Thursday, April 22, 2010

Thursday Potpourri

Atrios notes: The vampire squid is, unsurprisingly, a whiny ass titty baby.

mistermix: Drill Here, Y’all

I didn’t know that the South, region that houses 36 percent of our population, consumes 44 percent of our energy. And, because of low utility rates, Southerners spend less per-capita on energy efficiency than any other region.

I guess this explains a hell of a lot of the “drill here, drill now” rhetoric coming from Republicans, as well as opposition to cap-and-trade. They have a huge short-term incentive to keep energy prices low for their base.

Consider this my obligatory Earth Day post.
Americans (even tea partiers) value government April 21: Rachel Maddow points out the contradiction between the "Big Government" boogieman protested by tea partiers and the government programs those same tea partiers value and which many Americans are protesting to keep. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell joins to talk about the value of government.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Benen: IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT AUDIENCE SOPHISTICATION
There have been a few entertaining exchanges of late between "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart and Fox News contributor Bernie Goldberg, but there was something the conservative media critic said last night that seemed especially noteworthy.

It started when Goldberg and other Fox News personalities started over-generalizing about what liberals think, after having complained about the way liberals over-generalize. It prompted Stewart to tell Fox News, "Go f*ck yourselves."

This wasn't well received at Fox News HQ, and led to a discussion between Goldberg and Bill O'Reilly. Goldberg conceded that Stewart had a point about over-generalizing, but proceeded to go after "The Daily Show" host anyway. Responding directly to Stewart, Goldberg said, speaking into the camera:

"You're just a safe Jay Leno, with a much smaller audience, but you get to say the F-bomb, which gives your incredibly unsophisticated audience the illusion -- the illusion -- that you're courageous and a renegade, but it's only an illusion."

Stewart's response is well worth watching -- I've included the video below -- and I was especially pleased to hear him explain, "I know that I criticize you and Fox News a lot, but only because you're truly a terrible, cynical, disingenuous news organization." Stewart also noted the contradiction underscoring the criticism of his audience -- Goldberg thinks "Daily Show" viewers are "elites" and "unsophisticated" at the same time?

But there's a related point I wanted to emphasize that Stewart didn't mention. In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey found that Fox News viewers were the most confused about current events, while viewers of "The Daily Show" were among the best informed news consumers in the country. Comedy Central, relying on data from Nielsen Media Research, also found that Stewart's audience not only knew more about current events, but were far better educated than Bill O'Reilly's audience.

Three years later, the Pew Research Study published a report showing that "viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, while Fox News viewers rank nearly dead last."

Bernie Goldberg, if you want to talk about "incredibly unsophisticated audiences," we can talk about incredibly unsophisticated audiences.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bernie Goldberg Fires Back
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party
Benen: THE NEW $100
How predictable have conservatives become? Just 24 hours ago, DougJ made a prediction: "I'm pretty sure that the new $100 bills will produce some kind of wingnut freakout. The most obvious angle is, 'They look like European money!'"

Right on cue, Drudge came through:

Even Obama's New $100 Bill Looks European...

Might as Well Be a Euro...

A couple of things. First, the new $100 bill doesn't look like a Euro, not that there's anything wrong with the appearance of Euros anyway.

Second, the design for the new $100 bill was adopted -- you guessed it -- during the Bush/Cheney administration. It was supposed to go into circulation in 2008, but was delayed "to give the government time to refine all the new security features."

Add this to the list of steps the Republican administration took to make us more "European."


DougJ: Credit where credit is due

Just so you know the things I do for you, I’ve been reading every post on “The Corner” on my RSS reader for the past few weeks. Mostly they’re a disappointing mixture of stupid and insipid. Sometimes, they’re just strange (e.g. this exchange about roofies). Today I read the first one I really liked:

I started to read Mark Levin’s massive bestseller Liberty and Tyranny a number of months ago as debate swirled around it. I wasn’t expecting a PhD thesis (and in fact had hoped to write a post supporting the book as a well-reasoned case for certain principles that upset academics just because it didn’t employ a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tropes). But when I waded into the first couple of chapters, I found that — while I had a lot of sympathy for many of its basic points — it seemed to all but ignore the most obvious counter-arguments that could be raised to any of its assertions. This sounds to me like a pretty good plain English meaning of epistemic closure. The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error.

I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying — global warming — in order to see how it treated a controversy in which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail.

It was awful. It was so bad that it was like the proverbial clock that chimes 13 times — not only is it obviously wrong, but it is so wrong that it leads you to question every other piece of information it has ever provided.

Update. And the inevitable Fruming begins in earnest. Also too.

Heather (C&L): Anderson Cooper Asks Birther Arizona Rep. Cecil Ash Why He's Perpetuating Internet Rumors

Anderson Cooper does a pretty good job with calling out wingnut birther Arizona State Representative Cecil Ash for his decision to support a bill that would make Arizona the first official birther state (edited to make it safe for work):

Can anyone tell me exactly what the f**k is wrong with the state of Arizona? There are at least twenty-two rational people there. But not enough to stop the Arizona state legislature from passing a law that, “Would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.”

In other words, Arizona is well on its way to becoming the first official birther state. Mesa Republican Representative Cecil Ash stated that, “He has no reason to doubt Obama’s citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.” Really? End the doubt, eh? He is apparently unaware that only the truly insane believe that sh*t in the first place. I know that there is some doubt lingering out there in Wingnuttia. I also know that this grim fairy tale is being deliberately propagated by people who know it to be untrue. But they have a political agenda and won’t let a little thing like the truth get in the way of delegitimizing the nation’s first black President.

He said as much to Anderson Cooper and I give Cooper credit for at least asking this guy if he should know better than to be doing this because unlike his uninformed constituents, he's in a leadership position.

Cooper: So why vote for something which perpetuates these false Internet rumors?

Ash: Well Anderson I think there’s been a lot of controversy over the issue. It’s created a division among a lot of people in the United States and for better or worse many people don’t believe he’s a U.S. citizen. They believe he has loyalties… ah… divided loyalties I suppose you could say.

Cooper: But those people are wrong. He is a U.S. citizen.

Ash: Well, you’re telling me that he’s wrong. I’ve never investigated that. If he is then he has nothing to fear.

Cooper: But I mean, the information is out there. It has been released. It has been shown. There are some people who don’t believe it, but there are also some people who believe that the moon is made out of cheese and you can say you’ve never investigated it but I think you would probably say to them the moon is not made out of cheese.

Ash: Well, I certainly would but the reason I spoke up on this bill is simply because there is a lot of division in the country and I believe this would put an end to any future controversy about a President’s qualifications.

Cooper: You told our producer you voted for this because you get a lot of calls from constituents who have questions based on things they read on the Internet. I mean isn’t it your job as a leader to actually lead; to not just throw up your hands and say well who knows what’s real or not on the Internet, to actually say well, actually Hawaii has released this information and it’s factually correct?

Ash: Well as I said I haven’t personally investigated that but I think that if…

Cooper: But I mean there’s plenty of things you believe that are not personally investigated? Why this you’re holding on to?

We know why Anderson. The guy's playing to the lowest denominator in the Republican base and demonizing our first black President. Anyone else notice how he continually uses the word "qualified" instead of "eligible". Cooper should have called him out for that one as well.

I'm sure this won't shock anyone, but guess who Cecil Ash is a fan of? Glenn Beck -- from his Twitter page.

TwitterAshBeck_2d1a0_0.jpg

T

Benen: ODD SILENCE FROM A LOUD BUNCH
How Wall Street operates would seem to be of interest to the Tea Party crowd. After all, this is a matter at the core of many of their ostensible concerns -- powerful elites, acting irresponsibly, ignoring the needs of the American mainstream, generating devastating consequences for everyone.

The legislative fight over reforming Wall Street, then, should be of great interest to the so-called "movement." But as Benjy Sarlin explained, Tea Partiers seem to be taking a pass on the major legislative fight of the day.

Tax Day rallies last week in Washington, D.C., were devoid of signs, slogans, and speeches on the finance bill, and influential right-leaning websites like Red State and Hot Air have all but ignored the issue this week, despite major movement on the Democrats' legislation. There are some exceptions ... but by and large there's been no high-profile campaign to defeat the bill, and a number of conservative activists concede that the grassroots are inactive.

Dick Armey, president of Tea Party organizer FreedomWorks, acknowledged in an interview that his group has yet to make its mark on the debate.

"We haven't had a chance to study it," Armey said.

What an interesting response. The Tea Party crowd didn't study the health care bill, but the activists opposed it. They didn't study tax policy, but they're still whining incessantly about tax increases that haven't happened. They didn't study budget policy, but they still think Obama is responsible for huge deficits (he's not).

But when it comes time to bring some accountability to a financial industry that pushed the global economy to the brink, Armey and his band of confused followers "haven't had a chance to study it"? Since when does that matter?

Steve M. takes a compelling stab at explaining what's up:

What's really happening is that the GOP/teabag complex is having a little trouble getting the messaging on this one right. The big kahuna leaders can read a poll, and they know that, even as skepticism about affirmative government increases, Wall Street reform remains popular with the public at large. So they're a tad reluctant to send a big ol' tea party bus out there with anti-reform slogans -- that might hurt the movement's indie cred. They're reluctant to urge the rank-and-file teabaggers' Pied Pipers on Fox News to go full bore into transmitting anti-reform talking points -- at least not until really solid talking points can be developed.

karoli (C&L): Congratulations, GM! All TARP funds repaid 5 years early

For all of the shouts and cries from conservatives about "bailouts", GM has just proven the wisdom of Congress' decision to lend Federal funds to keep GM afloat until they could get back on their feet. Today the company paid off their loans from the Canadian and US governments in full, five years early.

The company is paying back the loans “in full, with interest, years ahead of schedule,” Whitacre said in an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal. The two governments hold a majority of the automaker’s equity, he said.

The repayment shows “our plan for building a new GM is working,” Whitacre said. GM is “leaner, stronger” and building new vehicles whose sales have allowed the company to invest more than $1.5 billion at 20 plants in the U.S. and Canada, he said.

The GM loans have been a real talking point for conservatives. In exchange for the loans, the US and Canadian governments took an equity stake in the company as security for the loan. In any other world, this would be the prudent choice, but in our hysterical 24/7 tea and whine culture, that decision led to cries of "Socialism! Socialism!" In conservative-land, it was somehow better to allow one of our core industries to fail, to more or less end any competition between US companies, and throw 2 million people out of work, not to mention the support industries around GM's manufacturing and sales business.

I'd say it was an investment worth making. By getting GM the cash they needed to stay afloat and restructure, they've emerged stronger, more competitive, and poised to compete. Anyone who follows me on Twitter knows I'm a huge fan of the Chevy Volt and am still jonesing for the opportunity to take it for a test spin. I gave up my Honda a year ago and walk everywhere right now. I'm not planning to buy another car until I can buy the Volt or something as cool as the Volt.

Cheers, GM, and congratulations! It's good to see you roaring back.

Benen: REPETITION, REPETITION, REPETITION
Republican leaders, taking their cues from a pollster's strategy memo, began trying to characterize the Wall Street reform as a "bailout" bill. It's obvious the argument was a lie. It was equally obvious the GOP didn't care.

As I noted the day after Mitch McConnell started pushing it, the lie doesn't have to make sense; it doesn't have to withstand scrutiny; it doesn't even have to be persuasive. It just has to be repeated enough to muddle the debate.

With that in mind, consider the remarks made this morning by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Republican Conference. See if you can pick up on the theme.

"The American people are tired of runaway federal spending, borrowing and bailouts. The legislation being considered by the Senate, which passed the House, is nothing but a permanent bailout and House Republicans are determined to oppose it. Last week, some Democrats said there wasn't a permanent bailout in this bill. Other Democrats, by the end of the week, said there was a permanent bailout fund in the bill. This may be one of those instances where the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

"The truth is, the American people are not deceived here. They see that what's being passed under the cloak of financial services reform is nothing more than making permanent the Wall Street bailouts that passed, a year and a half ago, in the form of the TARP. House Republicans are determined to bring about financial services reform that begins with ending the era of bailouts."

The transparency of the lie is arguably the most galling aspect. Pence, like McConnell, is lying. But what's almost impressive about it is the shamelessness -- everyone, including Pence, already knows the claim is demonstrably wrong, but he's decided this is no time for pesky details like facts. There's an argument to win. Pence is no doubt aware that fact-check pieces will expose his argument as ridiculous, but he's willing to take that risk. His base won't mind, and the media probably won't call him on it anyway.

Before Republicans had even seen the bill, Luntz picked the lie, and urged GOP officials to repeat it, even if it didn't make any sense. Mike Pence is making clear that Republicans found this advice compelling.

What's more, Matt Yglesias thinks it's a strategy that will likely prove to be effective.

The overwhelming evidence is that the media gets bored with these fact checks very quickly and that if you just put your head down and charge forward, you come out a couple of weeks later back into "he said, she said" territory. The only real test for whether or not lying works is whether or not you can bring your ideological fellow-travelers along. Will Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck echo your line? Will the Weekly Standard and National Review? Will the bulk of your legislative caucus? The answers are yes, yes, and yes.

Which, in a nutshell, is why our political discourse can be so mind-numbing -- Republicans believe they have an incentive to lie with impunity.

The feathers are flying ...

Benen: LOWDEN TRIPLES DOWN
I really didn't intend to do three posts about this today, but Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden keeps pressing her cluck, I mean, luck.

To briefly review, Lowden, the favorite to beat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in Nevada this year, recently encouraged voters to "barter with your doctor." On Monday, Lowden reiterated and expanded upon this, praising a health care delivery system in line with "the olden days" when those seeking medical care "would bring a chicken to the doctor." Despite the mockery this had already received, she added, "I'm not backing down from that system."

This afternoon, the Republican candidate's spokesperson told Greg Sargent that the campaign is sticking by Lowden's argument.

"Americans are struggling to pay for their health care, and in order to afford coverage we must explore all options available to drive costs down. Bartering with your doctor is not a new concept. There have been numerous reports as to how negotiating with your doctor is an option and doctors have gone on the record verifying this."

The campaign's statement went on to blame Harry Reid because, well, just because.

There are a couple of angles to consider here. First, when Lowden's spokesperson says bartering "is not a new concept," that's true. But as Atrios explained, "All joking aside, there's a reason we no longer have a barter economy. It's tremendously inefficient."

Second, the Lowden campaign went on to distribute some kind of background document, hoping to prove that bargaining with medical professionals is possible. But as we've talked about, haggling with doctors is hardly the basis for effective care and cost controls, and for that matter, bargaining and bartering aren't the same thing.

In a purely political context, campaigns are rarely lost in April, but Lowden's position has quickly made her something of a joke -- and once a candidate is a laughingstock, it's very difficult to recover. One Nevadan has characterized this as a "macaca moment" for the Republican hopeful, and that under the circumstances, that seems more than fair.

Sue Lowden could have walked this embarrassing incident back many times, but she's now tripled down on a position that simply doesn't make any sense.

Lowden has had a year to come up with a coherent approach to health care policy, and she's failed rather spectacularly. We saw our first hint about this last month, when Lowden praised Medicare and condemned "government run health care" at the same time, and we're getting an even better sense of her confusion now.

Sometimes, candidates just aren't ready for prime time.

Kleefeld (TPM): Dems Fricassee Lowden For Chicken-Bartering Health Care Plan

The feathers are flying in the political attacks over Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden's declarations that people could control health care costs through the use of barter.

On Monday, Lowden doubled down on the barter idea. "Let's change the system and talk about what the possibilities are. I'm telling you that this works," Lowden said. "You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. They would say I'll paint your house."

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee rolled out its new satirical website, "Chickens For Checkups," in which readers can send a form letter to Lowden asking how they can find a doctor who would treat various olden-days ailments such as rickets, "ill humours," "the vapors" and others, in exchange for various types of livestock or even "indentured servitude." (Hat tip to Greg Sargent.)

We asked the Lowden campaign for further comment on what sort of policies Lowden might advance in order to facilitate the further use of barter -- that is, how could we incorporate these practices into an economic system in which doctors work for hospitals, which in turn are corporations that interact with insurance companies and process large amounts of money back and forth? And how would the tax implications be handled, with current law requiring that barter transactions be reported to the IRS and taxed at their market cash value?

The Lowden camp referred us back to their statement from earlier today, which declared in part: "Bartering with your doctor is not a new concept. There have been numerous reports as to how negotiating with your doctor is an option and doctors have gone on the record verifying this. Unfortunately, Harry Reid's failed leadership forces us to take drastic measures."

They also referred us to Lowden's issues page on "Health Care Solutions," which details her more general proposals on health care, and does not mention the barter system.

Marshall: ChickenCare Goes Viral

Perhaps inevitably, a progressive group has now created a special ChickenCare dance remix of senate candidate Sue Lowden's proposal to bring down health care costs by adopting a barter economy in medical care.

A bit more seriously though, this does put the Nevada senate race into a certain clarifying perspective. The Health Care Reform bill wasn't Harry Reid's bill -- ideas and strategy from lots of people went into it. And many people had endless criticisms of how he managed the process over the course of 2009 and 2010. At the end of the day, though, it passed. The Senate is where it happened. And Reid was central to the entire thing. That is an historic accomplishment. If his career in politics ends in January, his place in history will be secure.

So on the one side you have Harry Reid, a key architect of comprehensive Health Care Reform, the product of decades of activism, in all its messiness and policy complexity.

And on the other you have Sue Lowden, who thinks bartering livestock and other commodities for health care services from doctors is a way to rein in spiraling health care costs. (If you think that's an exaggeration, take a minute and watch this video.) There's no end of comedic possibilities thinking through the logistical and logical difficulties of managing co-pays and long-term care and drug costs in chickens and other barter payment. But step back and give it a serious look and ... well, this is this woman's take on confronting medical inflation. It's funny and also sad. But as a contrast it's stark and painful.

Seriously, think about it for a minute.

The Rachel Treatment.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Will peak wingnut ever arrive?

DougJ: You ain’t seen nothing yet

Lots of discussion of Sue Lowden’s bartering ideas. Add to that the facts that J.D. Hayworth has a shot at taking out McCain, Bob Bennett may lose to an even nuttier conservative, Rand Paul is in the mix in Kentucky, Marco Rubio is the front-runner in Florida…and you’re looking at a 2011-2012 Senate that will likely be much crazier than the one we already have.

I can’t think of an appropriately geeky way to describe this, but there’s no way we see peak wingnut much before 2014. If Senators aren’t beating each other with canes by then, I’ll be a little disappointed.

Marshall: GOPer Tries to Ape My Snark

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. A couple weeks ago our Eric Kleefeld came up with video showing Nevada Senate candidate Sue Lowden suggesting that "bartering" for medical care would be a good way to rein in spiraling health care costs.

I mocked her with the headline: "I bid three chickens for that MRI!" But I sort of figured she'd rethink that plan after her advisors sat her down for a moment and explained the concept of a cash economy or maybe if she found out what 'barter' meant. But it turns out that she was serious. Not just serious. She was actually thinking about payment in chickens too.

Yesterday she told a local news program: "I'm telling you that this works. You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor."

I'm always troubled by these moments when my sarcasm and snark is outpaced by the ugly reality. See the video here.

PS. If you want to hear something really funny. This woman's probably going to be the freshman senator from Nevada next January. Think she'll be for repeal? I wager five chickens!

Marshall: Ask a Stupid Question ...

The Georgia state legislature, on top of the latest threats, is holding hearings on a bill to ban implanting people with microchips -- as one rumor suggested the Health Care Reform bill mandated.

But the good folks who run the Judiciary Committee seemed to have gotten a bit more than they reckoned with when one of their hearing witnesses claimed that she had already been implanted with a microchip.

And not just any microchip, but one the Pentagon had implanted in her "vaginal-rectum area", apparently to track her movements.

Presumably part of the Stimulus Bill.

Aravosis: Arizona legislature demands immigrants and President of the United States verify their status

Putting aside the birther thing, which is just embarrassing for Arizona, how do the police propose to determine who is and who isn't a legal immigrant? Are they planning on stopping people on the street? Make you prove your birthplace if you're pulled over for a traffic ticket? Who carries that kind of proof on them? Your driver's license doesn't say where you're born, so how exactly will police enforce this? The danger is that they'll simply use this new law to terrorize Latinos, Arabs, and any other out of stater the local police want to harass (and from what I understand from family in Arizona, harassing out of state cars is the local police pastime in parts of Arizona).

Aravosis: Right-wing anti-immigrant group says Lindsey Graham may be being blackmailed because he's gay

We've poked fun before at GOP Senator Lindsey Graham's unclear sexual orientation, but this is getting downright nasty. This comes on the heels of the Teabaggers outing, and attacking, Graham this weekend.

The national border security organization known as Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is officially calling for US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to make his homosexual lifestyle public knowledge in the interest of political integrity and national security...

"US Senator Lindsey Graham is gay and while many people in South Carolina and Washington DC know that, the general public and Graham's constituents do not," said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. "I personally do not care about Graham's private life, but in this situation his desire to keep this a secret may explain why he is doing a lot of political dirty work for others who have the power to reveal his secrets. Senator Graham needs to come out of the closet inside that log cabin so the public can rest assured he is not being manipulated with his secret."


Even Halperin

Benen: EVEN HALPERIN WON'T DEFEND GOP TACTICS
It was a lively discussion on "Morning Joe" this morning, when White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee appeared to discuss Wall Street reform. In particular, he explained why GOP talking points about "bailouts" aren't just wrong, but are in fact the opposite of reality.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Goolsbee also did a nice job highlighting the GOP's motivations for repeating obvious nonsense: "Everybody knows a consultant just handed them that line and they're just reading it. It doesn't matter what's in the bill. It could be a bill about breakfast cereal and they're going to say this is a bailout bill."

But what was especially interesting this morning was the moment when host Joe Scarborough turned to Time's Mark Halperin, and urged him to "defend the Republican position" on the legislation. Halperin, who often seems more than sympathetic to the GOP line, couldn't bring himself to support the Republican arguments.

"I cannot defend what they're doing," Halperin said. "They are willfully misreading the bill or they are engaged in a cynical attempt to keep the president from achieving something."

Note to Republicans: when even Mark Halperin is calling you out for lying, the conventional wisdom is turning against you.

Greg Sargent adds:
It isn’t every day that a consumate inside-game reporter/pundit type like Mark Halperin aggressively calls out one party for lying, but that’s exactly what Halperin did early this morning on MSNBC, talking about the GOP claim that the Dem financial reg reform bill will lead to a permanent bailout.
...
The point here is that Halperin is taking a stand, saying, in effect, that the GOP position is wrong and that the Goolsbee position is right.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
These F@#king Guys - Goldman Sachs
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party
Josh Marshall: Big Stones

Some of the shrewdest analysts of American finance have argued that financial panic of 2008 was less a matter of lax regulation or reckless bets than a broader crisis of political economy -- one in which the financial sector had simply become too large to fill its proper role in the larger economy and its power, relatedly, too great in Washington to be restrained within healthy bounds.

Along those lines, I sometimes think that a cultural anthropologist might be better prepared to analyze what's happening today between the White House and Goldman Sachs than a political analyst or financial commentator.

Remember, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein was one of three Wall Street CEOs who famously stood President Obama up at a meeting at the White House back in December. Now, in response to the SEC's fraud suit, which it has made clear it will fight aggressively, Goldman has taken the eye-popping step of retaining the services of Greg Craig as its chief legal defender.

Now, as you know, until recently, Craig was President Obama's chief lawyer, as White House counsel. And protestations aside, few people believe White House claims that Craig left of his own accord. So hiring the president's former lawyer as part of a brewing battle with the White House is unquestionably the sort of high-stakes, aggressive play that one associates with the kind of Wall Street trader who makes it all the way to the top. Constantly upping the ante and lead with your fists.


Steven D: IMF Urges Financial Reform ASAP
The International Monetary Fund a/k/a the IMF is not exactly a radical, extremist left wing organization. It is deeply embedded in the current global economic and financial establishment (and responsible in part for the mess we are in now).

Yet even the Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand lovers at the IMF are scared by the financial services monsters they helped enable, those large multinational financial institutions that the twin gospels of "globalization" and "de-regulation" birthed. Even the IMF is now warning that financial reform to eliminate the systemic risk that still exists in our global financial system, and which if not dealt with son may lead to the next financial collapse, one that this time we may not be able to prevent from turning into a global Great Depression:

Time is running out for governments to overhaul regulation of global banks that have become bigger and more powerful since the start of the financial meltdown three years ago, the International Monetary Fund warned today.

In its half-yearly health check on the financial sector, the Washington-based fund said there was an urgent need for international co-operation to tackle the systemic risks posed by banks deemed "too big to fail".

"The future financial regulatory reform agenda is still a work in progress, but will need to move forward with at least the main ingredients soon", the IMF said in its Global Financial Stability Review. "The window of opportunity for dealing with too-important-to-fail institutions may be closing and should not be squandered, all the more so because some of these institutions have become bigger and more dominant than before the crisis erupted.

"Policymakers need to give serious thought about what makes these institutions systemically important and how risks to the financial system can be mitigated."

These aren't a group of Marxist-Socialist-Fascists making these warnings. This is the premier international organization created after WWII to re-establish the wrecked economies of war torn countries and spread capitalism around the globe. It is also an organization that is less diverse and more mainstream than any other international organization. And by mainstream I mean the IMF has always followed the c=dominant thinking of the leading economists of the day. This is "who they are:

The bulk of IMF analysis has always been mainstream and centrist, viewed from the perspective of the dominant strain of Anglo-Saxon economics. The leading universities of North America, the United Kingdom, and Australia have been the main training grounds for much of its professional staff. Martha Finnemore, a political scientist who has studied a number of large organizations, has even claimed that the Pentagon displays more intellectual diversity than the IMF. [...]

These are the people that Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz once referred to as outdated in their thinking and patronizing in their approach to transformation of the global economy:

The mathematical models the IMF uses are frequently flawed or out-of-date. Critics accuse the institution of taking a cookie-cutter approach to economics, and they're right. Country teams have been known to compose draft reports before visiting. I heard stories of one unfortunate incident when team members copied large parts of the text for one country's report and transferred them wholesale to another. They might have gotten away with it, except the "search and replace" function on the word processor didn't work properly, leaving the original country's name in a few places. Oops.

It's not fair to say that IMF economists don't care about the citizens of developing nations. But the older men who staff the fund--and they are overwhelmingly older men--act as if they are shouldering Rudyard Kipling's white man's burden. IMF experts believe they are brighter, more educated, and less politically motivated than the economists in the countries they visit.

So these are not hot headed communists seeking to destroy our freedoms. Far from it. If they had their preference they would all be still be worshiping at the twin altars of Milton Friedman and the "Free Market" to solve all of our current economic problems. Unfortunately for them, even they now realize that government has a role to play in harmonizing and stabilizing the financial markets, and that bigger is not always better in the world of finance, even if that was the ultimate result of the policies they promoted and in which they put their trust and faith.

When even the IMF turns against the Mega Banks and Wall Street Gangsters (Hello there Goldman Sachs!) who are fighting tooth and nail to derail financial reform with their "friends" in both parties (but especially the Republicans led by Mitch McConnell) it behooves us, especially those indoctrinated in the faith that unfettered free markets solve all problems, to take their warnings seriously.

Twenty years ago these were the people who supported the policies of globalization, the free flow of capital around the world and financial de-regulation by governments inn order to allow the financial markets to expand exponentially. These were the people who supported the growth of large, integrated financial institutions that could do everything from selling stocks and bonds, to investment banking, to commercial and residential loans, to providing insurance.

The IMF staff may never come right out and say that they were wrong, but in effect that is what this most recent report urging immediate reform and re-regulation of the multinational megalithic financial institutions represents: an admission that what they thought they knew about macroeconomic was seriously flawed. It's time that those on the right who still believe reasonable regulation of banks and Wall Street is an infringement on "their freedoms" reach the same conclusion.


Benen: FINALLY, A VOTE FOR LAEL BRAINARD
President Obama nominated Lael Brainard to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury for international affairs, and Senate confirmation was expected to be pretty easy. Her background and qualifications are impeccable, and Brainard was likely to get bipartisan support. Given the importance of having competent Treasury Department officials in place during a global economic crisis, it made sense to have the Senate move quickly on the nomination.

That didn't happen. Brainard was nominated in March 2009. Last night, 13 months after receiving the nomination, the Senate voted to end obstructionist tactics and allow senators to vote up or down on Brainard's nomination. The cloture vote was 84 to 10.

With such broad bipartisan support, why did it take more than a year for the Senate to bring Brainard's nomination to the floor? Because Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) had a hold on the nomination.

It's hard to overstate how ridiculous this is.

Brainard, who is set up for a cloture vote today at 5:30pm ET, has been nominated to serve in a position critical to engaging China and representing U.S. interests at the G-20, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, among others.

Brainard, a highly qualified expert in international economics, is a devoted public servant who has spent most of her career serving the American people. She previously served with distinction as: Deputy National Economic Advisor for President Bill Clinton; Vice President and Founding Director of the Brookings Institution's Global Economy and Development Program; Associate Professor of Applied Economics at MIT Sloan School; a White House Fellow; and a National Science Foundation Fellow.

Brainard is supported by: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, U.S. Council on International Business, Business Council for International Understanding, Council of the Americas, Coalition of Services Industries, Emergency Committee for American Trade, National Foreign Trade Council, National Association of Manufacturers.

And why did Kyl block a vote for more than a year? Because the far-right Republican isn't satisfied with -- get this -- administration enforcement of prohibitions on internet gambling. Seriously.

As former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker recently put it, "How can we run a government in the middle of a financial crisis without doing the ordinary, garden-variety administrative work of filling the relevant agencies?"

Senate Republicans are acting like children playing with matches. Jon Kyl isn't some random backbencher, he's the #2 Republican in the chamber. Presumably, he's in a position to realize the adverse consequences -- for the government, for the administration, for the entire country -- of his indefensible obstructionism.

A mature, functioning democracy simply can't operate this way and expect to thrive.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Not people like themselves

QOTD, David in Nashville:
I think what we're actually seeing here is a sharp increase in distrust of government from those who only trust government when it's seen as controlled by and for people like themselves. Big government is OK if it helps "us," and not "them"; if "they" control it, though, it stands to reason that they'll use it to help the "wrong" people at "our" expense."
Sully: Quote For The Day

19 Apr 2010 11:56 am

PALIN2JewelSamad:Getty

"The leader can guess the psychological wants and needs of those susceptible to his propaganda because he resembles them psychologically, and is distinguished from them by a capacity to express without inhibitions what is latent in them, rather than by any intrinsic superiority. The leaders are generally oral character types, with a compulsion to speak incessantly and to befool the others. The famous spell they exercise over their followers seems largely to depend on their orality: language itself, devoid of its rational significance, functions in a magical way and furthers those archaic regressions which reduce individuals to members of crowds.

Since this very quality of uninhibited but largely associative speech presupposes at least a temporary lack of ego control, it may well indicate weakness rather than strength. The fascist agitators' boasting of strength is indeed frequently accompanied by hints at such weakness, particularly when begging for monetary contributions - hints which, to be sure, are skillfully merged with the idea of strength itself. In order successfully to meet the unconscious dispositions of his audience, the agitator so to speak simply turns his own unconscious outward.

His particular character syndrome makes it possible for him to do exactly this, and experience has taught him consciously to exploit this faculty, to make rational use of his irrationality, similarly to the actor, or a certain type of journalist who knows how to sell their innervations and sensitivity. Without knowing it, he is thus able to speak and act in accord with psychological theory for the simple reason that the psychological theory is true. All he has to do in order to make the psychology of his audience click, is shrewdly to exploit his own psychology," - Theodor Adorno.

DougJ: I’m afraid of Americans

I have a question for all you Brits and whatnot out there. As I understand it, the Tories are not that crazy, they’re about like the Blue Dogs if the Blue Dogs had all gone to Eton and drank claret at lunch. Given the “special relationship” between the US and the UK, is there a fear that the insanity of American conservatism will eventually seep into UK conservatism? Or am I wrong that it’s not already crazy?

This article about a “Tory madrasa” got me thinking:

The YBF chief executive, Donal Blaney, who runs the courses on media training and policy, has called for environmental protesters who trespass to be “shot down” by the police and that Britain should have a US-style liberal firearms policy. In an article on his own website, entitled Scrap the NHS, not just targets, he wrote: “Would it not now be better to say that the NHS – in its current incarnation – is finished?”

Blaney has described the YBF as “a Conservative madrasa” that radicalises young Tories. Programmes have included trips to meet neo-conservative groups in the US and to a shooting range in Virginia to fire submachine guns and assault rifles.

Also too, Ross Douthat taunted Tories today for not being sufficiently conservative, before praising David Cameron by comparing him to Nixon and George W. Bush.

DougJ: Principled opposition to Obama’s policies

That’s all this is (via Dave Weigel and Atrios):

[Tancredo] said Americans have reached the point where “we’re going to have to pray that we can hold on to this country.”

As for Obama, Tancredo said, “If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don’t we just send him back?”

Of course, recent Democratic Congressmen talked about sending Bush back to whatever country MoveOn claimed he was from, too. So you’re all hypocrites for criticizing Tancredo.

Rayfield (TPM): Former Rep. Tancredo: Send Obama Back To Kenya!

A Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina over the weekend took some of the Tea Party's violent rhetoric to new levels, with speakers attacking everything from President Obama's citizenship to Sen. Lindsey Graham's sexuality.

The event was hosted by the Upcountry Conservative Coalition, a local South Carolina conservative group that describes its mission statement as:

We the People...are coalescing to reclaim our God given rights by restoring our Constitutional Republic.

The event took place at the Bi-Lo Center in Greenville, and featured former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) as its keynote speaker. Tancredo, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, said that Americans are "going to have to pray that we can hold on to this country."

He added, referring to President Obama: "If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?"

Pastor Stan Craig, of the Choice Hills Baptist Church, was particularly angry about the state of Washington, saying he "was trained to defend the liberties of this nation." He declared that he was prepared to "suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do."

Watch:

Dan Gonzales, who Chairs the Constitution Party in Florida, asserted that "this is the end of America right here," and if the Tea Partiers "don't get to work we're going to be fighting in the streets."

He was not particularly kind to the Republican party either, claiming they were owned by the Rockefeller family.

Watch:

Another speaker, who claimed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is gay, noted:

I'm a tolerant person. I don't care about your private life, Lindsey, but as our U.S. Senator I need to figure out why you're trying to sell out your own countrymen, and I need to make sure you being gay isn't it.



Benen: LEAVE THE 19TH AMENDMENT ALONE
I like to think I can take a joke, and appreciate political commentary intended as humor, but this item from Thomas Mitchell, editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, wasn't amusing. The headline read, "Time to repeal the 19th Amendment?"

People and candidates for public office should be judged on the basis of their ideas, stance on the issues, character, experience and integrity, not on the basis of age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability.

Therefore, we must repeal the 19th Amendment. Yes, the one granting suffrage to women. Because? Well, women are biased..... Men are consistent. Women are fickle and biased.

To "prove" his point, Mitchell, head of Nevada's largest newspaper, pointed to poll results showing women voters in the state preferring Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) over former state Sen. Sue Lowden (R) by a narrow margin, but preferring Reid over real estate agent Danny Tarkanian by a wide margin. This is evidence of "bias." (That women voters might perceive Lowden as more qualified than Tarkanian doesn't seem to enter the equation at all.)

Mitchell also pointed to recent Gallup data that showed, nationwide, women tend to prefer Democrats, while men tend to prefer Republicans. This, apparently, substantiates the argument that ... well, actually, I have no idea.

If there's a clever insight here, it's hiding well.

In a follow-up piece, Thomas described his published argument as "a bit of free hyperbole." He proceeded to compare himself to Larry Summers, and insisted that there really are important gender-based differences between men and women. Thomas was especially dismissive of those who found his "repeal the 19th Amendment" argument offensive, accusing them of failing to consider "any merits or demerits of facts in evidence or syllogism used" in his piece. It's their fault, apparently, not his, that they were insulted.

Remember, this guy runs a major newspaper.

The mind reels.

  • Atrios adds - Obviously the first reason to react to this is that the guy is a sexist and racist asshole, but the second reason is that he's obviously completely fucking stupid.

Think Progress: Extreme Tea Parties now making AFP nervous; group distances itself from Oklahoma militia effort.

Last week, the AP reported that Oklahoma Tea Party leaders — part of an umbrella group called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance — are working with right-wing Republicans in the Oklahoma legislature to create a new “volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.” A couple of GOP state senators have even met with Tea Partiers to plan legislation for a state-authorized militia. Now Americans for Prosperity, one of the astroturf groups driving the Tea Parties nationwide, has realized that the movement it promoted is now getting out of hand. The Oklahoma Watchdog reports that the group is withdrawing from the Constitutional Alliance:

[Stuart Jolly, director of the Oklahoma chapter of Americans for Prosperity] told this website that Gerhart was “dragging us down with him” and that the reputation of AFP, with over 20,000 members statewide and over 1 million nationwide, was being tarnished by the connection to OCA and the Sooner Tea Party. He also said in a story on April 18 in The Oklahoman that “It seems like the guys on the far right are really starting to take us down a road that they really shouldn’t. It should be more of an educational thing and how things works and how you actually get things accomplished. I’m not sure discussing militias and saying we’re going to take over the GOP is any way to accomplish any goal.”

Benen: THE THEOCRATIC WING OF THE GOP
A certain former half-term governor appears to be drifting even further away from the American mainstream. Over the weekend, appearing at an evangelical Christian women's conference in Louisville, Sarah Palin rejected the very idea of separation of church and state, a bedrock principle of American democracy.

She asked for the women -- who greeted her with an enthusiastic standing ovation -- to provide a "prayer shield" to strengthen her against what she said was "deception" in the media.

She denounced this week's Wisconsin federal court ruling that government observance of a National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional -- which the crowd joined in booing. She asserted that America needs to get back to its Christian roots and rejected any notion that "God should be separated from the state."

Palin added that she was outraged when President Obama said that "America isn't a Christian nation."

The amusing aspect of this is the notion that the United States would return to its roots with support for National Day of Prayer observances. That's backwards -- Thomas Jefferson and James Madison explicitly rejected state-sponsored prayer days. I'll look forward to the conservative explanation of how the Founding Fathers were godless socialists.

I also can't wait to hear how right-wing voices who want smaller government believe it's appropriate for the federal government to issue decrees encouraging private American citizens to engage in worship.

But far less amusing is the fact that Palin and others of her radical ilk reject any notion that "God should be separated from the state." It's the 21st century, for crying out loud. There are some countries that endorse Palin's worldview and intermix God and government -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan under Taliban rule come to mind -- but they're generally not countries the United States tries to emulate.

The separation of church and state has long been a concept that all Americans could embrace, and has served as a model for nations around the world to follow. For Palin to publicly denounce this bedrock American principle suggests she might actually be getting worse.

Postscript: As for Palin's outrage over the president acknowledging that we're not "a Christian nation," Obama's entirely correct.

Update: Greg Sargent obtained a transcript, and it's worse than I thought. Palin not only thinks the Founding Fathers opposed church-state separation -- in other words, she thinks those who came up with the idea opposed the idea -- she also suggests religious people necessarily reject the constitutional principle. This is just astounding.

If anyone this conspicuously unintelligent has ever sought national office, I can't think of who he/she is.

Falling out of the sky

Drum: Quote of the Day: Subprime Lending

From 13 Bankers, by Simon Johnson and James Kwak:

Before the market for private mortgage-backed securities took off in the 1990s, subprime lending was constrained by the fact that subprime lenders wanted to be paid back.

Indeed. There is something remarkable about living in a world in which this sentence can not only be written, but actually makes sense.

mistermix: Ash

The IATA is pissed about the airport closings in Europe, and they’re saying stuff like this:

Europeans are still using a system based on a theoretical model which does not work… instead of using a system and taking decisions on facts and on risk assessment.

Though flights are stopped, in part due to predictions from a computer model of ash spread, airlines are sending up test flights that aren’t being damaged.

If flights resume, expect a long-running wingnut global warming meme about the reliability of computer models and why, once again, we should never trust scientists.

  • from the comments:

    John Cole

    Any idiot that flies a gas turbine engine into volcanic ash gets exactly what he fucking deserves. I spent some time in a certain desert region on an turbine-powered M1A1 and know quite well what will happen to those stupid bastards. I spent 95% of my maintenance time banging out vpacks.

    That ash will rip those engines to shreds and planes will literally fall out of the sky.


    El Cid

    In a true free market, consumers should be allowed to choose those airlines with routes through volcanic ash clouds, as long as their life insurance policies are canceled and they are barred from suing the airlines upon their deaths, and minors would not be allowed.

John Cole: Wall Street Cosplay

Good article in the Times about how everything went to the top at Goldman that had these paragraphs:

One camp of traders was insisting that the American housing market was safe. Another thought it was poised for collapse.

Among those who saw disaster looming were an effusive young Frenchman, Fabrice P. Tourre, and his quiet colleague, Jonathan M. Egol, the mastermind behind a series of mortgage deals known as the Abacus investments.

Their elite mortgage unit is now at the center of allegations that Goldman and Mr. Tourre, 31, defrauded investors with one of those complex deals.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t the mortgage unit that Joseph Cassano ran at AIG Financial Products also considered “elite?” At any rate, Goldman’s “elite” mortgage unit with the “Fabulous Fab” was smart enough to see what was going to happen! They were like investment commandos! They had the BALLS to make the wild trades that others are too much of a pussy to make! They throw their double-foam latte in the faces of their aides when it isn’t perfect, and they’re not afraid to return a martini four times until it is just right.

But what is so elite about seeing the mortgage collapse coming in 2006? Kevin Drum, now at Mother Jones., was blogging at Calpundit before he went to the Washington Monthly, and he was talking about the housing bubble as far back as 2004 and maybe even earlier. He had so many posts about it from 2006-2007 at WaMo that he was apologizing to his readers for talking about it so much.

But back to what set me off- the notion that there are “elite” units within Goldman and in finance. It just reminds me so much of the behind the scenes stories of the guys at Enron, as detailed in the The Smartest Guys in the Room, how Skilling would lead these exotic trips that everyone had to attend- motocross trips, skiing, skydiving, extreme hiking, and they were forced to go so they could all compare penis sizes. These were adventurers! They are the elites of the elite! They were manly men (watch the whole thing, but start at around 3:02 for the relevant portion):

We see the same sort of nonsense in the Republican party with all the keyboard commandos like Peter Wehner telling us that we have to remain firm, and we have to FIGHT! We see it in the ridiculous military looking patches for the “Red State Strike Force” and other silly things like that. And, of course, Glenn Greenwald wrote an entire book about this nonsense.

Sure, greed played a role in all this, but it really is becoming abundantly clear that our nation is being run into the ground by a bunch of “elites” who are having their revenge on the rest of us because they couldn’t get laid and were given too many wedgies in High School. And we’re literally paying for their revenge.

I used to think American Psycho was a work of fiction.

Yglesias: All-Important Discovery

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who was initially puzzled by the scale of the decline in Goldman Sachs’ stock, since the SEC legal complaint didn’t seem to me, on its face, to portend doom for what’s a very profitable firm. But Yves Smith and Tom Adams point out that all you really need to seriously injure a firm in a situation like this is a case strong enough to withstand summary judgment which forces more information into the public record:

And as other have noted, the odds are high that even if Goldman wins (or more likely, settles), it comes out the loser. When Procter & Gamble and other large companies sued Bankers Trust over losses they sustained on derivatives trades gone bad, many observers argued they didn’t have much of a case. Procter in particular had a sophisticated treasury operation; how could experienced market players claim they had been duped? The litigation appeared to be an effort to stem losses on bad bets.

But when P&G obtained access to taped conversations of BT staff discussing their and others’ trades, public opinion shifted dramatically. The bank’s posture was openly predatory (the most infamous quote was “Funny business, you know? Lure people into that calm and then just totally fuck ‘em.”). BT never recovered from the scandal, but it took a second run-in with the authorities (failing to turn abandoned client assets over to the state) that led to the bank’s sale to Deutsche Bank.

To be sure, the fact that that happened once doesn’t mean it’ll happen again. Maybe further discovery will reveal nothing of interest. Maybe. But maybe not. So that all makes sense to me now. It’s also worth noting in this regard that the macho culture of the banking world tends to ill-serve firms that find themselves on the wrong end of the legal microscope. Whatever the “lure people into that calm” guy was trying to express he surely could have conveyed in some more circumspect manner, had there been a general culture of caution and discretion.

John Cole: Living Large

Lifestyles of the rich and infamous

As if to put the icing on the cake, the investment bank Goldman Sachs is set to shell out another $5 billion in bonuses to employees.

What’s more, the bonuses are expected to cover the employees’ work for just the first three months of the year, according to the UK Sunday Times.

According to the report, bankers will receive remuneration of about $170,000 per person for the firm’s 32,500 employees. Some traders are set to receive millions.

Earlier this year, Goldman’s “junior” bankers were told they’d begin receiving salaries that were double their previous takes.

“It’s made me rethink everything,” a Goldman Sachs employee, “sipping champagne,” told the site. “I like the new structure even better. My monthly take home just went way up.”

I’m to the point now that every time I think of Goldman Sachs employees, I think of the dinner scenes at restaurants in the Sopranos or Goodfellas.

Benen: MISTRUSTFUL OF GOVERNMENT, BUT WITH CAVEATS

It seems one of the big political stories of the morning is the results of a new Pew Research Center study, which found a large majority of Americans mistrustful of the federal government. The report noted, "By almost every conceivable measure, Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days."

For progressives, the results of the study may not be especially surprising, but they're nevertheless discouraging. One of President Obama's thematic challenges upon taking office was convincing the electorate that government activism can and should play a role in strengthening the country. That challenge appears even more daunting now, as more of the public opposes the idea of government action reflexively.

Indeed, there's apparently even a growing paranoia -- 30% of the public perceive their government as a "major threat" to their personal freedom, which is nearly double the number from seven years ago.

Opposition to greater government action does not, however, apply to everything.

There's one big exception, however. A solid majority, 61 percent, do want greater government regulation of the financial industry, something that Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress are pushing now.

Given the ongoing debate in the Senate, this is at least somewhat heartening. Republicans are no doubt tempted to argue, "Democrats want to sic big government on Wall Street," but it's a tough case to make -- Americans want big government go after Wall Street.

In the larger sense, I also wonder just how much thought is driving public attitudes on this. Americans are frustrated about a brutal recession, and we're coming off an era in which Republican corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence made the government look pretty awful in the eyes of the American mainstream.

As the economy improves, thanks to the efforts of a competent and effective government, I wouldn't be too surprised if this anti-government backlash subsides quite a bit.

  • from the comments:

    If a study's findings are consistently dependent upon the current state of the economy, then what good is that study?

    Posted by: Quinn on April 19, 2010 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

    On NPR this morning Kohut made the point that the pattern is quite similar to that of 1993-1994, and at both times much of what has driven the rise in distrust of government is Republican attitudes. This was facilely attributed to Republicans being "the party of small government," which we know is operationally false. I think what we're actually seeing here is a sharp increase in distrust of government from those who only trust government when it's seen as controlled by and for people like themselves. Big government is OK if it helps "us," and not "them"; if "they" control it, though, it stands to reason that they'll use it to help the "wrong" people at "our" expense."

    Posted by: David in Nashville on April 19, 2010 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

    "Republicans are no doubt tempted to argue, "Democrats want to sic big government on Wall Street," but it's a tough case to make -- Americans want big government go after Wall Street."

    And they are not arguing that. Here is the evil, disgusting genius of Luntz. They argue that Dems want shackle the public to endless bailouts with this FinReg bill. Really disgusting.

    Posted by: Creature_NYC on April 19, 2010 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

    It's rare that I find Larry the Cable Guy's pearls of wisdom useful in a political context, but this post brings to mind his line---"Get 'er done".

    Steve, you're right that people have good cause to distrust the federal government, especially after the Bush administration.

    The distrust exists for good reason and goes back a good 30-40 years; it's been that long since the federal government has accomplished something big and useful for the majority of its citizens. (Think: Social Security, Medicare, the Interstate Highway System, the GI Bill.)

    Assume the Affordable Care Act works to expand coverage and control costs. Assume the Recovery Act, and the smaller initiatives Congress is working on this year, works to end the recession and reduce unemployment. Assume the Democrats pass financial reform and it works to reign in the financial sector. Then we'll likely see trust in government begin to rise.

    P.S. Like so many issues, this comes back to and touches on Senate rules reform. The minority's ability to obstruct and delay increases the public's distrust.

    Posted by: massappeal on April 19, 2010 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Common Theme

Satirical QOTD1, Brick Oven Bill:
Slavery is more ethical than welfare, as there is dignity in work.
QOTD2, Joel:
Reminds me of where I’ve settled on the teabaggers; they’re not angry about anything in particular, they’re just mad about not winning. They want to win, one hundred percent of the time, and if they can piss on everyone else while doing it – especially liberals – then all’s the better.
Benen: ADULT LEADERSHIP
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) delivered the Republicans' weekly address yesterday, and repeated plenty of tired talking points. Listeners learned, for example, that those rascally Democrats intend to "remake America in the image of Europe." Gripping stuff.

But there was a phrase that Cantor mentioned that stood out for me. The frequently-confused Republican leader said that if voters backed the GOP in November, his party would offer "responsible, adult leadership."

Now, of all the things Republicans have to offer the electorate, perhaps no three words in the English language are less appropriate than "responsible, adult leadership." As should be abundantly clear by now, today's GOP officials approach their responsibilities and substantive discourse with all the maturity of a child. A young child. A young, slow child. A medicated, young, slow child who's easily distracted and hasn't learned social norms about honesty.

Jacob Weisberg notes in his latest piece that there were responsible, adult leaders in the Republican Party in the not-too-distant past, but they've gone missing.

Do you remember the Responsible Republicans? In the 1980s, small herds of them still roamed freely around Washington. In 1982, they stampeded over Ronald Reagan's veto of the largest tax increase in history to mitigate the fiscal harm of his 1981 tax cut. In 1983, they converged on Capitol Hill to pass a package of tax increases and benefit cuts recommended by the Greenspan Commission to keep Social Security solvent. In 1986, they followed Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson to pass bipartisan immigration reform legislation by a large majority. In 1990, several were spotted with President George H.W. Bush (the Responsible one) at Andrews Air Force Base, conspiring to reduce the deficit.

After the Andrews summit, however, glimpses of them outside captivity became increasingly rare. With their habitats in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Northwest under threat and their natural predators on the rise, the status of the species moved from "threatened" to "endangered." Though occasionally spotted on the rocky shoals of Maine's Penobscot Bay and in beach houses up and down the California coast, they now rarely emerge from the wilderness. During the health care battle, President Obama was unable to find a single Responsible Republican to serve as a mascot. There continue to be rumors of the Double R's return around issues such as immigration, financial reform, and climate change. Yet we have now gone several years without a confirmed sighting.

The point of Weisberg's piece was to identify the moment that sent the GOP grown-ups into permanent exile. The Slate editor points to Bill Kristol's 1993 health care strategy memo -- kill reform at all costs, regardless of merit, Kristol advised, and refuse to cooperate in good faith -- as the "crucial" turning point for contemporary Republicans, which helped shape the party's approach to governing ever since. That sounds about right to me.

But regardless of the origins, the consequences are the same.

In 2010, Republicans choose not to know anything about public policy, can't engage in an honest debate, reflexively oppose anything Democrats support (including GOP ideas), and reject responsibility for the spectacular failures they created while in the majority.

Cantor is promising "responsible, adult leadership"? From whom, exactly? When was the last time a Republican leader said something intelligent and accurate about any area of public policy? When was the last time the GOP acted in a responsible fashion during a substantive debate? When was the last time the nation saw so much as a glimmer of maturity from any member of the party leadership?

Weisberg concluded, "The rise of hyperpartisanship is not one of those problems for which the left and right are equally to blame. Democrats, who like legislating better than Republican do, and who have seldom had the GOP's ability to march in lockstep, still instinctively prefer to work on a bipartisan basis. They continue to hope, against the odds, that [Responsible Republicans] will escape extinction and one day provide partners for them again."

It seems clear to me that won't happen unless Republicans suffer some additional, severe electoral humiliations. On the contrary, if the GOP fares well in the midterms, the party's leaders and rank-and-file members will assume the way to get and keep power is to avoid responsible, adult leadership altogether.

Amato (C&L): Kathleen Parker and Joe Klein: Tea Party fringe groups are a national security threat; FOX and the Becks are acting seditiously


It's getting boring watching the MSM try to fit the teabaggers in a particular category that makes them feel comfortable. I saw a shift towards the more realistic on The Chris Matthews Show this weekend. A major topic was the right wing fringe inhabiting the tea party movement and the panel wondered how dangerous could these people really be?

Well, they can be very dangerous. Dr. Tiller was just murdered, but since the nut didn't identify himself with the tea party movement, he's not being drawn into the conversation. But he should, because right wing violent speech helped produce him.

At least Joe Klein calls out FOX News for their culpability in stirring the pot of hatred which can be looked at as basically seditious.

Klein: We've had movements like this throughout history....the difference now is a television network, I'm going to call it FOX. The presence of FOX, which allows its commentators like Sean Hannity, like Glenn Beck to rouse the tea party. Sean Hannity was in an event this week where the tea party was raising money to have people sit in the same stands with him. And the biggest difference in the past when there were right wing movements started we had ...the responsible Republican party would slap it down and there is no responsible leadership in the Republican party now.

Norah is sort of confused because she sees soccer moms at tea party rallies who are just worried about the deficit, but then she remarks there are these militia groups, these hate groups who believe Obama is coming after their guns.

Klein: I did a little bit of research...I looked up the definition of sedition, which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state and a lot of these statements-- especially coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent, Sarah Palin--are right up close to being sedition.

John Heilemann agrees with Klein and calls out Limbaugh for using the word "regime" to describe the Obama White House.

David Neiwert and I have been writing about this topic for a long time and I'm glad the MSM is finally recognizing the truth even if it's taken a really long time for them. When we finally release our new book, you'll see the evidence in a nice, neat package that will blow your mind. The Tea Party movement is bringing the hidden far right fringe out in the open with the help of FOX News and these people are dangerous.

Remember, conservatives can never say or do anything wrong. And there is never an end to how far right one can go. Klein makes the observation that violence might change that perspective, but the jury is still out.

Kathleen Parker writes in the WaPo about the tea partiers from a right wing perspective:

But words matter, as we never tire of saying. And these are especially sensitive times, given our first African American president and unavoidable fears about the worst-case scenario. If Jodie Foster could bestir the imagination of Hinckley, a Sarah Palin in the Internet age could move regiments.

Such fears are not unfounded. I hear daily from dissatisfied Americans who feel their duty is not only to protest but to fight if necessary. Here is one recent example, in response to a column I had written about America's true centrist nature:

"Sorry, honey, but we don't need the squishy middle right now. We need the hyper patriots, the combat vets ready to defend the constitution with arms if necessary."

The distance between such thinking and recent examples of overt hostility seems too little. In this space, the unthinkable becomes plausible. [..]

The only palatable answer is what conservatives say they love best: self-control and personal responsibility. When someone spews obscenities, shout them down. When politicians and pundits use inflammatory language, condemn them.

When you choose to remain silent, consider yourself complicit in whatever transpires.

Dennis G.: Confederate History Month: Something to Read

When I lived in Georgia I was in the newspaper business and for a time I was a crackpot with a newspaper (now-a-days that would be like being a crackpot with a blog). Anyway there was a daily paper in Anniston, Alabama that was an inspiration for independent voices in print media in the South. It was the Anniston Star. Back in the 1960s they took a pro-Civil Rights stand and George Wallace use to call it the “Red Star”. I’ve always had a fondness for this newspaper.

Today the publisher, H. Brandt Ayers, is out with an editorial about the Republican Confederate Party celebration of Confederate History Month. And I would add it as a must read.

ConfederateGOP Logo

Mr. Ayers calls his editorial, I am a somber rebel. He calls out folks like Bob the Reb of Old Virginny, but he calls others to task as well. Mostly he seems sick of where Nixon’s Southern Strategy has led us as a Nation and how the conversation about race, the Civil War, civil rights and the politics of outrage never seems to be able to get beyond the repeat cycle. His grief at yet another lost opportunity for national understanding is raw.

Here is how he opens the piece:

As Confederate History Month wanes, the orchestra in my head plays “Dixie” and the rising melancholy cellos, which touch the merry tune with tragedy, put me in a somber mood. The song and the jaunty St. Andrews flag grow fainter, smaller …

They will shortly be gone, packed off in shame to an historical closet, and with them another opportunity for national understanding will have been aborted.

The latest skirmish in the culture war over the Civil War was touched off by Virginia’s new Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell who sought to honor Confederate dead but forgot to mention slavery was a cause of the war.

When the oversight was brought to his attention, his apology sounded unconvincing, as if he was saying: Slavery? Slavery? Yes, darn, I remember reading about that; should of put it in the proclamation. Sorry.

Read the whole thing. While there are some points I do not agree with, it is good food for thought on a Sunday night.

Cheers

  • dr. luba comments:

    The response to the original article by a JSObrien is more thoughtful than the original:

    I found this piece … puzzling. As a former, temporary resident of Anniston (back when I was an actor at ASF), the descendant of more than a dozen Confederate soldiers, and a boy who grew up in Virginia where I couldn’t spit in any direction without hitting a Civil War battlefield, I feel I have a fairly strong connection to you, the South, and your themes. But if your thesis is that “average” white people are having their “very selves and culture erased,” I cannot imagine why you might feel that way.

    I haven’t found anyone suggesting that the history of the Confederacy or the South be expunged. Hardly. If anything, most of the ink (real or electronic) spilled on this subject seems to advocate a common goal: Tell the truth about history.

    As an analogy, I think it’s fair to say that the Wehrmacht fought very, very well and courageously in WWII, and one of the best fighting units in history may well be the Waffen SS. They fought for what they believed, and it’s fair to say that many in the Wehrmacht fought because, like grunts all through history, someone handed them a weapon and gave them no choice. Having said this, would you advocate that the Germans should have “Third Reich Month” in order to honor the Wehrmacht’s sacrifices? Of course you wouldn’t. The Third Reich was evil, and the fact that many fought for it well and bravely, without being Nazis, doesn’t change that fact.

    If what you want is for white Southerners to be allowed to whitewash history and take refuge in some sort of moral “nobility” of the Confederacy, then, yes, that is unlikely to be allowed. The answer is relatively simple: teach white children in your schools that the American Civil War hinged on the issue of slavery, that slavery was evil, that it was wrong to allow it, and even more wrong to take up arms to defend it. Then, you can explain how many men fought bravely and well, even if in the wrong cause.

    The Douglas Southall Freemen mythology surrounding that war has long been discredited. It’s time for all Southerners to face the truth. Until we do, we, and the country, cannot move on.