Tag: ek Politics

From Taylor Marsh (who’s a little too much of a Clinton Cheerleader for me, but she makes a point)-

Obama refusing to endorse Frank Caprio because he supported Hillary, while staying loyal to a former Republican now turned Independent at a time when Democrats need every governor we can get, is the height of pettiness.

Pres. Obama is doing his impression of a spurned teenage girl, while Axelrod and David Plouffe calculate that by losing the House Obama will be helped for 2012. It’s all about Barack Obama. Screw the Democrats going down with his sinking policy ship.

There are 10 types of people in the world, those who know binary and those who don’t.

What Happens Next? The Complex Post-Election Landscape

Howard Fineman, The Huffington Post

10-25-10 01:27 PM

In his simplistic way Howard Fineman has identified what he from his inside the Belt Buckle gonad licking perspective views as the 5 post election power blocks-

• Karl Rove and the GOP “Establishment”
• Palin and the Tea Baggers
• Bloomberg’s Plutocrat Brigade
• The “Union-Krugmanites” (you know, hippies)
• THE WHITE HOUSE

Actually Fineman puts them all in ALL CAPS.  Must be new to blogging.

What particularly drew my attention to his “insight” are his descriptipns of the last 3 groups.  Here’s what he has to say about Bloomberg for instance-

This time, he would run in the manner of the landed gentry of two centuries ago: as an American patrician above it all, thanks to his vast wealth, with no partisan allegiance, eager to strike a national, centrist consensus on the debt, on the environment and foreign affairs. He’d draw on what’s left of moderate Republicanism (admittedly not much). But, more important, he’d draw on what’s left of Clintonism, which is quite considerable. Pro-business Democrats, which Bill Clinton was, are about to become an endangered species. Blue Dog Democrats — which Clinton was, sort of — are about to become extinct.

Can’t happen soon enough for me Howard.

This is what he thinks about hippies-

Next week’s results will decimate conservative Democrats, who won marginal districts in 2006 and 2008 in red or purple districts and states. As a result, the Left, or what’s left of the Left, will be in charge of shrunken Democratic ranks in Congress.

Well, that’s not so bad.  But Fineman goes on to identify Paul Krugman as one of the “few true, visible operational heroes at the moment.”  Why?  Because while “not radical, … in today’s context a true believer in the Democratic tradition of the New Deal and John Maynard Keynes seems like one.”

Good in a way, because I know a lot of people who are much farther to the left than The Shrill One, but bad also because Fineman dismisses out of hand, doesn’t even consider, that there are “radicals”.

We’re not “serious” enough for the likes of Howard.

But what’s truly alarming is his prescription for Obama-

(M)ore than acquiring new staff, the president needs to do something he has resisted. He has to become a Washington inside player and pretend to like it.

Like he hasn’t done that for 2 years already.

Howard Fineman is a moron.

Or changiness, I forget which.

Blue Dogs Face Sharp Losses in Midterms

By GERALD F. SEIB, The Wall Street Journal

October 26, 2010

WASHINGTON-More than half the members of the Blue Dog Coalition-the organization of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House-are in peril in next week’s election, a stark indicator of how the balloting could produce a Congress even more polarized than the current one.

…

The upshot is one of the great political ironies of the year: A national conservative wave will hit hardest not at the most liberal Democrats, but at the most conservative Democrats. The Democratic caucus left behind will be, on balance, more liberal than it was before the election.

…

Within the Democratic party, many expect this process to produce a vigorous, perhaps nasty, internal debate about the ideological direction of the party. Already some on the party’s left are complaining that the centrists who will lose didn’t support the party’s signature legislative initiatives, such as the health-care overhaul, and that their departure should be seen as a sign the party would be better off pursuing a more liberal agenda that would please and fire up its base.

Anyone who “claims” to care about electoral victory is a liar.

Democratic candidate for Governor of Rhode Island Frank T. Caprio–

You know, I’ve never asked President Obama for his endorsement, and what’s going here is really Washington insider politics at its worst. You have two former senators – Senator Chafee and former Senator Obama – who have behind the scenes tried to put, you know, together an endorsement for Senator Chafee. And who knows, maybe there’ll even be one coming, but I never asked for President Obama’s endorsement, uh, you know, he could take his endorsement and really shove it as far as I’m concerned.

The reality here is that Rhode Islanders are hurting. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. We had one of the worst floods in the history of the United States a few months back, and President Obama didn’t even do a fly-over of Rhode Island like President Bush did when New Orleans had their problems. He ignored us and, now, he’s coming into Rhode Island and treating us like an ATM machine.

So what I’m saying to President Obama very clearly is, I’ll wear it as a badge of honor and a badge of courage that he doesn’t want to endorse me as a Democrat because I am a different kind of Democrat. I’m going to fight for big changes in the state. I’m going to fight for jobs every day. And this place could be such a great place. And we don’t need these Washington insider politics. It’s at its worst.

You know, he comes in here looking for big donations from Rhode Islanders when you know we’re hurting and we need jobs here. We need people who are really going to care about what’s going on Main Street here in Rhode Island. That’s the kind of governor I’m going to be. So, I thank the people of Rhode Island for all the support they’ve given me up to this point and, now, we’ve got to close this deal over the next week and we’re going to bring the state back.

Joe Sudbay rocks.

Reporter told Dem. running for RI Gov. that Obama won’t campaign for him

by Joe Sudbay (DC) on 10/25/2010 08:57:00 AM

So, we’re all supposed to be urging Democrats to vote, you know, not whine and gripe and groan. Then, we see something like this:

President Obama will not endorse the Democratic candidate for governor, Frank T. Caprio, when he comes to Rhode Island to support other Democratic candidates, the White House said Sunday.

Monday Morning Open Thread

by Joe Sudbay (DC) on 10/25/2010 07:53:00 AM

The President is heading to Rhode Island today. First, he’s doing an event on small business and the economy at the American Cord & Webbing in Woonsocket. Then, he’s heading to Providence to do two events for the DCCC. There’s an open seat in Rhode Island and the Democrat is the gay mayor of Providence, David Cicilline. There’s also a three-way race for Governor in Rhode Island. According to the Providence Journal:

President Obama will not endorse the Democratic candidate for governor, Frank T. Caprio, when he comes to Rhode Island to support other Democratic candidates, the White House said Sunday.

While Krugman kind of wienies out.

What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?

By FRANK RICH, The New York Times

Published: October 23, 2010

No matter how much Obama talks about his “tough” new financial regulatory reforms or offers rote condemnations of Wall Street greed, few believe there’s been real change. That’s not just because so many have lost their jobs, their savings and their homes. It’s also because so many know that the loftiest perpetrators of this national devastation got get-out-of-jail-free cards, that too-big-to-fail banks have grown bigger and that the rich are still the only Americans getting richer.

This intractable status quo is being rubbed in our faces daily during the pre-election sprint by revelations of the latest banking industry outrage, its disregard for the rule of law as it cut every corner to process an avalanche of foreclosures. Clearly, these financial institutions have learned nothing in the few years since their contempt for fiscal and legal niceties led them to peddle these predatory mortgages (and the reckless financial “products” concocted from them) in the first place. And why should they have learned anything? They’ve often been rewarded, not punished, for bad behavior.

…

The real tragedy here, though, is not whatever happens in midterm elections. It’s the long-term prognosis for America. The obscene income inequality bequeathed by the three-decade rise of the financial industry has societal consequences graver than even the fundamental economic unfairness. When we reward financial engineers infinitely more than actual engineers, we “lure our most talented graduates to the largely unproductive chase” for Wall Street riches, as the economist Robert H. Frank wrote in The Times last weekend. Worse, Frank added, the continued squeeze on the middle class leads to a wholesale decline in the quality of American life – from more bankruptcy filings and divorces to a collapse in public services, whether road repair or education, that taxpayers will no longer support.

This is the real “moral hazard”.  Krugman misses the point-

Falling Into the Chasm

By PAUL KRUGMAN, The New York Times

Published: October 24, 2010

If Democrats do as badly as expected in next week’s elections, pundits will rush to interpret the results as a referendum on ideology. President Obama moved too far to the left, most will say, even though his actual program – a health care plan very similar to past Republican proposals, a fiscal stimulus that consisted mainly of tax cuts, help for the unemployed and aid to hard-pressed states – was more conservative than his election platform.

…

What we do know is that the inadequacy of the stimulus has been a political catastrophe. Yes, things are better than they would have been without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: the unemployment rate would probably be close to 12 percent right now if the administration hadn’t passed its plan. But voters respond to facts, not counterfactuals, and the perception is that the administration’s policies have failed.

…

Is there any hope for a better outcome? Maybe, just maybe, voters will have second thoughts about handing power back to the people who got us into this mess, and a weaker-than-expected Republican showing at the polls will give Mr. Obama a second chance to turn the economy around.

So more “but the Republicans are worse” Obama/DNC bullshit.  How motivating.

What evidence is there that, without holding Democrats accountable, their policies will change?

None.  Zip.  Zilch.  Nada.  Zero.

What about those “negative consequences” from Democratic losses?

• Fear Factor
• Fear Factor II

With about a week to go before Election Day, what signs do you see that Democrats or Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration intend to implement policies any different at all from the Bush Lite ones they tried in the last 2 years that have already failed?

In total there are 87 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy.

No more Falklands.  In fact, speaking as an armchair war gamer, it’s hard to see who they can beat unless you buy into the Special Ops/Single Bullet/Kentucky Rifle theory of war.  Unfortunately there are a billion Kalishnikovs out there and only so many of you.  Quantity is is its own quality, Shermans were not better than Panzer IVs, Panthers and Tiger Is and IIs, they were more (umm, arguably T-34s were better, just like Kalishnikovs).

And “insurgents” and “terrorists” live there and we’ve all seen that happen enough times that we should have learned a lesson- they are like fish in the ocean.  It is the beginning of the end of an Empire and I’m not talking about Britain.

Britain takes axe to armed forces in savings push

by Katherine Haddon and Alice Ritchie, AFP

Tue Oct 19, 3:31 pm ET

LONDON (AFP) – Britain announced Tuesday it will shrink its armed forces and scrap key assets like its flagship aircraft carrier, in a defence review that forms part of stinging cuts across the whole public sector.

…

As part of eight percent cuts to the 37 billion pound (42 billion euro, 58 billion dollar) Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget, the Royal Navy’s flagship HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier is also being scrapped immediately along with Britain’s fleet of Harrier jets.

…

The changes in the defence review suggest that in the long-term, Britain could not engage in wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It assumes the armed forces will only be equipped to send 6,500 troops for a long-term operation and a maximum of 30,000 troops for a short-term conflict.

…

Cameron insisted Britain’s defence budget would remain the fourth largest in the world and would meet NATO’s target for members to spend more than two percent of GDP on defence.

UK’s Cameron announces military austerity plan

By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writer

Tue Oct 19, 6:28 pm ET

Outlining the first defense review since 1998 – intended both to sweep away strategies crafted before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. and to help clear the country’s crippling national debt – Cameron said 17,000 troops, a fleet of jets and an aging aircraft carrier would all be sacrificed.

…

The numbers were stark. Naval warships, 25,000 civilian staff and a host of bases will also be lost, while the country’s stockpile of nuclear warheads will be trimmed from 160 to 120.

Two new aircraft carriers will be built at a cost of 5 billion pounds ($8 billion) – but one will effectively by mothballed and another won’t have any British fighter jets to transport until 2019.

Instead, Britain will invest in its much admired special forces and develop expertise on cyber threats to secure the country’s status as a major global power, Cameron said.

Defence and security review: Groping for a strategy

The Guardian

Wednesday 20 October 2010

There will be no carrier at sea with British jets on it for the next 10 years as a result of the decision to decommission the Ark Royal and retire the Harrier jump jet. One of the new carriers will have no aircraft on it for at least three years, while costing £1bn a year, and will then be mothballed or sold, and the second carrier will be adapted with catapults and arresting gear to take French and US planes. One bright day Britain will have both a carrier and planes to put on it, but not for some time yet. Even by the low standards of defence procurement, the continued muddle is madness. Rather than fashioning defence forces around real needs, Britain continues to pretend it is capable of providing the full spectrum of military roles.

(h/t Joe Sudbay @ Americablog)

Obama’s surrender on outside spending

By: Ben Smith, Politico

October 19, 2010 04:47 AM EDT

Democrats enter the homestretch of the 2010 elections complaining vocally about the flood of Republican money, much of it anonymous, pounding their candidates.

But as the White House points the finger at outside Republican groups, many Democrats point the finger back at the White House, which dismantled the Democratic Party’s own outside infrastructure in 2008 and never tried to rebuild it.

…

(T)o some of its more practical-minded allies, the White House is protecting the brand at a very real cost to the party.

“The leadership of the Obama campaign warned their donors against giving to outside groups, including many of the key issue groups that motivate progressives. The leadership in the White House has done the same thing,” said Erica Payne, one of the founders of the Democracy Alliance, a group of the largest liberal donors, who now heads the Agenda Project. “As a result, the administration often looks like Will Ferrell in the movie ‘Old School’ – running through the street naked, shouting, ‘Come on, everybody’s streaking,’ when in reality they are all by themselves.”

…

That active discouragement began in earnest in May 2008 as Democratic fundraisers began joining hands to try to take back the White House. A first effort, a 527 called the Fund for America, had boasted in March that it would spend $150 million. As it fizzled, a new nonprofit group called Progressive Media USA announced in April that it would raise and spend $40 million from anonymous donors to attack John McCain.

Then, in early May, in a conference call and at a meeting of Obama’s national finance team, Finance Chairwoman Penny Pritzker told donors and fundraisers that Obama didn’t want them helping outside groups. The money stopped so abruptly that Progressive Media was left unable to spend enough on nonpolitical causes to preserve its tax status and was folded into the Center for American Progress.

You piss on your friends and suck up to your enemies, you get what you deserve.

Shadow Elite: The "Inside Job" That Toppled Iceland’s Economy

Robert Wade and Silla Sigurgeirsdóttir

Posted: October 14, 2010 07:12 AM

Iceland’s flex net operated on the edge of and partly in opposition to a traditional elite, a bloc of some 14 families known popularly as the Octopus, which dominated Icelandic capitalism from the start. In the early 70’s, some university students took over a journal called The Locomotive  to promote free-market ideas–and, not least, to open up career opportunities for themselves, rather than wait for Octopus patronage. The two future PM’s, Oddsson and Haarde, were members.

They were devoted to neoliberal policies, and privatized publicly-owned enterprises, to the benefit of their Locomotive cronies. In 1991 Oddsson began his reign–not too strong a word–as PM, explicitly invoking Reagan and Thatcher as models and drawing on the same ideas of “New Public Management,” which sanctioned large-scale outsourcing of government work to private actors. Then he set in motion the dramatic growth of Iceland’s financial sector, before installing himself as Central Bank Governor in 2005. Finance Minister Haarde took over as PM shortly after.

…

With near-exclusive access to information, power brokers can also brand it for the media and public to suit their own purposes, with only a few able to counter them. The Oddsson and later Haarde government proved masterful at this. They relied primarily on the banks’ research departments for economic analysis. Iceland’s National Economic Institute had built a reputation for independent thinking and, at times, published unwelcome reports, warning that the economy’s management was going haywire. Oddsson abolished it in 2002. Statistics Iceland, the public data agency, was notably cowed into suppressing unfavourable information. And the University of Iceland bowed to pressures to make its Economic and Social Research centres self-funding–that is, to rely on finding buyers for commissioned research–with the convenient result that they no longer published big-picture reports with a critical edge.

…

Even Parliament’s recommendation last week to indict Geir Haarde is a letdown for those demanding real accountability: the parliament voted to charge Haarde, but not three others facing similar charges. The former ministers who prescribed the policies of the bubble economy, i.e. David Oddsson and his then partner in a coalition government, face no charges whatsoever because of a 3 year statute of limitations. Meanwhile the current leadership is unable to avoid one thing: popular outrage – misleadingly directed at it rather than at the previous leaders responsible. The Guardian reported that politicians had to flee 2,000 angry protestors at the recent Parliament opening. Polls show that “trust in parliament” is running at about 10%. One can hope that those responsible for Iceland’s implosion will face more consequences than hurled eggs, but Geir Haarde, for one, is undaunted at the prospect of being the first world leader indicted for economic mismanagement. He told Bloomberg News two weeks ago that he will be “completely vindicated”, and called the charges “absurd.”

What digby said–

God, I hope this is just bullshit spin and not what he really thinks:

…

He’s going to need Christine O’Donnell to cast a spell on the Teabag Republicans because that’s the only way they are going to do anything remotely bipartisan. Even if he agreed to reduce millionaires’ tax to zero and barnstorm against gay marriage and abortion, they would not help him. They want to beat him, not govern.

If Obama goes too far in trying to appease these people, he’d better hope to hell the Republicans run the Palin/Paladino ticket because that will be his only hope for reelection.

I don’t think he’s a dumb person so I’m hopeful that this is pre-election spin designed for political purposes. I’m not sure what those are, but I simply can’t believe that he’s serious after what we’ve seen.

Latest Obama talking point: If we don’t appeal DADT & DOMA, Rs will kill health care reform and hate crimes law

Posted by John Aravosis (DC) at 10/13/2010 11:46:00 AM

There’s increased chatter, as the spies would say, from the Obama administration and from administration apologists about the notion that the President simply has to appeal our DADT & DOMA victories in court lest a future Republican president refuse to appeal legal challenges to Obama’s health care reform bill or the Hate Crimes bill.

The naiveté, or utter duplicity, of such an argument is breathtaking.

At its core, the argument comes down to this: A future Republican administration – let’s call it the Palin administration – is going to look to former President Obama for guidance when deciding how evil it wants to be.

That sort of logic encapsulates the problem we face as a community, and the broader problem Democrats face, with our less-than-fierce advocate. The President is either incredibly naive about Republican motivations, or he’s lying to us in order to get us to back down.

It’s tough to know which is motivating the President, as both theories have precedent. The President’s near fanatical desire for “bipartisanship at all costs” is by now legendary. He seriously seems to believe that by giving something to the GOP for nothing, the Republicans will at some future date return the favor. And, not surprising to anyone born before yesterday, they never do. But he keeps trying. He keeps scaling back his promises, keeps caving on key legislative provisions at the drop of a hat, keeps putting conservative Ds and Rs in charge of his major policy priorities, from health care reform to the budget deficit, and keeps ceding more and more power to his Secretary of Defense on DADT, as though Robert Gates were the boss of Barack Obama – all in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, one of these opponents will be nice to him since he was nice to them.

But it hasn’t worked out very well because life doesn’t work that way, at least not in Washington, DC. The Republicans are never “nice” to Democrats because Democrats ceded ground first. To a Republican, you didn’t give them a peace offering, you conveyed weakness. How many campaign promises does he have to self-sabotage before the President understands that the goody-two-shoes school of political diplomacy simply doesn’t work in this town?

The notion that President Sarah Palin is going to look to Barack Obama for guidance on what to do on health care reform is laughable. And the notion that any Republican is going to give a damn about Obama’s positions on gay rights when deciding whether to once again bash the gays is preposterous.

It’s beyond naive. It’s downright scary if this is truly what the Obama administration continues to believe: that the Republicans won’t use every opportunity at their disposal to undercut the Democratic agenda. And they do believe it, or they’re lying.

Either way: not very fierce.

If this is not enough to convince you, just where will you set the bar?

I have an early comment (about #5) I’ll quote (but I have no idea how to link given the terrible commenting system)-

ek hornbeck

So when, digby, exactly will you believe?  

He’s serious.