slothropia.com

Check out this piece by emptywheel about the DNC’s response to the Michael Steele comments about the war in Afghanistan:

A number of people have taken the DNC to task for its Rovian attack on RNC Chair Michael Steele for comments suggesting we might fail in Afghanistan (Glenn Greenwald, Greg Sargent, Adam Serwer). The only thing I would add to their comments is to note that not only a majority of the Democratic caucus in the House–as Glenn points out–but also two-thirds of Democrats in polls are ready to end the Afghan war, most of them strongly. Is the institutional Democratic Party trying to score political points on an issue that a solid majority of their party opposes? Really, we’ve gotten that stupid?!?

But what really demonstrates the stupidity of the move is how it puts us in ideological and political partnership with Liz “BabyDick” Cheney–who has called for Steele’s firing over his comments.

There’s more.

I like the way Wheeler calls Liz Cheney “Babydick”. Somebody should copyright that phrase.

Here’s the Dropkick Murphys’ version of Florence Reese’s Which Side are You On?

It was posted on Union TV
but I found it in this post at at Open Left. In this post, Paul Rosenberg discusses Glenn Greenwald’s response to the Blanche Lincoln victory over Bill Halter in last Tuesday’s Arkansas primary runoff. As Greenwald puts it:

The run-off between Democratic Senate incumbent Blanche Lincoln and challenger Bill Halter, which culminated on Tuesday night in Lincoln’s narrow victory, brightly illuminates what the Democratic Party establishment is…. Obama loyalists constantly point to the Blanche Lincolns of the world to justify why the Party scorns the values of their voters: Obama can’t do anything about these bad Democratic Senators; it’s not his fault if he doesn’t have the votes, they insist.

Lincoln’s 12-year record in the Senate is so awful that she has severely alienated virtually every important Democratic constituency group — other than the large corporate interests that fund and control the Party….

So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln….

Ordinarily, when Party leaders support horrible incumbents in primaries, they use the “electability” excuse…. That excuse is clearly unavailable here. As Public Policy Polling explained yesterday, Lincoln has virtually no chance of winning in November against GOP challenger John Boozman….

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive….

Rosenberg pretty much concurs with Greenwald’s argument, while acknowledging differing opinions from some commentators who are more quick to excuse the institutional corporatism in the Democratic Party, pundits such as Mori Dinauer at Tapped. Rosenberg also links to Ezra Klein who argues that Obama gives in on issues like the public option and off shore drilling because he the Presidency isn’t as powerful as it used to be.

Rosenberg concludes:
Of course no president gets everything they want. There are things beyond their power that prevent that. But what they do get is dependent on two things within their power: Their priorities, and their willingness to fight for those priorities. And the situation with Blanche Lincoln is deeply illustrative of both, regardless of whether Obama could have prevailed.

The question, ultimately, is not whether Obama could have won. He himself said many times that change is hard. We all know that. The question, rather, is whether he would struggle. And, of course, the ultimate question: Which side is he on?

I have asked myself the same question and the painful answer I keep coming up with is “Not the side of liberals, labor and working people, progressives, peace activists, civil libertarians or environmentalists.” On the other hand, he always seems to be able to do something for the corporations.
On nearly every issue of national consequence that has been on the table since January 20, 20009, Obama has gone out of his way to distance himself from those constituencies that worked like hell to elect him. How many Sister Soulja moments does one President need anyway?

I promised to make some primary predictions for tomorrow’s contests. I will not discuss all 12 states in which there is vote counting tomorrow because I’m too darn lazy to do enough research. More importantly, I don’t care about every primary election.

Some, however are so delicious they offer an irresistible invitation to make some smart ass remark.

Take the Nevada Republican primary to see who gets to be on the ballot in November against Harry Reid.

I (and many others) have had some fun with good ol’ Sue Lowden, the notorious Chicken Lady. The ridicule has, I’m afraid, taken its toll. and Sharron Angle (who wants to phase out Social Security) will get the nod.

Lucky Harry.

In California, two rich ladies, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, will win the Republican nominations for Governor and Senator respectively. They are both self financing amateur politicians, which corporate media conventional wisdom thinks that the voters want. But amateurs in any endeavor make mistakes and they are both up against seasoned campaigners. They are both behind their Democratic opponents in the latest polling.

If I were Senator Boxer, I would devote some of my advertising budget to reminding voters how many employees lost their jobs when Fiorina ran HP. I would not be so bold as to offer advice to the venerable Jerry Brown.

Also in California, the smart money is apparently on Jane Harman to prevail against Marcy Winograd. I hope the smart money is wrong.

In Arkansas, stick a fork in Blanche Lincoln (you know you want to) because she is done like dinner. Bill Halter will win the Democratic senatorial nomination. Unless the Arkansas Dem establishment cheats him out of it. Not likely btw.

The other primary news of which has invaded my peripheral vision, is for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in South Carolina. I predict that a crazy person will be nominated (pretty short odds on that one).

Seriously, Ed Kilgore at 538 has Palin endorsed Nikki Haley ahead of Andre Bauer in the polls and likely to win, but if no one gets 50% there will be a run off.
I suspect that Haley will fall short of an outright win because a percentage of Republican voters will have doubts about Haley because of rumors of her infidelity. I don’t offer sympathy to very many Republicans, but such whisper campaigns are despicable.

Not that I know anything from the inside, but it looks to me like the following will occur tomorrow:

In the Arkansas Democratic Senate Primary, Lincoln and Halter will be condemned to a runoff because Lincoln will fall short of 50%. Ding dong, the witch is wounded.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul will win going away for the Senate Republican nomination. In the Democratic primary, I have Conway over Mongiardo by a half a whisker.

In the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Sestak will shut Specter up for good. Couldn’t happen to a nicer weasel.

I would predict more results but the crystal ball grows cloudy, I spilled coffee on the Tarot deck and I’m not as young as I used to be, dang it.

Jason Linkins at Huffpo was writing today about Chuck Shumer v Dick Durbin in case Harry Reid loses in November.

If the 2010 election doesn’t go Senator Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) way, and he loses his reelection race to ol’ what’s her name — that Chicken Lady — the Democrats will have to find themselves a new leader in the Senate. And that’s where things get interesting!

Sue Lowden as Chicken Lady. Hmm. Here is the Chicken Lady I remember best:

And who can forget

Henceforth Sue Lowden should always be referred to as “Chicken Lady Sue Lowden”. Certainly it is a construction Nevada Democrats should use whenever possible.

You’re welcome, Nevada Democrats. You too Sue.

It looks like it’s been six months since I posted here at my very own blog. Which might explain why there were no visitors here between October, 2009 and now.

Not that anybody is asking, but the reasons I have not been blogging for the last six months or so are several and related. Anger is the glue that binds them all.

I was mad at Obama and the congressional Democrats for making a mess out of health reform. Still am, though I freely confess to being glad that it has passed, inadequate though it may be.

Yes, passage of the law was a victory for the Dems, and to a lesser extent for the people who elected them. But it was a modest victory and one that achieved less than was possible. Yeah, that’s right. I’m still pissed there was no public option, even though the people want it (hell, they want single payer) and even though a PO would do more than the current law to save money – for both the government and for individuals, families and employers. For everybody and for the system in which they live.

So being fed up with American politics, I couldn’t seem to find anything useful to say about a dysfunctional system. The system remains dysfunctional and disaster (more disaster I should say) still looms, but I seem more able mow that spring is there, to try and distill sense from the madness.

And I am tired of sulking and pouting.

I was and am also unhappy with other aspects of the Obama administration’s efforts. For example, Obama and his economic team have made small noises about financial regulatory reform, but I am with Chomsky when he says that the President is serving the banks, not the public.

Obama made it clear during the 2008 campaign that he would continue to prosecute the war in Afghanistan until a satisfactory conclusion is achieved. While it is at some level refreshing to see a politician actually keep a promise, in this case, the result is a continuation of bad and futile policy.

Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan is of the opinion that education is like a business. This philosophy is disastrous for education. We should not be surprised to see the Administration promote the advancement of the charter school movement. I think both of these developments are bad for public education.

In short, like many others, I am disappointed at the extent of the President’s conservatism, though I should not really be too surprised by it. The surprise, however, is a product of all the soothing liberal and progressive noises that came out off the Obama campaign in 2008.

But whatever, my dalliance with the Democratic Party is at an end. This does not mean that I will never vote for Democratic Party candidates, but I will need a good reason to do so in the future.

My blogging here about politics will reflect my newly reinvigorated independence of the party of Jefferson and Jackson. I will also try to keep up with and comment on Canadian politics, especially regarding the Left and the NDP. When I am in the mood I will also write about cultural issues, film, music, sports and anything else that is caught in my peripheral vision.

And Youtube music videos.

Soon after last fall’s election, I was at a Drinking Liberally session and said to someone there that if the left feels betrayed, Obama will be a one term President. I had no idea the betrayal could come so quickly.

If there is no strong public option in whatever health care plan is passed, the Obama administration and the Democratic Party will be dead to me. I feel so strongly about this not just because there are Americans suffering needlessly from the effed up health care we have now, but because economic recovery would be weaker without a system that works for all.

The U.S. spends twice as much as any other industrialized country on health care, and has worse and declining outcomes. How stupid does the Democratic Party have to be not to beat that drum on an hourly basis?

I could excuse and forgive failure, but it looks right now as though Obama is giving up and allowing the right wing (phony) Dems to destroy meaningful reform. Let the Democrats offer a bill that is worthwhile. If it is defeated by a coalition of GOP and Blue Dogs (and Senate equivalents) so be it. Keep fighting until you win, but always know what you are fighting for. It is better to do the right thing and lose than to win by doing the wrong thing.

And no, neither Clinton would be doing any better with Health Care than Obama is right now. If it was a cause either of them believed in they would have fought for it when they had the power. In fact, I am pretty sure that if HRC were president, the Begalas and Carvilles of the mealy mouthed Democratic center would have even more influence and the result re health care would be just as bad.

If the Democrats cannot get this one right, it will have declared itself terminally dysfunctional and deserving of euthanasia. At that point I would be interested in a strongly progressive party. Yes, I know that would help the fascist Republicans, but they get what they want now.

If the Democrats cannot get this one right, it will have declared itself terminally dysfunctional and deserving of euthanasia. At that point I would be interested in a strongly progressive party. Yes, I know that would help the fascist Republicans in the short term, but they get what they want now, when everyone hates them.

Cross posted at Daily Kos.

This is about right.

Ackroyd does look a lot like Boehner doesn’t he? Maybe a little heavier but close enough for satire.

Further to this point, today’s Frank Rich column in the NY Times is worth reading. Check out the whole column and the polling data Rich provides:

But, as he (Obama) said in Fort Myers last week, he will ultimately be judged by his results. If the economy isn’t turned around, he told the crowd, then “you’ll have a new president.” The stimulus bill is only a first step on that arduous path. The biggest mistake he can make now is to be too timid. This country wants a New Deal, including on energy and health care, not a New Deal lite. Far from depleting Obama’s clout, the stimulus battle instead reaffirmed that he has the political capital to pursue the agenda of change he campaigned on.

Republicans will also be judged by the voters. If they want to obstruct and filibuster while the economy is in free fall, the president should call their bluff and let them go at it. In the first four years after F.D.R. took over from Hoover, the already decimated ranks of Republicans in Congress fell from 36 to 16 in the Senate and from 117 to 88 in the House. The G.O.P. is so insistent that the New Deal was a mirage it may well have convinced itself that its own sorry record back then didn’t happen either.

Don’t just take Frank’s word for it. Check out this polling data from Research 2K, posted at Daily Kos.

So this week, the Republicans are receiving a failing grade from the American electorate. But a week is a long time in politics. Six months is even longer. In six months time we may have a clearer view of the efficacy of STIMPY (the stimulus bill). Right now though, the polling tells us that most Americans are glad it was passed and glad that Obama is President and in a position to sign the bill into law tomorrow.

If I were an ambitious freshman Congressman from a traditionally red district in a heavily blue state I would be worried about the politics of STIMPY. If it works (and it will boost the GDP) the congressional Democrats and the President get the glory. Republicans will become more marginalized than they already are.

Consider these Research 2000 numbers

In the Midwest, which includes Illinois, Republicans have a favorable/unfavorable deficit of 33 percentage points. The Obama party is up by 23. I guess the GOP has the Dems where they want them now, eh?

Unless Obama destroys the U.S. economy, our hypothetical young congress critter will have much difficulty running for statewide office anytime soon.

To refocus on the bigger picture, Obama and the Democrats have momentum, a strong wind behind them. To paraphrase Frank Rich, Obama has a huge pile of political capital and a pretty good idea of what he needs to do with it.

And if he fails? If the economy collapses? The Republican id, neo confederate, laissez faire, theocratic, violent, racist, sadistic, elitist, will be at last freed to slouch toward Bethlehem for its long awaited birth.

Cross posted at Daily Kos.

I’m losing patience with “moderate” Democrats in Congress. And I’m sick to death of the nitpicking criticism of the stimulus bill. I understand GOPers losing their minds over spending on contraception and sexual health, but what’s up with Democrats who would support such measures but not in this bill.

Econ 101: Any government spending is stimulative.

Words of Wisdom from Wetmachine:

We are not helpless. We will not wait for Obama or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or anyone else to save the stimulus bill from the conservative noise machine and the business as usual culture. We will fight back, and show them that America wants real change. Click here to get the phone number for your Senators and Representative. Call and tell them: “Stop the failed policies of the last eight years! Government spending creates jobs, tax cuts don’t! Pass the stimulus bill without any more presents to big business. No more tax cuts or other tax ‘incentives’.”

Time for us to decide if we will be the Generation of the Desert or if we will be the Generation of Joshua. Will we die in the wilderness, or dare to cross the Jordan into the Promised Land?

To all my visitors – I mean both of you – please note the link to Senate contact info and call right now. Operators are standing by.

I didn’t see this Olberman comment live because I was playing outside but I think he captures what a lot of Democrats and Dem leaners are feeling right now.

Also see tonight’s Daily Show for vicious satire at Dem expense.

OK, so its hard to get bills pat the President if he doesn’t like them, and he doesn’t like anything which might shorten the war. But it is my very clear sense that the public (aside from 28% or so) want the Democrats to keep trying. Today’s surrender will please no one but that small minority that thinks the U.S. is doing splendidly in Iraq and around the world. For Democratic voters and suppporters, though, it is a very dark day indeed.

Guess I’m voting for Kucinich.