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......