Jeffersonian "Independence"

Conservative think tank welfare recipient, Faux pundit and apparent crack smoker Michael Barone thinks the nation is moving away from "the redistributional policies of progressives towards America's traditional 'culture of independence' " and that the nation is becoming "once again, as in the days of the early republic and not in the heyday of the Progressives and New Dealers, a republic of property owners."

Well. Uwe Reinhardt highlights retirement income data to challenge this idea.

Meanwhile, just a few minutes on the Intertubes this morning yielded these items of interest:

Recession was deeper than government previously thought
How the older half lives
How bad is Nevada?

So, (1) the economy continues to suck; (2) fewer people are saving for retirement, more of the aged are living alone and there will be more aged and alone people in the future, a majority of whom depend on government Social Security for their income and (3) the economy continues to suck, and this "republic of property owners" contains a lot of property without owners.

So, yeah, great "culture of independence" you got there. At least the top quintile is doing pretty well, and they're the group Barone hangs around with and thinks about.

On a more positive note, early returns on the much derided government directed automaker bailouts are good:

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, was asked if the administration was in effect saying “we told you so” to conservative critics like Rush Limbaugh who have continued to denounce the auto bailout.

Some wanted to walk away, Mr. Gibbs said. But he added, “The president didn’t think that walking away from a million jobs in these communities made a lot of economic sense.”

Barone needs to get out more.

Putting the Teabaggers on notice

Guest-blogging at Andrew Sullivan's place, Dave Weigel thinks the fact that the NAACP's resolution calling for the teabaggers to repudiate the racists in their midst generated a series of nasty responses from the teabaggers means that the NAACP's resolution failed.

Weigel thinks the proper means of calling attention to the racism in the teabagging bowel movement is to...what? I don't know.

Unlike Weigel I think the NAACP's resolution succeeded. It got the teabaggers to respond in an ugly, defensive way, and getting the media to talk about it. The resolution was also a means of putting the teabaggers on notice. Anytime the teabaggers want to invite the Tom Tancredo's of the world to their meetings and applaud their calls for literacy tests and as long as their leaders continue to be like Mark Williams who hate on the NAACP and write ugly, racist mock letters trying to tell African-Americans what's good for them, the wider media and political world will be forced to consider the teabagging bowel movement's true character. And if they don't, the NAACP is on record for making the group's racism visible.

Besides passing HCR, Wall Street reform and reviving the U.S. Auto Industry, what have the Romans/Obama Administration ever done for us?

There's been a great deal of blog-chatter about the State of Obama lately, with its defenders offering the passage of HCR, the stimulus, financial reform, energy legislation in the House, etc, and its detractors complaining about the inadequacies of much of the accomplishments, not to mention the Administration's war, civil liberties and civil rights policies being mostly lacking.

One thing I don't hear much discussion of (besides conservative complaints about it being a bailout or takeover of the industry) has been the survival, if not outright revival, of the U.S. auto industry, particularly that of Chrysler and GM. When the Obama Administration took office, these two key automakers were entering into bankruptcy or worse. Some erstwhile American "patriots" seem to wish them to die off. So on top of trying to revive the economy in general, Obama faced the potential vanishment of at least two members of the U.S. auto industry's Big Three, not exactly an encouraging prospect.

To preserve two of the premier pillars of American capitalism, the Obama Administration did take an assertive approach: buying company stock and pushing for company reorganizations, among other tactics. While a few steps were taken earlier, the Administration rolled out the parameters of its plan in March of 2009. General Motors streamlined itself, eliminating the product lines of Saturn and Pontiac. Since then, GM and Chrysler have begun paying back government loans, the Toyota car company experienced notorious safety recalls, and the U.S. industry seems to have returned, albeit in a slightly different form and admittedly not to the level of its boom years. But the companies are continuing to do business and represent America in the world of manufacturing, something we elsewhere aren't doing much of these days.

It seems to me like this is a rather under-reported story. Perhaps it's a bit too early to say how Chrysler and GM will ultimately fair. But if we're going to assess the Administration, its record with the auto companies seems like a rightful element to consider. The Administration could help by giving the country an update as to the industry's progress and engaging in a little self-promotion, if such is warranted. And maybe our press, along with liberal bloggers disenchanted with the president, could take note.

Consider a counter-factual in which Chrysler and GM were allowed to go out of business--as seemed highly possible--in Obama's first year. It's highly likely that Faux news and Glenn Beck would have spent the last 18 months charging Obama with treason or incompetence for failing to "save" the American auto companies. Their collapse would have been attributed to his failures and so forth.

Deep Thoughts - 17th Amendment Edition

Without the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which the teabaggers would like to do away with, the teabaggers wouldn't have been able to help get Pickup Truck Scotty Brown elected to the Senate. Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers of the Massachusett's General Court.

"Obama Disses White Guys"? Really, Washington Examiner?

That was the headline that blared out from the freebie tabloid known as the Washington Examiner this morning. The basis for this accusation springs from the usual DrudgeFauxMalkinLimbaugh cesspool, and concerns Obama's singling out of African American, Hispanic and female voters as being crucial for the Fall campaign.

Maybe this is news to the Examiner, but African Americans, Hispanics and female voters have historically been marginalized in the voting process. African American and Hispanic voters also tend to vote in smaller proportions to their share of the population, especially in mid-term elections. Maybe this is news to the Examiner as well. And yes, some of these marginalized groups have tended to vote Democratic. How about that. Maybe it's because Democratic and Progressive reformers were instrumental in helping previously disenfranchized Americans obtain the vote. Obama didn't say anything about not wanting or needing White votes, or not wanting Whites to vote. Whites tend, and have tended, to be well represented in the voting process. It's possible the Examiner doesn't know this. Nor did Obama reveal any elaborate, conniving plans in combination with the now defunct ACORN, or Michael Moore, or George Soros, to deny Whites, male or otherwise the vote. So the Examiner, doing its duty to pass along the Republican message of the day/year/term, is just making shit up.

This is probably a good place to say something about the appearance of the Washington Examiner, which started showing up around DC Metro stations on or about 2008. While the financial and personnel troubles at the conservative Washington Times have drawn some attention in recent months, its decline has been supplemented by the arrival of the free Examiner. Seems as if the conservative money behind the Times, after deciding it couldn't sell it's paper, just decided to hand it out for free. It hired Faux News regular Michael Barone and Byron York of the National Review to write for it, rendering its political coverage a "fair and balanced" mix of conservative and more conservative. But it is pretty slickly produced and more substantive than the similar but more Style-feature oriented Washington Post Express, a freebie tabloid that began showing up a short time before the arrival of the Examiner.

The Examiner's trafficking and packaging of the republican noise machine's memes has been apparent from the getgo, but in today's edition, it's hit a disturbingly new low. At long last, Examiner, have you no decency?

I know none dare call it racism to expose the confederacy celebration movement's racism, but it's time for those of good conscience to speak up and loudly about the distribution of shit like this. The Examiner's ad sponsors would be a good place to start.

The Return of "State's Rights"/Arkansas Refuses to Join In

There's a very good and for these days when the rights of the unelected teabaggers seem to take precedence over our dually elected representatives, reassuring article noting the refusal of Arkansas's Governor and Attorney General to join in on the latest Nullification movement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032903590.html

Actually, the "Hopey-Changey" thing is going pretty well.

Thanks for asking.

Smearing Stupak

Fred Hiatt's Crayon Scribble page has a very whiny oped by one of the many conservatives it now employs making it sound as if the HCR bill that just passed is some kind of abortion-mandate machine, while attacking anti-abortion Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak as somehow "unprincipled" for supporting it. In addition to bitching about the limitedness of the Executive Order signed by the President, which was designed to appease anti-abortion Dems, nothing in the oped references the abortion restrictions mandated by the Senate Bill's language on abortion, itself a restriction demanded by anti-abortion Senator Ben Nelson as a requirement for passing the overall bill.

Anyway, all of this is just an excuse for me to post something Matt Ylegias wrote earlier in the process, after the Nuns and other Catholic organizations came out in support of the legislation:

"Some of the efforts to prove that the bill “really” includes federal funding of abortion despite not actually providing federal funding of abortion have gotten a bit silly. I mean it’s true that if we pass universal health care this will probably increase the market demand for those sterile gloves doctors wear during exams, which will increase the earnings of people who deliver boxes of gloves, and some of the glove-deliverers might use that money to pay for abortions. Short of making abortion illegal, and then very rigorously enforcing the law, there’s no way to ensure that no dollars will reach an abortion clinic through some roundabout path. But the exact same consideration holds for any conceivable legislation on any subject."

Conservatives are truly in the midst of their final death throes where it concerns the HCR passage.

He Signed The Damn Bill

Repeal this, you no talent bunch of teabagging assclowns.

And Richard Cohen, of all people, is surprisingly good this morning. Someone must have spiked his oatmeal with a hefty dose of Progressive Win.

The Morning After

Still feels really good.

Can't help noticing that some of the usual blogs I read don't sound all that excited about last night's historical vote. I know there's no public option. I know the bill still leaves insurance companies in business. I know there is some questionable abortion language, although I can't see this significantly changing current law for the worse.

So, sorry, I'm not having any of the regret soup today. This was a smashing victory. The most significant and progressive piece of legislation to pass in my lifetime. While Obama's victory in 2008 was also historic in a symbolic sense, the ultimate purpose of electoral victory is to accomplish something meaningful. Last night a very large down-payment was made on that pledge. It's like paying 75% of your mortgage the year after you bought your house. There's still some left to pay but doinig so has become much more manageable. And your house feels a lot more like it's really yours than it was before.

They Passed The Damn Bill

Smells like...victory.

31 No's

While I think Ezra Klein makes a good point here about the level of interest group consensus on HCR, all the stress surrounding final passage would be pretty much moot were it not for a whopping 31 "No" votes looming in the Democratic camp. That's really pretty astounding. And sickening. Not that I ever have, but I couldn't ever justify sending any money to the Democratic Party's Congressional Campaign Committee. Not if any of that money ever went to any of these "No" tools.

Social Justice Christianity

I realize this is so last week, but here's a pretty good riff on Beck's latest attempt to smear those who don't share his regressive views of life.

Obama's a Bad-Ass

Almost forgot this Truth. Took over a year for it to emerge or re-emerge as the case might be. More of this please.

What Obama should say tonight

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

And any speech that fails to make this point Loud and Clear will be a failure.

Lessons Learned

So let me see if I understand this correctly:

1. In November 2008 the nation gave Democrat Barack Obama 53% of the popular vote, a pretty big electoral vote, too, and won states such as Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia, that Democrats haven't won since Andrew Jackson.

2. The other side responded to this by angrily stamping its collective foot, shouting No, No, No, sending its mobs out to disrupt discussion and yell at town hall meetings and on CNNMSNBCFOX "news", and generally voting in unison against even a watered down stimulus bill and health care reform bills in both houses of Congress.

3. This strategery essentially works. Only a one-third tax cut stimulus bill passes with two Republican Senate votes. Health care passes with no Republican votes. The other side wins gubernatorial elections in NJ and VA and a special senatorial election in MA.

4. The political class, including DLC'er, failed Tennessee Senatorial candidate now NY Senate carpetbagger candidate Harold Ford in this spectacularly shi$ty op-ed piece, declare that as a result of these three elections that Democrats must now bow down graciously and do whatever the new political mood demands.

But if the lesson is that elections don't mean anything because the best path back to political power for the minority is to yell, scream, disrupt and vote No, No, No, doesn't this then also imply that the election losers in NJ, VA and now MA should also in turn adopt a No, No, No strategery?

Conservatives were in their right, of course, to react as they did to Obama's election, in this an open, democratic society.

But this political class should also understand the meaning of "What you sow, that shall you also reap."

Conservatives and their disgruntlees have sowed the wind and will reap the whirlwind. Expect cooperation now? No fackin way.

The Republicans' 178-256 Majority, Part I

You might not know it, but Democrats control the House of Representatives with 256 votes (218 constituting a majority of the 435-member chamber). And yet, 256 votes notwithstanding, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate's health care reform bill. This would be a critical move towards health care reform because it would avoid another Senate vote, which thanks to last week's Massachusett's Senate special election, no longer contains a filibuster-proof, 60 vote supermajority.

But even with a 38-vote majority House Democrats still can't pull themselves together to pass a bill that expands Medicaid and prohibits insurance companies from disqualifying people for pre-existing conditions.

This is just some very sorry crapola. It means that the Democratic Party's governing majority is dysfunctional and non-existent.

In Part II of this series I will expound upon some reasons why the Democrats, despite their clear House majority, can't pass health care reform.

Update: Andrew Sullivan has several posts calling for the Democratic House Majority to Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

Going Galt

I'm about ready to Go Galt. I mean, what the Eff is this supposed to mean?

I also have no idea what JM is talking about here:

What the Democrats -- and a lot of this is on the White House -- have done is get so deep into the inside game of legislative maneuvering, this and that 'gang' of senators and a lot of other nonsense that they've let themselves out of sync with the public mood and the people's needs.

The president needs to find way to say, we've heard you. We've gotten so focused on working the Washington channels to get this thing done and we need to be more focused on the public's mood and urgency. Well, we've heard you. We're going to stop playing around and get this thing done. And then we're going to work on getting Americans back to work. We know the urgency of the moment and we know you expect results.

And Barney Frank apparently isn't helping matters.

Andrew Sullivan has about the best take, or at least the closest approximate to my own feelings.

What's doubly bad about this development is not just losing a safe Dem seat to an R but losing such a seat--a Kennedy seat no less--to an R party that has gone to bed with teaparty nation, disrupted town hall meetings, attempted to shut down debate and any meaningful sense of responsible discourse. It's an insult.

I wouldn't blame Obama right about now for saying Fuck It. His party has betrayed him. The voters don't care.

Because the cab drivers tell me so

Harold Ford, late of the confederate state of Tennessee, recently citizen of Wall Street, New York, is dipping his toe in the Empire State's senatorial waters.

Mr. Ford said he had been emboldened by the response he had received from the public in recent days. Everyone — from the cabdrivers who shuttle him around the city to the executives with whom he rubs elbows on Wall Street — has urged him to run, he said.

During a trip from New York to Palm Beach on Thursday, flight attendants and passengers stopped in the aisle to cheer him on, he said. “I didn’t hear anyone say, you better not run against that Kirsten Gillibrand,” he said.

Amazingly, the Wall Street folks he's been hobnobbing with--and working for--for the past year are all thump-up on the idea, too. And the cab drivers. They're almost like real people. Who knew?

What about the issues? Ah, I'm glad you asked.

[Ford] blasted [Gillibrand's] support for the proposed health care overhaul, which is expected to cost New York an extra $1 billion a year, and for opposing the taxpayer bailout of the financial industry.

“It was a mistake,” he said, noting that most Wall Street firms had already paid back the money. “How can you be against ensuring that the lifeblood of your city and of your state survives?”

But look what else we learn:

Mr. Ford declined to discuss what he is paid by the bank, but publicly available data suggests that he earns at least $1 million a year. Asked what role outsize pay packages played in fueling the financial crisis, Mr. Ford said he objected to capping executive compensation on Wall Street. “I am a capitalist,” he said. “I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well; they should lose if they don’t.”

He's a what? He's a "capitalist". A capitalist who believes capitalists who take risks should be rewarded--and if they fail the gubmit should bail them out.

What else?

Mr. Ford twice voted for legislation in the House that would make same-sex marriage illegal. In 2006, when Tennessee voters considered a ballot initiative to outlaw the practice, he vowed to support it. “I oppose gay marriage,” he said at the time.

But in the interview, he said he had changed his mind. He said that he had endorsed civil unions since entering Congress, and that, after watching the debate about marriage unfold in state legislatures and courtrooms, his position had evolved.

And:

He supported Congressional legislation in 2006 to allow local police officers to investigate and arrest illegal immigrants, despite the objections of many advocates and lawmakers, like Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who said it would discourage people from cooperating with the police. He says his views on the subject have changed.

“I have come to better understand the issue,” he said. “Empowering local enforcement to do what federal law enforcement was not doing seemed to make sense in my state,” he said, referring to Tennessee. Mr. Ford, a member of the National Rifle Association, also voted for legislation to limit lawsuits against gun makers, and he cast one of the few Democratic votes for a bill to repeal the District of Columbia’s restrictions on guns.

When asked about the tough restrictions that mayors in New York and Newark have put in place, however, he said, “All of Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Booker’s efforts in the region, I support.”

OK. But fear not. Ford's no softy. He likes to shoot small, harmless animals that can't shoot back. Really.

Asked about his own experience with guns, he said he was an occasional bird hunter. “I shoot at things that can’t shoot back,” he said with a smile, “and will continue to do that."

Or until his next limo driver objects.

The True Face of Evangelical Christianity

Whether it's the smiley face on the TV screen or the well-dressed young men knocking on your door, or that shiny brochure you got in the mail, this is what lies not far below the surface of fundamentalist Christian doctrine. They might give to the poor, they might provide a temporarily accepting refuge for the lonely and down-trodden. But this is ultimately the kind of society conservative Christianity is seeking, or would result in, if its claims about needing to create "Bible-based society" were implemented.