More Americans blame GOP for the bad economy

From Media Matters Action's Political Correction:

Earlier this week, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) criticized President Obama for blaming the nation's economic troubles on the previous administration. "It's childish," said Bush. "This is what children do until they mature. They don't accept responsibility." The former governor's comments echoed other Republican leaders, who claim that Obama's policies have "failed" while averting any blame for the disastrous policies that led to the downturn.

However, a new CNN poll shows that the American people aren't fooled by the Republican spin. Asked which party is "more responsible for the country's current economic problems," 41 percent faulted Republicans as opposed to just 28 percent who faulted Democrats.

Read the rest of this post...

Newsweek's Michael Hirsh: 'Replacing McChrystal doesn't change anything'

Newsweek's Michael Hirsh:

By replacing a general who was universally criticized with a general who almost can’t be criticized, President Obama pulled a political masterstroke on Wednesday. But the abrupt dismissal of Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making inappropriate remarks and the simultaneous announcement that he would be succeeded by his superior, CentCom Commander David Petraeus, papered over Obama’s real problem: the counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy that McChrystal championed and Petraeus virtually invented may be fatally flawed, at least as it’s practiced in Afghanistan.

Obama’s bigger problem right now is a rising tide of doubt, not only within McChrystal’s obviously stressed-out team but throughout the military and national-security apparatus, that there is any real momentum or that the policy in Afghanistan is working. COIN is based on the idea of winning hearts and minds in the local population and getting their help in rooting out the guerrillas or terrorists (in this case, the Taliban). But a number of well-informed critics say that in Afghanistan, several prerequisites for success are missing—in particular a central government with credibility, a large-enough force for the size of the country, and a local force (the Afghan Army and police) to hand things off to. “This briefs well in D.C. but you can’t operationalize it in Afghanistan,” says one critic of COIN, a military scholar who is engaged in the debate inside the Pentagon but would talk about it only on condition of anonymity so as to avoid the fate of McChrystal.

The outcome, these critics say, could be the worst of all possible worlds: no prospect of “winning” at all in an endlessly prolonged and bloody conflict in which we deceive ourselves for years that we are winning. Something like Vietnam, in other words.

Read the rest of this post...

Mark Kirk, damaged goods

From AP:

Kirk, a 21-year veteran in the Navy Reserve, was caught exaggerating his military record. He claimed an award he didn't win. He mentioned serving in overseas conflicts while he was safely in the United States. He stretched the facts when talking about combat and coming under fire. And his troubles don't end there: Even his references to being a teacher are being questioned.

But the revelations undermine Kirk's credibility, which was supposed to be a major asset.

Kirk has largely disappeared from public view since apologizing for misstating his military credentials. He did give a speech Monday but wound up fleeing from reporters afterward when they wanted to ask questions about the issue.

Meanwhile, Giannoulias is sharing the spotlight at fundraisers with Vice President Joe Biden, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and others with ties to Obama. White House officials now see Kirk's troubles as an opportunity for the Democratic nominee, and have moved to try to capitalize on the GOP nominee's woes. They've dispatched White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina to the state, and other top Obama officials also are expected to appear before November.

Read the rest of this post...

Senate GOPers defeat unemployment extension

Hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans will lose their benefits because of the GOP Senate. The Senate Republicans held together to block cloture on the jobs bill.

The vote was 57 - 41. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins sided with Mitch McConnell's over their constituents in Maine. Of course they did. All the other GOPers voted no, too. As did Ben Nelson.

The Republicans created the economic crisis. Families across the country are suffering. Really suffering. But, the GOPers have decided those families don't matter.

That really is how the GOP governs. Sell out to Big Oil and Wall Street. Screw over the unemployed. Read the rest of this post...

Social Security Broke? Seder says 'That's BS'

The latest from Sam Seder. He's taking on the BS about Social Security:
Read the rest of this post...

In MO GOP Senate race, Teabagger Purgason 'has been gaining some momentum'

This might just be a race to watch.

The Republican Senate primary is on August 3rd. The conventional wisdom is that Roy Blunt will win. He's got the money. And, Blunt's been around for a long time. He's quite the DC insider (He's gone very DC -- the new Georgetown Social Safeway is his local grocery store.) As we know, this year, that's not an asset.

The candidate running to the right of Blunt in the GOP primary is Chuck Purgason. Blunt's been trying to ignore Purgason, but that got a lot harder today. Chuck went on the air with a radio ad attacking Blunt:

State Sen. Chuck Purgason, R-Caulfield, might be the one candidate for U.S. Senate in Missouri with the least amount of money, but he's found enough of it to produce his first radio ad, and in it, he aims his rhetoric directly at fellow Republican Roy Blunt.

Blunt, a congressman from Springfield, has long been the establishment Republican in the race, and is expected to face Democrat Robin Carnahan in November.

But Purgason has been gaining some momentum, and in his radio ad, he points out that other establishment candidates in Utah, Kentucky and Nevada found themselves on the losing side of a primary.

The ad is here. There are several direct swipes at Blunt and the term "Washington insiders" is used four times. The disclaimer is "Paid for by Chuck Purgason for U.S. Senate because integrity does matter."

Defeating "Washington Insider" Blunt would be quite a coup for the teabaggers. Read the rest of this post...

Occam's Switchblade: Has American Movement Conservatism spread to Europe?

Sometimes a person just needs to take his own advice.

Paul Krugman has been writing for weeks about how the G-20 economic ministers and their academic advisors have lately fallen in love with economic austerity. He's presently in Germany, and appalled that the Germans are talking about cutting off the recovery at the knees with highly restrictive measures.

On the one hand, he says this displays appalling professional ignorance:

[C]onsensus [on how to deal with a severe economic slump] has, of course, been lacking — largely because a significant proportion of the economics profession has spent the last three decades systematically destroying the hard-won knowledge of macroeconomics. It’s truly a new Dark Age, in which famous professors are reinventing errors refuted 70 years ago, and calling them insights.

On the other hand, he suspects there's a reason for the madness:

I see that one of Germany’s Wise Guys Men has lashed out at me in Handelsblatt over my criticism of Axel Weber. . . . Naturally, an article titled “How about some facts?” gets some of the basic facts wrong. No, it wasn’t government encouragement of loans to low-income households that did it; that’s a zombie lie, and it’s telling that German officials don’t know that. [my emphasis]

But significantly, he doesn't tell us why that telling lie is telling, or what it is telling us. Is there something Krugman is hiding — or something he's hiding from? Since he doesn't generally seem very reticent, I choose the latter.

Krugman implicitly frames the question this way: Why would responsible professionals say such obviously wrong things in pursuit of a policy whose goals don't make sense?

There's a long answer (which I may offer later), but for now, let's just apply Occam's Switchblade — they're doing it because they want to.

What Krugman is hiding from is the fact that academics, like politicians, are fully capable of all the manipulative double-talk and deception that runs through the rest of Movement Conservatism. If they don't act like responsible professionals, it's because they're not.

And how should we deal with these people? For an answer, I suggest Paul Krugman, 2010, read Paul Krugman, 2003. From the brilliant introduction to his Bush-era book, The Great Unraveling, he offers several suggestions for dealing with "America's right-wing movement," which he correctly calls "a revolutionary power." Here are two of his suggestions:

• Don’t assume that policy proposals make sense in terms of their stated goals.
  
  When you are dealing with a revolutionary power, it's important to realize that it knows what it wants, and will make whatever argument advances that goal. So there should be no presumption that the claims it makes on behalf of its actions make any sense in their own terms.
  


• Don’t assume that the usual rules of politics apply. . . . Because a revolutionary power does not regard the existing system as legitimate, it doesn’t feel obligated to play by the rules.

Much less speak by the rules. Please, Mr. Krugman, take your own advice. If Movement Conservatives don't make sense, it's because they're hiding their goals. And if G-20 ministers and advisers talk like American Movement Conservatives, Occam's Switchblade says it's because they are.

Yes, folks. Pete Peterson–consciousness has metastasized to Europe. The beast at home has successfully exported itself. Welcome to the New Old World, Professor. And if you need some light reading, I have an author to suggest.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Dems. to remind voters of how GOP governs and voters need to be reminded

As a follow up to its Joe "I apologize" Barton ads, the DNC has launched a new campaign titled, "Republicans: This is how they'd govern." It's an important message -- and Democrats are going to remind voters of the GOP's ties to Big Oil, insurance companies and Wall Street.

People have short memories. The Democrats really do have to remind people just how bad the GOP is.

Americans don't like Congress according to the latest Gallup polling. And, there are potential electoral implications from those low approval ratings:

This year's low approval ratings for Congress are a potentially ominous sign for President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress. Gallup has found greater party seat change in Congress in midterm elections when Congress has had low approval ratings.

Specifically, in the five midterm elections in which Congress' approval ratings at the time of the election were below 40%, there was an average net change in seats of 29 from the president's party to the opposition. That includes the 1994 and 2006 elections, when the net change in seats was large enough to pass control of the U.S. House from one party to the other.

There has been far less party seat change when Congress' approval ratings exceeded 40%. This has been the case in only three midterm elections (1986, 1998, and 2002); Americans typically do not rate Congress all that positively. In each of these elections, the net seat change by party was five or six seats.

Every election cycle is different, obviously, but the trend is troubling:

Are voters really going to give the levers of power to Big Oil and Wall Street?

It would help, of course, if the Democrats actually pushed its agenda and invigorated the base. Read the rest of this post...

Nasty poll numbers for Obama/Dems

NBC/WSJ:

Support for Mr. Obama and his party is declining among centrist, independent voters. But, more ominous for the president, some in his base also are souring, with 17% of Democrats disapproving of Mr. Obama's job performance, the highest level of his presidency.

Approval for Mr. Obama has dropped among Hispanics, too, along with small-town residents, white women and seniors. African-Americans remain the firmest part of Mr. Obama's base, with 91% approving of his job performance.

49% rate him positively when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities,'' down from 70% when Mr. Obama took office and a drop of 8 points since January.

Just 44% of Obama voters—those who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 or told pollsters they intended to—now express high interest in the midterm elections. That's a 38-point drop from this stage in the 2008 campaign.

By contrast, 71% of voters who supported Republican John McCain in 2008 expressed high interest in this year's elections, slightly higher than their interest level at this stage in that campaign.

Just 44% of Obama voters—those who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 or told pollsters they intended to—now express high interest in the midterm elections. That's a 38-point drop from this stage in the 2008 campaign.

By contrast, 71% of voters who supported Republican John McCain in 2008 expressed high interest in this year's elections, slightly higher than their interest level at this stage in that campaign.

Read the rest of this post...

Is the GOP deliberately trying to sabotage the economy?

A final vote is expected today on the Tax Extenders bill, and the GOP, with the help of Ben Nelson, are set to kill it. From Steve Benen:

For weeks, Senate Democrats have tried to pass what's called the "tax-extenders bill" -- a key economic package that extends unemployment benefits, maintains popular tax breaks, protects doctors from Medicare cuts, and boosts state aid to prevent massive job layoffs in the states. The country needs this bill to pass, but Republicans won't let it come up for a vote.

For Snowe and Collins, nothing was good enough. Democrats appear to have lined up 58 votes, but in the Senate, 42 is greater than 58, even when our economic health is on the line.

In the real world, this means millions of jobless Americans will lose their already-modest benefits, and hundreds of thousands of workers will be laid off over the next year, including teachers, police officers, and firefighters. All of this will happen because Republicans are more concerned about the deficit -- a deficit they created under Bush/Cheney -- than the economy.

It's unpleasant to think about, and I really hope it's not true, but it may be time for a discussion about whether GOP lawmakers are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their midterm election strategy. After all, these same Republicans have supported deficit-financed tax-extenders before -- there's no credible reason to change course now. On the contrary, with the economy struggling to break through, the need for this package is more obvious, not less, if your goal is to actually improve economic conditions.

Read the rest of this post...

Chamber offering endorsement in exchange for votes against campaign reform bil

For anyone who wonders why we need campaign reform, the Chamber of Commerce is Exhibit A. This week, we learn via The Hill , the Chamber is on Capitol Hill trading endorsements for votes against the campaign finance reform bill. Now, that only works for members of Congress who are sleazy enough to sidle up to the Chamber. Enter Dan Boren (D-OK, but not a real "D"):

Business groups are using a variety of tactics to pressure House members to vote against campaign finance legislation.

One of those tactics is offering their endorsement ahead of the vote.

The Chamber of Commerce announced Wednesday it’s supporting Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) for reelection — one of only a handful of Democrats it has backed this cycle.

“On issues ranging from competition in the healthcare industry to lowering taxes to reducing energy costs, Oklahoma’s businesses and workers have a tireless advocate in Dan Boren,” Bill Miller, the Chamber’s political director, said in statement.

The statement of support didn’t note Boren’s position on the Disclose Act, the legislation that would bolster disclosure requirements for corporate and union spending. But observers saw it as a sign the Chamber is using the offer of an endorsement to get members to vote against the bill.

Boren is expected to vote against the legislation.

What a coincidence, huh? These people are shameless. And, Boren votes against almost every Democratic initiative. He's in bed with every dirty GOP special interest.

This year, Boren has a challenger in the July 27th primary, State Senator Jim Wilson:

We know that the goal of any Congressman should be to stand for something. My goal will be to improve the quality of life for my constituents without being obligated to special interests. The purpose of this campaign is to measure the number of constituents in Congressional District 2 who want progressive representation in Congress.

Boren stands wherever the Chamber of Commerce and Big Oil tell him to stand. Read the rest of this post...

The next question: Will Petraeus delay removal of troops from Afghanistan?

If there's one thing we need to know about Obama's new top general, it's summed up in this line from an article in today's Washington Post:

But in turning to the nation's most prominent general, Obama has embraced a commander who may become a formidable advocate for slowing, or arresting outright, the pace of troop reductions next summer.

Petraeus still needs Senate confirmation. Unlike most of Obama's nomiation, that will happen quickly. But, my bet is that no one asks any hard questions right now.

The selection of Petraeus may just guarantee that Obama is still overseeing the war in Afghanistan -- a war he promised to end -- right in the middle of the 2012 reelection campaign.

UPDATE @ 9:28 a.m.: So it begins. John McCain thinks we need even more troops in Afghanistan:

More troops may be needed in Afghanistan, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested Thursday.

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that it may be necessary to increase troop levels as other countries default on their commitments to send forces in Afghanistan.

"I believe so, particularly since our allies that we had counted on for supplying some 10,000 troops clearly are not going to do that," McCain said when asked if more troops were needed during an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

This has been quite a week, huh?

Today, the President is spending a good chunk of his day with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. They've got a bilateral meeting in the morning. All the cool people in the White House and the press corps call it a "bilat." They two presidents will be holding a press conference this afternoon. And, they've got a meeting at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce later today, too.

Medvedev is in the U.S. on his way to the G-8 and G-20 summits, which will be held in Toronto starting tomorrow.

The conference committee on the Wall Street reform bill continues today. Chris Bowers at OpenLeft has been providing excellent coverage of the proceedings. The banking lobbyists are in a frenzy, using every trick they've got to weaken the reforms. And, too many Democrats are helping them.

The House may vote today on the DISCLOSE Act. That's the legislative response to the terrible Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. There's been lots of wrangling on this one. We'll keep an eye out to see if the bill is moving. It will only get to the floor if Democratic leaders have the votes to pass it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where Obama will be later today, is leading the opposition to this reform.

We'll see what else unfolds today... Read the rest of this post...

FOX News' tipping point

From Eric Boehlert:

So the stimulus bill was evil and un-American. Bailing out GM and Chrysler was evil and un-American. Passing health care reform, of course, was evil and un-America.

But securing $20 billion from BP to pay for the cleanup and to compensate working Americans for the damage done to their livelihoods. That was evil and un-American?

According to Fox News it was.

And with that audacious claim, I'm wondering if Fox News isn't pressing up very closely to its tipping point; to the moment where Fox News reveals how certifiably insane it is by rushing to BP's defense, and just how distant its programming is from the American mainstream.

I don't mean it's the tipping point in terms of there being some sort of collective realization within Fox News that its signature form of partisan Obama hatred has jumped about 19 different sets of tracks and its incessant campaign of smears and lies makes a mockery out of the news business, as well as does real damage to democracy. (I'm pretty sure everyone at Fox News already knows that.)

I'm referring instead to a collective realization among people outside Fox News and the GOP Noise Machine that there's something fundamentally wrong with a so-called news organization siding with BP after what the oil giant has done to the Gulf of Mexico and the reckless, cavalier way it has ruined the livelihoods of countless of residents.

That there's something just plain wrong and illogical in being so robotically ant-Obama that the Fox News team would consciously side with today's version of Public Enemy No. 1 and insist, with complete conviction, that it's the president of the United States who's to blame for the big oil disaster, and it's the president of the United States who should be attacked, smeared, and ridiculed for getting BP to set aside $20 billion in damages.

Read the rest of this post...

If you like gorillas, you have to see this

Chris posted this video over on AMERICAblog Pets. It's pretty amazing.

Read the rest of this post...