It would be funny if it weren’t true

Two twitter posts from earlier this evening:

@markknoller: Asked about working with Congress, Pres Obama says democracy has always be "a messy business" & is not for the "faint of heart."

2@markknoller: Pres Obama likens it to his marriage: I let Michelle have 90% of what she wants – but I have to insist on getting 10%.

Read the rest of this post...

Bachmann skipped Iowa family reunion she told everyone she went to

So that's a two-fer. Lying to the voters, pretending to care about your Iowa family in order to get votes, and not really caring about those family values you claim to want to legislate for the rest of us. Kinda sleazy. Maybe she is qualified for federal office. Read the rest of this post...

A look into the President's psyche

A troubling article in the NYT:

Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.

I think there are a few problems with this strategy.  First, it's going to make it harder to get re-elected if you don't start focusing on the economy.  Second, I'm not sure it's a wise idea to tell people publicly, which they just did via the NYT,  that you're not going to try to help the economy because it's too hard.

Now, the President probably sees this differently.  He thinks that it's impossible to do anything controversial, so it's better to propose smaller thins that everyone can agree on:

So far, most signs point to a continuation of the nonconfrontational approach — better to do something than nothing — that has defined this administration. Mr. Obama and his aides are skeptical that voters will reward bold proposals if those ideas do not pass Congress. It is their judgment that moderate voters want tangible results rather than speeches.

“If you’re talking about a stunt, I don’t think a stunt is what the American people are looking for,” the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters on Wednesday. “They’re looking for leadership, and they’re looking for a focus on economic growth and job creation.”

I would agree with Romer:

“Playing it safe is not going to cut it,” said Ms. Romer, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “Not proposing anything bold and not trying to do something to definitively deal with our problems would mean that we’re going to have another year and a half like the last year and a half — and then it’s awfully hard to get re-elected.”

What we're seeing here is the President's risk aversion having real world implications.  He does not want to fight.  So he's only willing to settle for easy things.  But the easy things don't have as great an impact on the economy, and more generally our lives.

Just because something is hard to achieve doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve.  It's difficult to see the President's strategy as some kind of "slow and steady wins the race" approach.  It feels increasingly, instead, like he has a psychological aversion to conflict and avoids it all costs.  That means that his decision making isn't entirely rational.

More on the fear of conflict:

But there is little support for such an approach inside the administration. A series of departures has left few economists among Mr. Obama’s senior advisers. Several of his political advisers are skeptical about the merits of stimulus spending, and they are certain about the politics: voters do not like it.

Putting aside for a moment that the President's politics experts seem to now be making economic policy, how about trying to change the voters' minds with a comprehensive long-term media/PR strategy?  Why is that, also, so averse to this administration?  Probably because the President sees it too as "fighting."  Anything that you can't agree on right away, and quietly, is bad.  (And in all fairness, this is a bit of a red herring - the public was for the public option to the tune of 70% in the polls.  It made zero difference to the President, he wasn't going to push for it even though he promised it.)

I understand that this is the way the President operates.  It is not, however, what we were sold during the election.  We were not told that he was averse to things bold, and would never actually push for anything that the Republicans didn't like.  We were told he was for change.  And in many ways, he tricked us.  We thought he meant a serious change in the way business was done in Washington, and a serious change in policy.  He meant, simply, and only, a change in the way business is done, and only that.

And even that.  He didn't tell us he wasn't going to fight for anything.  And he didn't tell us he was only going to push for things the Republicans could agree to right off the bat, rather than actually trying to convince them, by enlisting the aid of the public, to agree to something far more substantial.

The President's change in the way business is done tends to undercut actual change in policy.  You can certainly try to have fewer political fights by agreeing to most everything your enemy says.  But that's not what he told us he was going to do.  We thought he was promising that via his "nice guy" routine, he was going to get MORE done, not LESS.  And while I realize the President and his defenders think he's been the most successful president in decades, what a lot of us see is under-achievement.  We see what might have been had the man we voted for actually become President. Read the rest of this post...

Will the Internet make you stupid?

From the Guardian:

Like Professor Greenfield, my research group and I are most concerned with how the acquisition of new capacities changes human development. In the case of reading, we know that the "expert reading brain" as we know it includes a beautifully complex circuit that integrates simpler decoding skills with what I call "deep reading" processes such as critical analysis, analogical thought, inference and insight.

The integration of the simpler and the deeper reading processes is not automatic and requires years of learning by the novice reader, as well as extra milliseconds for any expert to read a more sophisticated text. The reality is that today's expert reading circuit was formed under very different conditions and with different mediums than those of our childrens'.

The questions that our society must ask revolve around whether the time-consuming demands of the deep-reading processes will be lost in a culture whose principal mediums advantage speed, multitasking, and processing the next and the next piece of information. Will an immersion in digitally-dominated forms of reading change the capacity of the young readers to form and to develop their deep reading processes? No one at this moment possesses the evidence to answer these questions, but our children's development and our species' intellectual evolution require that we confront them.

Maybe. But I've always thought that computers, especially computer games for example, certainly had to develop some new skills in kids today - hand-eye coordination at least, but also a sense of strategy. You just can't play some of these games without thinking, a lot (I'm serious, check out some of these games, they're major strategy games, and many require a lot of forethought).

As for the speed reading we all do on sites, yes it's different than reading a book, but again, if we all agree that reading is good, is it not possible that quickly reading a lot of stuff, from a lot of different sources, might not tax your mind in a different, but equal, manner? You clearly have to think if you're jumping around that quickly - and think quickly - and you have to organize in your brain all that you've read, and keep track of it. And while we can't always keep track of it - good luck remembering what Web site you read any particular article from last week (you remember the article, but likely not the source) - again, I'm not entirely convinced that the digital revolution somehow worsens our analytical powers.

Hell, Thorg probably told Grunt 40,000 years ago that drawing all those pictures on the cave wall was going to make him go blind. Read the rest of this post...

This is the way great nations perish. Not with a socialist, but with a patriot.

Let's keep reminding folks, they're not a party.  They're simply conservative Republicans organized by Dick Armey, Gingrich's former deputy.  And yeah, they're kind of nuts, and no one wants to call them out on it.  This is the way great nations perish. Not with a socialist, but with a patriot.

Greg Valliere, Chief Political Strategist, Potomac Research Group:

It’s debatable whether a credit rating downgrade was warranted, but you have to conclude that the appalling indifference toward default – proudly embraced by a large percentage of House Republicans – surely spooked the S&P analysts.

How stupid and reckless is the Tea Party? In addition to shrugging off a default threat – or perhaps welcoming one – they believe austerity is the correct medicine for a weak economy!! Where did they study economics, in a cornfield outhouse??

It defies belief that Tea Party members actually think spending cuts will create jobs. No – spending cuts will eliminate jobs. The Know-Nothings don’t understand that, but hey — it’s good for my bonds !!

Do check the photo that goes along with the essay, it's a beaut. Read the rest of this post...

News from Syria and Iraq

Syrian warships are currently shelling their own country. Reports give 25 dead in Latakia, but communications are very difficult and the real number is almost certainly much higher and will rise. Whatever moral justification Assad might attempt, a regime that resorts to bombarding its own cities is invariably a regime that is struggling to maintain control.

Occasionally, very occasionally, the US establishment media notices that there is also a world beyond the US. Thus I was greatly surprised to find that CNN and the NYT had in fact covered this story, albeit after the news that someone just got voted off the island in the presidential edition of Survivor.

The same was not true of the news from Libya. It appears that the rebels are currently gaining ground in both the West and the East of the country. If reports from the rebels are true, Gadaffi is reduced to holding only Tripoli and Sirte. If he loses either, he is almost certainly finished. Even so, the war can last quite a bit longer before the end.

It is not so long ago that the establishment media were telling us that the affairs of this region were the single most important security issue for the United States of America. I wonder what changed? Read the rest of this post...

I'm not saying GOP Committee chair Darrel Issa is corrupt...

Oh what the hell. From the NYT:

Here on the third floor of a gleaming office building overlooking a golf course in the rugged foothills north of San Diego, Darrell Issa, the entrepreneur, oversees the hub of a growing financial empire worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Just a few steps down the hall, Representative Darrell Issa, the powerful Republican congressman, runs the local district office where his constituents come for help.

The proximity of the two offices reflects Mr. Issa’s dual careers, a meshing of public and private interests rarely seen in government.

Most wealthy members of Congress push their financial activities to the side, with many even placing them in blind trusts to avoid appearances of conflicts of interest. But Mr. Issa (pronounced EYE-suh), one of Washington’s richest lawmakers, may be alone in the hands-on role he has played in overseeing a remarkable array of outside business interests since his election in 2000.

Really, he's not corrupt.

Seriously, he's not. Read the rest of this post...

The smear campaign against NY AG Eric Schneiderman begins

Of all the state attorneys general in America, New York's Eric Schneiderman has been most active in pursuing investigations of the foreclosure crisis and potentially illegal activities that have infected the housing sector.  As a result, it's not shocking that there now seems to be a concerted effort to smear Eric Schneiderman by Wall Street banks and their lackeys.

While investigating foreclosure fraud in New York, Schneiderman also has jurisdiction to look at fraudulent securitizations and settlements in this area, as we've seen with his action around the Bank of America/Countrywide settlement with Bank of New York Mellon. Schneiderman has also been vocal in his skepticism of the progress of the 50 state settlement talks being pursued by Iowa AG Tom Miller, the administration and major Wall Street banks. His opposition to a deal could result in it being scuttled and this scares the crap out of the banks.

First, via David Dayen, we saw Bank of New York trot out Katheryn Wylde, a member of the board of the NY Fed and president of Partnership for New York City, to the press to bash Schneiderman's questioning of the merits of the BoA/BoNY settlement. Here's the hit:

A BNY Mellon spokesman told me the bank didn’t want to comment on the broader implications of the AG’s filing, but directed me to Kathryn Wylde, CEO of the Partnership for New York City, a business development non-profit. She said that the AG’s “careless action” hurts New York’s standing as a financial center.

“It’s disappointing from the standpoint of the business community that the AG would make a fraud accusation against a major financial institution — in the press,” she told me. “And to not have any consultation with the institution? The bank was blindsided by what appears to be an outrageous charge.” (The AG’s press office didn’t respond to my request of comment.)

Dayen points out:

So you have a board member for an federal overseer of banks on Wall Street (Wylde claims that the NY Fed “serves no regulatory function,” which is just absolutely not true) attacking a state regulator for stepping into a settlement where he has found massive fraud in a preliminary investigation. She’s taking up for BNYM, which the NY Fed oversees, against the state Attorney General. This is just a classic case of regulatory capture.

There’s almost no way this is not coordinated. Wylde is pretty powerful in New York circles, I understand, and she’s raising fears of a slowdown to New York City’s main economic engine to stall regulatory oversight. The banks must continue looting, the story goes, or they’ll stop creating jobs in Manhattan.

Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism also weighs in against the attack from BoNY and Wylde:

“Fraud accusation…in the press”? This woman evidently has reading comprehension problems. If she had bothered to go through any of the news reports on the motion, the charges were not made in “the press”, they were made via a court filing.
...
And no, Bank of New York was not entitled to “consultation” when it is about to be accused of fraud, particular when the facts and law are as clear as they are in this instance. Her argument indicates either abject ignorance or deliberate deceit.

Ouch. That's really embarrassing for Wylde. And again, this is a person who sits on the board of the New York Federal Reserve.

But this isn't the only smear that's being trotted out to undermine Eric Schneiderman's investigation and pursuit of accountability on Wall Street. The New York Daily News has a story attacking Schneiderman for doing entirely legal and proper fundraising to pay off campaign debts - specifically a loan that he made to his campaign. There's nothing at all illegal about him fundraising to pay a campaign debt, but clearly someone is pushing a story to impugn Schneiderman's character.

Wall Street has a history of going after any attorney general who takes a serious interest in making banksters follow the law. The stakes here are incredibly high - Schneiderman's investigations into robosigning and foreclosure fraud have the potential to cost banks tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. That makes Schneiderman a high priority target and we're seeing that targeting happen now. Schneiderman is doing critically important work that has the potential to hold lawless banksters accountable, to help keep homeowners in their homes, and to ensure that the rule of law - the foundation of our country - is maintained in the face of attempts by wealthy elites to twist it for their personal benefit. Anyone who cares about the outcome of his investigations should join together in identifying and opposing the smears, as Dayen and Smith have with Wylde and hopefully others will with the Daily News smear. Read the rest of this post...

GOP primary season looking more and more complicated

Politico:

The core of the Republicans’ dilemma is geography. In past campaigns, one or a few candidates have positioned themselves to end the primary race rapidly by dominating several early primary states. But that’s an increasingly remote prospect in 2012, as the leading contenders plant their flags in disparate locations.

Bachmann’s straw poll performance confirmed that she’s the candidate to beat in Iowa’s leadoff caucuses. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, still holds a wide polling lead in New Hampshire and is a solid favorite in Nevada.

Perry, meanwhile, staked a strong claim to South Carolina’s often-decisive primary by announcing his campaign in Charleston, and he’s expected to have considerable regional and cultural appeal in the state.

All that raises the prospect of a primary race in which the early states turn into a kind of three-ring circus, and fail to designate one candidate as the heavy favorite for the nomination. That would turn the primary campaign into a long slog of the kind Democrats saw in 2008, with the surviving candidates scrambling for delegates state by state.

Read the rest of this post...

James Moore: "Why Rick Perry is headed for the White House"

James Moore is the Texas-knowledgeable and best-selling author of Bush's Brain, the book on Karl Rove.

Here's Moore's latest, in CNN's opinion web-pages. It's a stunner, something to put into your own brain for further consideration (my emphasis):

As a resident of Texas for 36 years, I keep wondering why the rest of the nation pays any attention to our political and cultural absurdities and yet still chooses Texans as presidents. Our most revered historical moment, the Alamo, was arguably a mass suicide. The slaughter in San Antonio was followed by a massacre at Goliad, the fall of the Confederacy to Union forces, and later by the Houston Astros. Texas has a legacy of losing.

None of this apparently matters, though, because America is beginning the process of electing another Texan to be president. ... The big brains gathered east of the Hudson and Potomac Rivers believe that Mitt Romney is the candidate to beat. But they are unable to hear what Rick Perry is saying. The Christian prayer rally in Houston was a very loud proclamation to fundamentalists and Teavangelicals, which said, "I am not a Mormon." The far right and Christian fundamentalists have an inordinate amount of influence in the GOP primary process and, regardless of messages of inclusion, very few of them will vote for a Mormon.

After he wins the nomination, protocol will require Perry to have discussions with Bachmann about the vice presidential slot, but he will, eventually, turn to Sarah Palin. The general election will force the Texan back toward the middle and he will stop talking about faith and abortion and gay marriage; Perry will campaign on jobs and the economy.

This may be why Sarah Palin still sorta looks like she's running. Moore goes on to predict a Perry-Palin victory in the Finals. Read why.

Looking at the GOP field, you have to consider this; a credible threat to Romney from the right and an attack on his Mormonism may be all it takes to win the nomination. There's more than enough Texas rumor that, unlike Bush, Perry really is as close to an unlit bulb as the Republican field can offer, but he's very polished.

If this doesn't sink him, he certainly has as much of a shot as any of them.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Rick Perry: "I will repeal health care reform"

Where is the White House's counteroffensive on health care messaging?  And how many times do we have to ask for one before we get one?  A lot of people don't agree with "health care reform" generically because this administration refuses to continue to sell it to anyone.  It's the same reason only 6 percent or so of the American people, in one poll, thought the stimulus created or saved any jobs, when the actual number is several million.

I don't like always having to write critical posts about President Obama.  But it's the same story over and over.  He refuses to fight, and we lose the messaging war.  Health care reform was the biggest achievement of his administration.  He should act like it.  Every time a Republican talks about repealing health care reform, the White House should detail exactly what it is that the Rs are talking about repealing.

So far, I don't know anyone who can tell you anything that health care reform does, or will do, other than something about pre-existing conditions.  That's crazy.  And the fact that the White House either doesn't realize it, or can't figure out how to address it (or just as bad, feels it's unaddressable or doesn't need to be addressed), is an even bigger problem.

Please, defend yourselves. Read the rest of this post...

Warren Buffet: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

Shared sacrifice is only being shared by the middle class and poor, thanks to the political class. NY Times:

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Read the rest of this post...

Report: Pakistan gave China access to downed US helicopter

If true, the budget for Pakistan really needs to be chopped. The cost of maintaining the relationship doesn't match the end result. The Guardian:

Members of the Chinese military were allowed to survey the wreckage of the hi-tech helicopter and take samples of its "stealth" skin, which allowed it to enter Pakistan undetected by radar, the Financial Times reported, quoting US sources.

"The US now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI [Pakistan's intelligence agency], gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad," an intelligence figure was quoted as saying.

The FT said it had been told by figures close to the White House and the CIA that Pakistan had given the Chinese access to the helicopter.

Read the rest of this post...