Obama's appearance on 60 Minutes suggests he doesn't totally get why Dems lost

Obama on 60 Minutes:

“Part of my promise to the American people when I was elected was to maintain the kind of tone that says we can disagree without being disagreeable. And I think over the course of two years, there have been times where I’ve slipped on that commitment,” the president said. He did not appear to offer specifics.

Huh? If anything, Obama has been far too conciliatory. He doesn't really stand up to anyone. Now he thinks he was too partisan? When exactly would that have been?

Asked by correspondent Steve Kroft if it were true, as Republicans have suggested, that the election was a referendum on him and the Democratic Party, Obama replied: “I think first and foremost, it was a referendum on the economy. And the party in power was held responsible for an economy that is still underperforming and where a lot of folks are still hurting.

He acknowledged that he thought the economy would have improved more and that he sometimes feels powerless when it comes to spurring growth.

“I do get discouraged, I mean, there are times where I thought the economy would [have] gotten better by now,” Obama said. “As president… you’re held responsible for everything. But you don't always have control of everything. Especially an economy this big— there are limited tools to encourage— the kind of job growth that we need,” he said, quickly adding that he was “positive” that the U.S. economy will eventually rebound.

With all due respect, that is simply untrue. Had Obama gotten a stimulus passed, the size of which everyone outside of the White House (and even some inside) knew we really needed (i.e., twice as big as the one he asked for), the economy would have been doing far better at this point. No, the President can't control everything, but his refusal to push for what he should have known we needed cost us 2 points of employment and possibly the election.

Yes, I'm hearing contrition, but I still don't think he actually understands what he did wrong, which doesn't bode well for the future. Read the rest of this post...

Olbermann reinstated

Via Polising:

From Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:

After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

Read the rest of this post...

WSJ: DADT repeal 'all but lost'

Now perhaps you understand why Joe and I have been complaining for nearly two years that the gay community was going to get screwed by the Democrats.  We just did. Read the rest of this post...

Will the White House extend tax cuts for 'the richest people in America'?

Countdown replacement host Thomas Roberts and tax guru David Cay Johnston discuss the coming fight over tax cuts — both the Bush cuts and the Obama cuts. A very good segment:



From Politico: The quarter-million mark is "dead as the dividing line" according to Dem aides. A later Politico article makes Nancy Pelosi the key (my emphasis):

“We’re encouraged,” said an aide to a key Republican in the tax fight. “But Obama needs to talk Nancy down off the ledge.”

Republicans want to permanently extend the cuts to all income levels, while Senate Democrats have indicated they are open to at least a short-term extension. But Pelosi wants to let rates rise for taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year, which was Obama’s original position.

Did you catch that? Pelosi is making Obama negotiate to the $250,000 mark, not from it to some higher number. Negotiation 101, folks. Let's hope she holds out.

Note that Johnston makes the point (3:30 in the clip) we also made earlier — that keeping taxes high on the top marginal tax rate removes the incentive for CEO-types to funnel money out of corporate pockets into their own. When you're paying 75% on those top personal dollars, they're less worth stealing; may as well let the company keep them and grow. That's the difference between the Eisenhower era and the post-Reagan one.

And Boehner makes the usual "jobs" argument. Thomas Roberts: "Boehner argued that keeping tax rates where they have been for the last nine years will change the rate of job growth." False, of course, as Johnston points out. But if you replace "job growth" with "profit growth," Boehner makes perfect sense, and makes it perfectly clear who he works for.

I'm keeping a sellout list on this one, in ink. As explained earlier, it should be a no-brainer for Team Eight Dimensional Chess. The default is no tax cuts for anyone. So put just one deal on the table: Tax cuts for incomes under $250,000, or all the Bush cuts will expire. Senate conservatives — you choose which occurs.

It's cards-on-the-table time, folks, as the Lame Duck prepares to quack. Can't wait to see what unfolds. 2012 is just around the corner.

GP Read the rest of this post...

What happens when Papa eats your flan

Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi, Clyburn & Larson to squeeze Hoyer out of Dem House leadership?

News and a comment. First the news: Nancy Pelosi has decided to run for Minority Leader of the House, replacing Steny Hoyer, who is current Majority Leader (note that the majority, and only the majority, has the Speaker's chair as its top leadership position). Story is, Pelosi doesn't bring anything up for a vote if she doesn't have the votes in hand. Color her likely to win.

In addition, James Clyburn and John Larson have announced they will seek to retain their current positions (as Whip and Caucus chair). Since there are only three leadership positions available to the minority, Hoyer may be out. Roll Call (h/t David Dayen):

Larson and Democratic Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) both released statements Friday announcing their candidacy for another term in their current posts just moments after Pelosi announced via Twitter that she would run for Minority Leader. The fact that the statements came out in such quick succession is raising questions about whether Pelosi had been orchestrating a leadership slate that does not include Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

David Dayen:

This does not actually set up well for Hoyer. He was the more conservative member of the leadership team, and now Democrats have a more ideologically cohesive caucus which tilts left. Clyburn has already picked up the support of Congressional Black Caucus Chair Barbara Lee. The CBC did not diminish a bit in the 2010 midterms and represents a significant bloc.

It doesn’t mean that Hoyer cannot win – he has plenty of goodwill from members who he bestowed lots of money on during their past campaigns. It was thought in 2007 that the late Jack Murtha could challenge Hoyer for the Majority Leader position, and Hoyer destroyed him in the final vote. But it sets up quite a battle.

And the comment. This is what sports types call "addition by subtraction" — the team gets better when certain players are off of it. The Blue Dogs took a beating, and the Dems lost the majority. I say we ended up stronger.

Progressive leverage at work. Well worth knowing about as we set up for the next election.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Texas considering dropping out of Medicaid

Maybe they should just leave all together. This is what you voted for, America. And just as bad, this is what Democratic incompetence has given us. At some point, if you don't lead well, the other guy is going to win, regardless of how nutty he is. Read the rest of this post...

Frank Rich on what Obama should do now

Frank Rich in the NYT:

Obama has a huge opening here — should he take it. He could call the Republicans’ bluff by forcing them to fill in their own blanks. He could start by offering them what they want, the full Bush tax cuts, in exchange for a single caveat: G.O.P. leaders would be required to stand before a big Glenn Beck-style chalkboard — on C-Span, or, for that matter, Fox News — and list, with dollar amounts, exactly which budget cuts would pay for them. Once they hit the first trillion — or even $100 billion — step back and let the “adult conversation” begin!

Better still, the president should open this bargaining session to the full spectrum of his opposition. As he said at his forlorn news conference on Wednesday, he is ready to consider policy ideas “whoever proposes them.” So why not cut to the chase and invite Congressional Tea Party heavyweights like Jim DeMint, Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann to the White House along with the official G.O.P. leadership? They will offer the specifics that Boehner and McConnell are too shy to divulge.

DeMint published a book last year detailing his view that Social Security be privatized to slow America’s descent into socialism. Paul can elaborate on his ideas for reducing defense spending and cutting back on drug law enforcement. Bachmann will explain her plans for weaning Americans off Medicare.

In the 1946 midterms, the unpopular and error-prone rookie president Harry Truman, buffeted by a different set of economic dislocations, watched his party lose both chambers of Congress (including 54 seats in the House) to a G.O.P. that then moved steadily to the right in its determination to cut government spending and rip down the New Deal safety net. Two years after this Democratic wipeout, despite a hostile press and a grievously divided party, Truman roared back, in part by daring the Republican Congress to enact its reactionary plans. He won against all odds, as David McCullough writes in “Truman,” because “there was something in the American character that responded to a fighter.”

Surely there are dozens of supporters reassuring Obama with exactly this Truman scenario this weekend. But if he lacks the will to fight, he might as well just take his time and enjoy the sights of Mumbai.

Read the rest of this post...