In defense of finger-pointing

There have been lots of calls, post-Coakley, to avoid "finger-pointing" and "circular firing squads." The underlying premise is that recriminations are unhelpful. Really? I'm not sure a healthy dose of recrimination isn't just what the Democratic doctor ordered. How can we cure what ails us unless we examine how we got into this mess in the first place? We need to know if Coakley's loss was simply a one-time anomaly brought on by a bad candidate, or a sign of something much worse and widespread. You simply can't fix a problem until you define what the problem is. I think a healthy dose of finger-pointing might do us some good right about now. The only uncertainty is what we do or don't choose to learn from the experience. Read the rest of this post...

Election aftermath: Obama and Congress to focus anew on the deficit

Which is good and bad. Bad, because when the economy is on life support you don't cut spending. And bad because this buys into the GOP talking point that spending is out of control. It's not, generally speaking. The wars were out of control, to the tune of $1 trillion to date. George Bush's tax cuts were out of control, to the tune of several trillion dollars. The bailouts and the stimulus, however, were not out of control - they were necessary in order to avoid another Great Depression. People were rightfully ticked because of the way they were handled (e.g., bonuses), and many didn't believe the spending was necessary because Democrats didn't defend their actions in the face of withering attacks by Republicans.

Why not simply tell the American people the truth about how the money was wasted in the past by Bush, and why it's being spent now by Obama? Read the rest of this post...

Dem Senator Webb tells Dem leaders to put the brakes on health care reform

When have the brakes not been on? Read the rest of this post...

Peter Daou: 'Liberal Bloggers to Obama and Dems: We Told You So'

Peter Daou says the Netroots saw tonight coming:

I'd like to suggest an additional explanation for the demise of Democratic fortunes, namely, that two crucial blunders - miscalculations, to be more precise - were committed by Democratic leaders early in 2009. A quick glance at the news a year ago today offers clues. On January 19th, 2009, CBS published the "Obama-Lincoln parallel." The Washington Post wrote about a "bear market for Republicans leaving the Hill or the administration." The same day, techPresident discussed "How the Obama Transition is Using Tech to Innovate." Elsewhere that day, LGBT bloggers were complaining that gay Bishop Gene Robinson's prayer was left out of HBO's live broadcast of the inaugural concert.

In that small selection of stories, key themes emerge: a) Obama is the next Lincoln; b) The Obama online revolution continues; c) Republicans are finished; d) a handful of progressives aren't buying it.

Looking back, it's not that difficult to see how the seeds of today's Republican resurgence were planted in those early days:

1. Democratic leaders and strategists, high on victory and awed by the Obama campaign's online prowess, underestimated the dormant power of the old rightwing message machine.

With a sense of invincibility and of history, and believing that the GOP had been mortally wounded, they engaged and legitimized Rush Limbaugh from the White House podium in the belief that it would further marginalize Republicans. It was a mammoth mistake, since it was Rush, Hannity, Drudge, Fox, rightwing blogs, town hall protesters and old-fashioned chain emails that permanently defined the health care debate. Obama's vaunted online army was outgunned and outmaneuvered, while a much-ridiculed Tea Party came out of nowhere to transform the political landscape.

2. Democratic leaders and strategists, privately disdainful of the netroots, underestimated the influence of progressive bloggers.

Nothing should have been a bigger red flag to the new administration than the growing complaints by established progressive bloggers that Democrats were veering off track on the stimulus, the health care bill, civil liberties, gay rights, and more. But scoffing at the netroots is second nature in many quarters of the political establishment, even though they laid the groundwork for Obama's victory. The single biggest reason Obama's hope bubble burst is because of the unintended convergence of left and right opinion-making. The cauldron of opinion that churns incessantly on blogs, Twitter, social networks, and in the elite media generates the storylines that filter across the national and local press, providing the fodder for public opinion. Stalwarts of the left, dedicated to principles not personalities, hammered the administration; couple that with the partisan criticisms from conservatives and libertarians, and the net effect was to alter conventional wisdom and undercut Obama's image and message.

Read the rest of this post...

Massachusetts Results Open Thread

9:21 PM: AP has declared Brown the winner. The Boston Globe reports that Coakley called Brown to concede.

69% of vote in:
Brown (R) 53% 791,972 votes
Coakly (D) 46% 696,751 votes

We'll be monitoring results tonight. You can get live results here. AP has more detailed results.

Swing State Project has the benchmarks to watch tonight.

Rasmussen did an election night poll:

Preliminary results include:

* Among those who decided how they would vote in the past few days, Coakley has a slight edge, 47% to 41%.
* Coakley also has a big advantage among those who made up their mind more than a month ago.
* Seventy-six percent (76%) of voters for Brown said they were voting for him rather than against Coakley.
* Sixty-six percent (66%) of Coakley voters said they were voting for her rather than against Brown.
* 22% of Democrats voted for Brown. That is generally consistent with pre-election polling.

On CNN at 8:23 PM, the network's GOP commentator, Erick Erickson, the editor of the right-wing blog, Red State, said:

The irony here though, is that Obama's unicorn of hope and change is dying under Ted Kennedy...that if Ted Kennedy had decided to resign or retire when he found just out how bad his health was, instead of being wanting to be a martyr for the cause, the Democrats wouldn't be in this position.

Read the rest of this post...

25% of Mass. vote should be counted in first hour

So says Chuck Todd via Twitter. He says there will probably be no winner declared in the first hour. Read the rest of this post...

Evan Bayh is still seriously an idiot

I get that people feel the need to spin the Massachusetts election. And to some degree that's valid. There's really no excuse for having to fight, tooth and nail, to hold on to JFK's, and then Ted Kennedy's, seat in Massachusetts. But, there's a point where, even by Washington standards, you can really be a self-serving moron. To wit, "Democratic" Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana who argues that Dems are having a hard time in Massachsetts because they moved too far to the left.

What is the lesson of Massachusetts – where Democrats face the prospects of losing a Senate seat they’ve held since 1952? For Senator Bayh the lesson is that the party pushed an agenda that is too far to the left, alienating moderate and independent voters....

“The only we are able to govern successfully in this country is by liberals and progressives making common cause with independents and moderates,” Bayh said. “Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country -- that’s not going to work too well.”

Let's think about that for a moment. Massachusetts, that kept Ted Kennedy in office for decades because he promised to provide affordable health care to every American, thinks President Obama is going too far by passing legislation that is, at best, half a loaf of what Kennedy had been proposing. Got that?

What other "far left" agenda could Bayh be talking about? Gay rights perhaps? First off, not much of an agenda in this White House, but in any case, we're to believe that liberal views on social issues are ticking off a state that was the first in the country to have gay marriage? Seriously? How about abortion - Kennedy was pro-choice, never hurt him, and in any case, Obama is hardly God's gift to choicers.

So it's not health care reform or social issues, maybe it's economic issues. Was it the Wall Street bailout? Not very liberal there. Maybe defense issues. Perhaps the mini-surge of additional troops in Afghanistan? Again, no liberal to be found.

So what exactly is Evan Bayh talking about when he says that our government has lurched too far to the left of Massachusetts? What part of President Obama's agenda wasn't Massachusetts familiar with when they voted for him over John McCain last November by double digits? And the irony is that Obama has never moved farther to the left in office than he promised on the campaign trail -- he's only moved to the right.

If Ted Kennedy were around he'd walk up to Evan Bayh and mess up his hair. Read the rest of this post...

Live puppy cam!

A small break before we get into election coverage. The polls close in Massachusetts at 8 Eastern.

Major hat tip to Joe My God for finding this one. The puppies were born 3 days ago. And by the wonders of the Internet, you're watching them live.

Live TV : Ustream Read the rest of this post...

Jon Stewart laments the possibility of the Dems. only having an 18-seat majority in the Senate

This is good:
Read the rest of this post...

'The Greatest Story Ever D'ohed' - Homer goes to Israel, and the fundies are not happy

The religious right is angry, again, at the Simpsons over an upcoming episode in which Homer and Marge visit the Holy Land:

In an interview, "The Simpsons" Executive Producer Al Jean states that Sacha Baron Cohen will play a "pretty angry but funny" Israeli tour guide. Jean promises this Easter special will "be a show that all faiths can come together and be offended by."

Jean also discloses that Cohen's character is "trying to get Marge to give him good grades on the comment card, and she goes, 'You people are pushy,' and he goes, 'What do you mean, you people? You try having Syria for a neighbor! What do you have – Canada?'"

Thanks to the fundie bigots, now I have another episode of the Simpson's to tape. Read the rest of this post...

Health-care stocks rise on prospect of Brown victory

The corporations that make money from health care -- and want the status quo -- know whose side Scott Brown will be on:

An index of health-care companies in the S&P; 500 led the advance with a 1.9 percent rally. U.S. Democrats face the possibility of losing a Senate seat held by the late Edward Kennedy as voters in Massachusetts go to the polls. A loss could cost them a 60-vote supermajority needed to help pass a health- care overhaul.

Read the rest of this post...

White House in all out CYA mode over Coakley race

From Ben Smith we learn that the only reason President Obama didn't help Coakley over a week ago, when people here in DC were already quite concerned about the race, is because Coakley just didn't ask the President for help. Had she asked, he'd have done something to preserve his 60th filibuster proof (sometimes) vote in the Senate, to preserve health care reform, to preserve his entire agenda. But because she didn't, he didn't.

He was asked whether Obama should have done more than make an eleventh-hour effort to head off a defeat that would be calamatous for his agenda.

"The White House did everything we were asked to do," he said. "I think if we had been asked earlier, we would have responded earlier."

Mother may I?

Then, from Jack Tapper at ABC News we learn the following:

While he refused to answer most questions about the close Massachusetts Senate race, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today acknowledged that President Obama "was both surprised and frustrated" with how hotly contested the Bay State special election has become.

Gibbs said he would wait until tomorrow to discuss the results of the election, but said the president was "not pleased" with how much the Democratic candidate, attorney general Martha Coakley, is struggling.

He said the White House didn't need a special election to note the "tremendous amount of upset and anger" among voters about "where we are economically... In many ways we're here because of that upset and anger."

I think the more appropriate thing to say before the voters have even finished voting, before the ballots have even been counted, is "we believe that Martha Coakley is going to win." Period. End of story. Read the rest of this post...

CentCom spokesman defends secret Bible verses inscribed on US weapons heading into Afghanistan and Iraq

Secret Bible versus? Are you kidding me? And they're defending it?

Following an ABC News report that thousands of gun sights used by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with secret Bible references, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps said the Corps is 'concerned' and will discuss the matter with the weapons manufacturer.

"We are aware of the issue and are concerned with how this may be perceived," Capt. Geraldine Carey, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps, said in a statement to ABC News. "We will meet with the vendor to discuss future sight procurements." Carey said that when the initial deal was made in 2005 it was the only product that met the Corps needs.

However, a spokesperson for CentCom, the U.S. military's overall command in Iraq and Afghanistan, said he did not understand why the issue was any different from U.S. money with religious inscriptions on it.

"The perfect parallel that I see," said Maj. John Redfield, spokesperson for CentCom, told ABC News, "is between the statement that's on the back of our dollar bills, which is 'In God We Trust,' and we haven't moved away from that."

Said Redfield, "Unless the equipment that's being used that has these inscriptions proved to be less than effective for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and military folks using it, I wouldn't see why we would stop using that."

Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly laments that you can no longer make fun of Arabs in America

O'Reilly's version of the famous Niemöller quote: First they came for the racists...

Read the rest of this post...

Obama plans to re-emphasize his interest in bipartisanship

From CQ:

President Obama plans to re-emphasize his interest in bipartisanship by addressing House Republicans this week, but whether that will produce an election-year truce is very much in question.

Can't get Einstein's definition of "insanity" out of my head. Read the rest of this post...

The race in Massachusetts, where it really stands

Okay, by now everyone who pays attention to politics knows that there's a special Senate election in Massachusetts. Importantly, the voters of Massachusetts know it. That wasn't the case a couple weeks ago when it seemed no one, except for GOP candidate Scott Brown and his followers, were focused on today's contest. It seemed like Martha Coakley, the Democrat, was barely running a campaign.

It seems most of the pundits have written this race off already -- giving the victory to Brown. Nate Silver reports there's a 25% chance Coakley can win and notes 25% is not equal to zero. At Pollster.com, Charles Franklin reports that polls show a lead for Brown, but adds this:

The caveats are that turnout may yet matter, for either side. Reps enjoy an enthusiasm advantage, according to the polls, but Dems might yet mobilize their voters beyond what the polling suggests. And there is the unknown of the GOTV efforts on Tuesday. But if Coakley wins, this will be a major surprise, and the pollsters will have a lot to rethink about their methods. A win for Brown will have huge implications for the Democratic policy agenda and will put the fear of God into Democrats running in November.

Along those line, I was struck by this analysis at Blue Mass Group:

I am seeing and sensing a lot of that "freak out" among Massachusetts Dems and liberals who probably would not have voted tomorrow if the polls showed Martha ahead.

Remember, there has not been a tight race, with national significance, within Massachusetts since.... I don't know when. Obama, Kerry, Gore, etc... all had Mass sewn up long before the polls opened. This is the first time in almost a generation that Mass Dems have been forced into a corner on the national stage.

I'd bet a pitcher of beer that we rise to the occasion.

That comports with what I've been hearing. The lack of attention to this race definitely worked to Scott Brown's advantage. His supporters were fired up and always planned to vote.

But that changed over the past couple days. Most people in Massachusetts just weren't paying attention to politics over the holidays. Plus, Mass. never has elections at this time of year. Now at least, people know, which means turnout will be higher than expected just a couple days ago. And, Democrats are actually fired up. A friend mentioned he saw Rep. Ed Markey on local news yesterday thanking Scott Brown for uniting the Mass. Dem Party like never before. Democrats have been shaken out of their complacency.

In addition, Democrats in the Bay State now know about Scott Brown's record. He is the candidate of the teabagger. His right-wing, anti-gay record has been exposed. And, the video of Brown smiling and nodding when a supporter yelled "shove a curling iron up her butt" says a lot about the guy.

Granted, a lot of my latest info is anecdotal, not scientific polling. I talked to a number of political types (and family) in Massachusetts who are feeling a little better today than they were last week. Although, the one consistent complaint has been about the poor quality of Coakley's ads, which were produced by GMMB. That firm is led by Jim Margolis, one of the ultimate DC Democratic insiders. GMMB did ads for Obama, too.

From what I've heard, Massachusetts Democrats know how to do GOTV, which is key in these kinds of elections. The networks are activated, especially the LGBT ones.

All this added attention could and should help Coakley. I'm wondering if this election could be like the Democratic primary in New Hampshire two years ago when everyone thought Obama would win -- as all the polls predicted, but Clinton prevailed. That could be wishful thinking.

The polls close at 8:00 PM. That's when we'll know for sure. But, I do know this: As much as Rahm Emanuel is trying to assign blame to others (and he is), much blame for the angry political climate in the U.S. lies with the strategy Rahm developed for the Obama presidency. To think this race is only about Coakley would be a huge mistake. Read the rest of this post...

Citigroup lost $7.6 billion in the last quarter

As I noted below, in the latest CBS poll, 49% of Americans think Obama has done "too much" for banks. One of the big banks just announced its quarterly results. Citigroup lost $7.6 billion:

Citigroup Inc posted a fourth-quarter loss of $7.6 billion after taking charges linked to repaying government bailout funds.

The results were in line with expectations, and the bank's losses from bad loans declined from the third quarter. But compared to a year ago, losses on consumer and corporate loans were still steep, and the decrease from the third quarter was not enough to reassure investors who had been hoping for more decisive signs that the worst in credit losses was over for Citigroup.

Citigroup's CEO was one of the three banking leaders, along with the heads of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who blew off a meeting with Obama last month.

Meanwhile, CNBC has a report yesterday that bonuses at Citigroup in 2009 will be the same as those in 2008. Read the rest of this post...

In Arizona, Bully with a badge getting his due

After years of running an immigrant-bashing operation in Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is finally getting his due.

This weekend, immigrant leaders from across the country organized a protest against the sheriff in Arizona. The AP covered the event:

Ten thousand immigrant rights advocates marched in front of a county jail in Phoenix Saturday in a protest that was aimed at Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's immigration efforts...

Organizers say the protest was meant to show officials in Washington that Arpaio shouldn't handle immigration enforcement, and that Congress and the Obama administration need to come up with a way for immigrant workers to come to the country legally.

Arpaio has been described by The New York Times as the "worst sheriff in America":

Sheriff Arpaio is armed and dangerous. He is a genuine public menace with a long and well-documented trail of inmate abuses, unjustified arrests, racial profiling, brutal and inept policing and wasteful spending.

A web site, barriozona.com even tracks the sheriff’s terrorizing sweeps through Latino neighborhoods. You may remember his penchant for dressing jailed immigrants in pink underwear, pink handcuffs and a stripped jumpsuit. But, Arpaio might have to pay for some of his abusive treatment.

The AP reports:

Ten months ago, Arpaio learned he was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for alleged discrimination and unconstitutional searches. He says the investigation was prompted by his immigration efforts, although federal authorities haven't provided details.

Since early 2008, Arpaio has run 13 immigration and crimes sweeps involving officers who flood a section of a city - in some cases heavily Latino areas - to seek out traffic violators and arrest other violators.

Arpaio's power to make federal immigration arrests was stripped away three months ago by officials in Washington, but he continues his immigration efforts through the enforcement of two state laws.

The sheriff claims none of this bothers him and the protesters should be directing their frustrations at Congress because it has the power to change America's immigration laws:

"They are zeroing in on the wrong guy," Arpaio said. "They ought to be zeroing in on the president."

This time, I'm with the feds. Seems they are looking at just the right guy. Read the rest of this post...

After one year, Obama's approval at 50%

I wanted to get up at least one look at Obama's first year before it becomes completely entangled in the Brown/Coakley race fallout. I have to admit, I'm surprised at the damage done to Obama's presidency over the past year. The Republicans were unrelenting in their attacks. But, the White House brain trust didn't do the President any favors. Remember how Obama kept saying he wanted health care reform done by August? Yet, his staff, led by Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina, kept letting Max Baucus drag out the process last summer with those useless meetings by the "Gang of Six." It's January and there's no final bill. Let's just say, a lot of us expected a lot more from President Obama.

This is from CBS:

Mr. Obama's job approval rating is now 50 percent, up from last week's all-time low of 46 percent. When he took office a year ago, 62 percent approved.

The recent four-point rise in Mr. Obama's overall job approval rating may reflect the widespread approval of his handling of the U.S. response to the devastating earthquake in Haiti last week; 80 percent approve, and just 8 percent disapprove. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents approve on this measure.

But when it comes to overall approval, the president has maintained his early high approval ratings only among Democrats (four in five approve). Only four in 10 independents and a quarter of Republicans now approve. A year ago, 56 percent of independents approved of the job President Obama was doing, as did 36 percent of Republicans.

At 50 percent, Mr. Obama's approval rating is similar to that of Presidents Ronald Reagan (49 percent), Jimmy Carter (51 percent) and Bill Clinton (54 percent) one year into their presidencies. All were plagued by economic troubles – and Mr. Clinton also attempted to reform health care.

One of the worst results in this poll has to do with banks:

Forty-nine percent say the president has done too much for the banks, and 37 percent think he's done too much for U.S. auto makers. At the same time, 54 percent say he's done too little for the middle class, six in 10 think he's done too little for small businesses and a plurality says he's done too little for homeowners.

A lot of Americans see the banks as big winners in the first year of the Obama administration. All the news about bonuses reinforces that perception. Now, the GOP left the economic mess. But, Obama's economic team appeared to have abetted the banks instead of reining them in.

We can expect more of these polls and much more discussion of Obama's first year for the rest of the week. What happens today in Massachusetts will shape that discussion. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Today is Election Day in Massachusetts. Voters will be choosing between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Ted Kennedy. Polls close at 8:00 P.M. It's snowing in the Boston area, but just a couple of inches. Last week, I would have thought the Brown voters had the intensity. But, I keep hearing that Democrats have gotten energized, too. I'll post any updates we get throughout the day.

Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of Obama's inauguration. Someone at the White House needs to be asking how the strategy developed and overseen by Rahm Emanuel has led Obama to where he is now -- especially if Scott Brown wins. Because the fact that the election in Massachusetts is even in play says a lot about the national political climate. This is especially infuriating because GOPers still have nothing to offer the American people.

We can expect endless political spin and analysis over the next few days.

Let's get threading.... Read the rest of this post...