that the stimulus was far too small. But this White House doesn't do liberals. So Stiglitz and Krugman were shoved aside, and a true economic recovery went out the door with them. How smart a move was that?

Let me reiterate. The country was on the verge of economic collapse. We were on the verge of another Great Depression. And rather than fight for the correct amount of medicine that was needed to save our nation, this President decided to opt for less than what was needed to save our nation. And he didn't opt for less at the end of the negotiation, after pushing really hard for the full amount. He opted for less at the beginning, because he didn't want to fight for it. Which is his usual pattern. Cave first, negotiate later, then act surprised when people are upset when the final agreement is so weak, and accuse them of being politically naive and unrealistic.

Who was the only person in the White House to even vaguely understand that we needed a bigger stimulus? Christine Romer. And what's her reward for being right? She's leaving.

Tell us again why we should be proud?

Then there's this:

He’s also added diversity to the Supreme Court by nominating two female justices, including the court’s first Hispanic. Yet some liberal groups have criticized his nominees for not being liberal enough.

Clarence Thomas added diversity to the Supreme Court too. The substance of the nominees' beliefs really don't matter? And yes, of course Kagan and Sotomayor are better than Clarence Thomas. But we didn't vote for Barack Obama to be simply "better than the worst Republicans." That's a rather sorry goal for any president, let alone one who promised he was different. One who promised real "change."

This comment, about the Supreme Court diversity, is illustrative of a larger problem this White House has. They tend to prefer symbolism over substance. Better to appoint a woman to the court than someone who would actually advance the President's worldview (if he has one). Or here's an idea - how about appoint a Latina, or any other woman, who would be a fierce advocate for progressive ideals? No, to this White House it's better to pass a bill that's called "health care reform" than to actually fight for the details of such a bill from the git-go. And better to pass legislation that everyone thinks repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," when it does no such thing, than to actually fight for an actual repeal of the discriminatory law. That might upset one of the President's employees, the Secretary of Defense, and we can't have that when the overarching goal of the administration is to ensure that there is never any drama, regardless of what they have to give up in return.

It's always better to compromise than to fight. It's always better to win on paper than to win in practice.

That's why people are ticked at the President. Not because they're naive. But rather, because they actually believed he would at least try to do what he promised.

Finally, there's this:

Larry Berman, an expert on the presidency and a political science professor at the University of California-Davis, said he has been surprised that liberals aren’t more cognizant of the pragmatism Obama has had to employ to pass landmark reforms.

“The irony, of course, is that Gibbs’s frustration reflects the fact that the conservative opposition has been so effective at undermining the president’s popular approval,” Berman said.

“And from Gibbs’s perspective, and the White House perspective, they ought to be able to catch a break from people who, in their view, should be grateful and appreciative.”

Yes, it's hard work being President.

As I mentioned before, one could argue that the reason the conservative opposition has been so effective is because the President has refused, from day one, to challenge the conservative opposition. The President always felt it was better to strive for bipartisanship than fight for what he promised, fight for what the country needed. In a very real way, this President emboldened conservatives and their opposition. They knew that if they yelled in his face, he'd feel compelled to compromise to make them feel better. Just look at the Joe "You lie!" Wilson fiasco. What was the response? The Senate committee changed the bill language to address Joe Wilson's concerns about immigration. How many votes did that get us? And why not use Wilson's outburst to paint the GOP as obstructionist, and out of touch with the country? Are we really to believe that the White House had no hand in this at all?

The saddest part of this certainly planned outburst from Gibbs is that it must reflect the President's own thinking. He actually believes that he's doing a swell job. He actually believes that his all-nighter, last-minute approach to policy-making has led to stunning successes. And he's so proud of his own success, that he feels comfortable telling other Democrats that they're not real Americans, and that their contributions to his campaign were meaningless.

Heck of away to energize the party three months before a pivotal election. Read More......

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

It's a busy day on Capitol Hill, which usually isn't the case in August.

The House will convene this morning to begin debate on HR 1586, the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act, which will provide much-needed funding to states to save jobs -- including the jobs of approximately 160,000 teachers. The GOPers are, of course, vehemently opposed. After all, they created the economic crisis, why should they help anyone impacted by it? The final vote should occur sometime this afternoon. It should pass.

The President is going to make remarks this morning from the Rose Garden about why the House should pass that bill.

The Anchorage Daily News is reporting that former Senator Ted Stevens may have been on a plane that crashed in Dillingham, Alaska:

Friends of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens said he was traveling Monday to the GCI-owned Agulowak Lodge near Lake Aleknagik, and they were concerned for him.

A woman who answered the phone at the Anchorage home of retired Air Force Gen. Joe Ralston, a good friend of Stevens, said Ralston was with Stevens' wife, Catherine, comforting her and trying to find out what was going on

So, busy day ahead... Read More......

Republicans want to shut down Congress after the elections

The Republicans are afraid that Democrats might try to pass important parts of their agenda before the new Congress comes in.

Yeah, that'll happen. Read More......

Liberty & Justice, Digby-style

Digby on the Prop 8 decision and liberty & justice. Suitable for framing.

GP Read More......

The disgrace that has become the Paris metro

I think when you live in a place, even for just a year, and especially as young person, you always associate it with "home," even decades later. For me, Paris will always be home. I came here at the age of 19 to spend a year learning French. I didn't really speak a lick of French before coming here, yet somehow my parents let me go anyway (the older I get, the less I understand their decision). So when I see things like the poor state of the Parisian Metro, it upsets me on a personal level.

I just posted on my Facebook page a photo I shot the other day of my Metro train, line 4, coming into Montparnasse station, just around the corner from Chris and Joelle's (you can see the photo above). As a foreigner, coming to Paris for the first time in 1983, seeing the Metro was like visiting transportation Disneyland. It was a vision of the future, and a first lesson in the sometimes-fallibility of "We're number one!" We had nothing like this in the states, and still don't to this day.

Today, however, the Paris metro is less a vision of the future, and more a disgusting reflection of New York City at its worst.

There is graffiti everywhere - and I mean, everywhere. On the train windows, the train walls, the outsides of the trains, even the tunnel walls between stations. And it's not the "pretty" graffiti they used to get in New York, as if that would be some kind of consolation. The graffiti "artists" are using some kind of acid to etch the walls and windows, so it's just a big scrawling mess, like someone took a screw driver and scratched everything, ten times over.

And the worst part, I come here every year to house sit for Chris and his wife while they're gone on vacation, and it's been this way for years. Either no one is doing anything about it, or what they're doing clearly isn't working. In NYC, they finally put a stop to the graffiti by cleaning it up immediately, every single time it happened - eventually the graffiti artists simply gave up. Here it seems as though the government, and the public utility that runs the Metro, has given up.

It really is disgusting. I can't believe there isn't more public outrage about it. Or maybe the public has given up too. Read More......

Early puberty for girls raises health concerns

I think it's the food; we may well be poisoning ourselves. Liz Szabo at USA Today (my sad emphasis):

About 15% of 1,239 girls studied showed the beginnings of breast development at age 7, according to an article in today's Pediatrics. One in 10 white girls, twice as many as in a 1997 study, showed breast growth by that age, as did 23% of black girls and 15% of Hispanic girls. ...

The new study doesn't explain why girls are developing earlier, but it did find heavier girls with a higher body-mass index were more likely than others to begin puberty early, says pediatrician Frank Biro, director of adolescent medicine at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.

A third of children are now overweight, and the early puberty trend could be related to the obesity epidemic, says Marcia Herman-Giddens of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. A growing number of researchers also are concerned about hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment. Animal studies suggest that many environmental toxins can affect the age of puberty, although scientists aren't yet sure exactly how they affect people.

Not to mention hormone-disrupting chemicals in the food.

This is sad. A trip to the airport (a good place to see your fellows in the aggregate) pretty much tells the tale. I don't think the number of people sporting morbid beach ball tummies is a morals problem. Eating "morality" hasn't changed in 50 years; we've kind of let nature take its course the whole time. But the food sure is different.

GP Read More......

Jet Blue employee arrested for his, um, creative exit off the plane

Never mess with a queen after a bad day at the office. (Just guessing.) Read More......

Christopher Hitchens on undergoing chemotherapy

I remember seeing Hitchens, for the first time, back in the early 80s when I was doing my undergrad at the University of Illinois. I swear it must have been him. Young brilliant English guy, talking about Cyprus. Zoom ahead thirty years to the neighbor in DC whom I'd see occasionally entering or leaving his apartment just down the block from my old place. Weirdly small world.

Hitchens in Vanity Fair:

It’s quite something, this chemo-poison. It has caused me to lose about 14 pounds, though without making me feel any lighter. It has cleared up a vicious rash on my shins that no doctor could ever name, let alone cure. (Some venom, to get rid of those furious red dots without a struggle.) Let it please be this mean and ruthless with the alien and its spreading dead-zone colonies. But as against that, the death-dealing stuff and life-preserving stuff have also made me strangely neuter. I was fairly reconciled to the loss of my hair, which began to come out in the shower in the first two weeks of treatment, and which I saved in a plastic bag so that it could help fill a floating dam in the Gulf of Mexico. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the way that my razorblade would suddenly go slipping pointlessly down my face, meeting no stubble. Or for the way that my newly smooth upper lip would begin to look as if it had undergone electrolysis, causing me to look a bit too much like somebody’s maiden auntie. (The chest hair that was once the toast of two continents hasn’t yet wilted, but so much of it was shaved off for various hospital incisions that it’s a rather patchy affair.) I feel upsettingly de-natured. If Penélope Cruz were one of my nurses, I wouldn’t even notice. In the war against Thanatos, if we must term it a war, the immediate loss of Eros is a huge initial sacrifice.

Read More......

Devolving America — the Reagan Revolution

Paul Krugman, "America Goes Dark" (my emphasis):

The lights are going out all over America — literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno.

Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel.

And a nation that once prized education — that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children — is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead.

We’re told that we have no choice, that basic government functions . . . are no longer affordable.

This is the Reagan Revolution. I hate to be blunt, but anyone who voted twice for Reagan voted for this — the devolution of America.

It was always an ugly trade — Lee Atwater and his ilk shouting code at angry America, blissfully stoned on Dirty Harry and Death Wish fantasies. And America, tubed out on Judge Hardass, awash in happy congratulatory dreams, thinking itself bullet-proof (it still does), thinking it would never find itself cutting down the last tree on the island.

Those trees are being cut as we watch . . . and commandeered as escape pods by the only people with means to escape, the real beneficiaries of the Reagan Revolution. (I'm looking at you, Bob Rubin. You've got ilk too.)

The Professor again:

So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we’ve taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere.

I wish I had something more positive to say this morning. We've written about this before, so it shouldn't be news.

Oh, and this is not the Professor's most depressing column in the last few weeks. That honor belongs to this one: "Who Cooked the Planet?".

Team Buddy Can You Spare Some Change?, you were put there to stop this stuff. Time to start stopping this stuff. It matters.

GP Read More......

Why this pastor is burning Qurans on 9/11

Because he's an evangelical redneck? From Mike Signorile:

Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach Center first gained notoriety when he held "No Homo Mayor" protests (and had another one last week) in Gainesville, FL, batting against the election of Craig Lowe who became that city's first openly gay mayor this year.

Now he has announced "International Burn a Qu'ran Day" in which he and his followers will be burning the holy book of Islam on the ninth anniversary of 9/11. I brought him on the show on Friday to discuss about Islam, Christianity and homosexuality. Watch as he gets tripped up about the Old Testament.

Oh this is good, Signorile interviews the guy, and the guy explains that he's burning Qurans because he "want to send a message to peaceful Moslems to stay peaceful." Seriously.
Read More......