Come back, Obama

By Frank Moraes 

Just one more quick note about all the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. I believe that Obama was so quick to call the bombing a terrorist act because, as usual, he's a wimp. I'm sure he is worried that just like in Benghazi, the right wing will attack him for not calling it a terrorist attack. I'm all for being a wimp when it protects a person. I've managed to avoid fights all my adult life by being a wimp. But Obama will not avoid fights this way. If he hadn't called it a terrorist attack, the right would have attacked him. If he said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be given his Miranda rights, the right would have attacked him. As it is, he has indicated that Tsarnaev will be tried in our regular court system, so the right is attacking him for that.

Will the president never learn that the right will attack him regardless of what he does?

I have an idea for the president. It's radical, I know, but here goes: why doesn't President Obama try to please his base? It is very possible he would actually succeed at that. Trying to please the Republican Party is a fool's errand. In fact, trying to please the centrist Washington insiders is also a fool's errand. Did you read Maureen Dowd over the weekend? The defeat of the gun bill is apparently Obama's fault. She's a great example of how Obama just can't win with the only people he seems to care about winning with.

The clock is running out for the president. He needs to come back to the liberals he was courting all the way through 6 November of last year. Because despite everything, we still like him. And we're the only ones who ever will as long as he is in power.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Bob Dylan in China - same as he ever was

By Richard K. Barry 

Bob Dylan just released a reply of sorts to those who considered his concert in China last April as not in keeping with whatever mythologized idea they have of him.

This is actually pretty funny for those who have followed Dylan's career with even passing attention. On a date now etched in popular music history, July 25, 1965, Bob Dylan performed with a rock band at the Newport Folk Festival. The folk music establishment (interesting oxymoron that) criticized him for turning his back on political song writing. There are varying interpretations as to what really happened. Did he get booed by the audience, were there sharp words back stage? Whatever happened, it was clear that for some, Bob Dylan would forever have to meet their expectations or suffer the consequences, and their expectation were that he would forever be a protest song singer.

Rather famously, Dylan has always run screaming in the other direction from other peoples' expectations of what he is supposed to say and be and represent, which, to my mind, is a pretty radical message to send the world.

So, Maureen Dowd at The New York Times thought that Dylan should have gone to China, maybe sang "Blowin' in the Wind," and "The Times They Are a-Changin'."Then he should have made a political speech about China's woeful record on human rights. In other words, he should have been the Dylan we think we remember but who, if he ever existed, hasn't for a long time.

Apparently Dylan was asked to supply a set list to the Chinese authorities and did so, but he also claims that nothing in his performance changed as a result. I guess we'll have to take his word for it. But I have seen the man in concert over the past many years and I don't find that hard to believe. His concerts are not a '60s retrospective road show. Sorry Maureen.

If Dylan was still writing the old protest stuff and performing it every day and then went to China and censored himself then fine, get all high and mighty. But that is not what happened. That is not who he is anymore and if you want to talk about freedom, freedom is getting to decide for yourself who you are.

Isn't that what the '60s was supposed to be all about?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

More on Gibbs' (and now Dowd's) lefty smear

By Creature

Steven D:

So my question to Maureen Dowd and Robert Gibbs is why is a "single payer" health care system a dirty word (for that is how Gibbs intended to use it in his attacks on the administration's critics from the left)? Because "lefties" want it? Ask any Canadian if they would prefer changing their system to one like ours. Whether they consider themselves left, right or middle politically, I'd bet the vast majority would say No! emphatically.[...]

But for a high Democratic administration official to criticize a progressive policy idea as somehow being "dirty" or "ridiculous" is absurd. And for Gibbs and Dowd to both agree with the negative connotations given to that term ("Canadian health care" or "single payer" -- take your pick) shows how far our political discourse has fallen, how detached from even suggesting government can be a primary force to solve critical human problems such as public health and how insane we must appear as a country to every other western developed nation who provides better health care to their citizens.

It's amazing how often words like "how far our political discourse has fallen" can be used in so many different contexts today.

It must be a good week for Obama

By Creature

Even Maureen Dowd's willing to let him sit at her lunch table again.

If it quacks like a bigot....

By Carl

...you can call it a duck, but it's bigotry:

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd was among the first to assert that Congressman Joe Wilson's heckle revealed an underlying racism:

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys... Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't. Fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!... But Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president - no Democrat ever shouted 'liar' at W when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq - convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

Her belief racism was at play was echoed by Democrat Representative for Georgia, Henry Johnson, who told media: "I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. That's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked."

Now, I'm posting some of this tongue-in-cheek. I don't think the color of Obama's skin matters as much to Wilson and the other bigo-- I mean, Republicans as his policies and, more important, the position he holds. After all, Bill Clinton was about as white as they get, despite being called "America's First Black President", and look what these jackals did to him.

No, I think Obama is being clever as all get-out here. He's got his surrogates playing the race card for him, because he knows the one thing Republicans are terrified of right now is being portrayed as racists. After all, Obama won in a veritable landslide over the second whitest politician in America, John McCain, so to be racist at this point would be shown to be woefully out of touch.

What I think the Republicans are doing is playing dirty pool, a game they've excelled at since at least Lee Atwater helped Bush the Elder win the Presidency in 1988. Yes, there are clear insinuations in Wilson's outburst of disrespect, but my suspicion is that's more about a rookie President being put on the ropes by a "loyal" opposition (who really had the floor in August to try to derail national healthcare reform) and finally going that one last obvious step over the line.

But note what occured in August: the astroturf movement that saw town hall meetings across this nation interrupted by organized yahoos executing instructions from their puppet-masters like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the paranoid inflation of numbers of people opposing Obama's policies, even mocking his decision to take a vacation "at a critical juncture in American history".

All of these pushed an envelope of paranoia and desperation that even a moment's reflection reveals. Wilson's "lie" chant merely sealed the deal for Americans who may or may not have put out that moment's reflection. It coalesced and concretized the perception that not only are the Republicans out of power and losing their grip on the electorate after spending twenty years demonizing liberalism and Democrats, but that the Republicans know theirs is a sinking ship and that it's not about helping people live better lives, it's about holding onto power to reward their cronies and conspirators in plutocracy.

That's not to say there is not an element of racism in this opposition. For one thing, it's easier to oppose someone whom you have dehumanized and pointing out differences dehumanizes people. "They" can do what "they" want because "they" are (insert trait here).

It makes it easier to portray yourself as a savior, saving "ordinary folks" from the clutches of "they," but it's also a lazy way out of honestly engaging in policy discussions.

By dehumanizing someone, you make their opinion and views irrelevant to the discussion. "They" are not as good as "we" are, so "we" don't have to take their arguments seriously.

But, of course, you miss out on the many opportunities to test your views, to strengthen and bolster those views, and to improve policy for everyone.

Obama's playing this correctly: he's taken the high road (note the very high-minded section of his speech the other night pertaining to realistic solutions being considered), while allowing his surrogates to dip into the same mud his opponents have smeared.

The Republicans' real problem is, they don't have a responsible and prestigious enough spokesman who can meet Obama's tactic head-on. All their spokespeople are either wallowing in the same mud that Jimmy Carter and others are flinging back at the GOP or the spokespeople who could conceivably wrest this debate back to a temperate level have been isolated and quarantined as irrelevant by the GOP.

Like Michael Steele, who could easily have met Obama on his playing field but for some bizarre reason decided to genuflect to the nattering nabobs of negativism in his own party.

Or John McCain, who has had to fight a rear-guard action in his own party to protect his reputation from Sarah Palin and the other neaderthals.

Instead, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, two men who have absolutely nothing at stake in politics, who can shift positions on any issue at any time if their ratings appear to warrant it, have taken the helm of the Republican party.

This is much like allowing Bozo The Clown to run a bank. It's entertaining, but ultimately unprofitable.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Mock stars

By Mustang Bobby

Right wingers are outraged that President Obama is making fun of them. They're also demanding that the president, Nancy Pelosi, and the cable networks apologize for making fun of all those people who attended the Tea Parties on April 15. They really got their feelings hurt when all those mean and snarky commentators pointed out the slang definition of teabagging, and they want all those catty gay-rights supporters to stop making fun of Carrie Prejean, the beauty queen who is speaking out in favor of opposite marriage. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more.

Too often today, liberals are using below-the-belt tactics against conservatives and paying no price whatsoever. Meanwhile, those on the right like to pat themselves on the back for being above it all. This is like a boxer priding himself on never taking off his gloves while his opponent nearly beats him to death with his bare firsts [sic]. But in the end, there's not much to be said for lovable losers. Conservatives should realize that fair play isn't going to pay any dividends.

While we conservatives don't have to stoop quite as low as the left has, we do need to start giving them a taste of their own medicine, if only to make them think twice about the way they're treating our side.

Mind you, this is from the people who promoted a CD with such hits as "Barack the Magic Negro," and one blogger at Red State who referred to retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a "goat f*cking child molester."

The larger issue here isn't just the fact that the right wing has this delusional idea that they've been playing nice while the liberals have been vicious; it's that they really hate it when they're made fun of. It means that they aren't being taken seriously, and that, more than anything else, is what really gets to them. They think they're making all these serious accusations about the state of the union -- how the president and the Democrats are leading us to rack and ruin with socialism, fascism, queers getting married, embryonic stem cells getting abortions on demand, and Texas and Georgia being driven to the brink of secession because the federal government had the tyrannical notion that states should be held accountable for the stimulus funds -- and they end up being the butt of jokes. They stamp their feet and demand that people stop laughing at them. How dare they!? Sorry, but when you set yourself up with all these straight lines, you're inviting mockery; it would be impolite to refuse.

Maureen Dowd notes that they've also mastered the fine art of unintentional irony.

How quaint.

The Republicans are concerned about checks and balances.

The specter of Specter helping the president have his way with Congress has actually made conservatives remember why they respected the Constitution in the first place. Senator Mitch McConnell, the leader of the shrinking Republican minority, fretted that there was a “threat to the country” and wondered if people would want the majority to rule “without a check or a balance.”

Senator John Thune worried that Democrats would run “roughshod” and argued that Americans wanted checks and balances. Senator Judd Gregg mourned that “there’s no checks and balances on this massive expansion on the size of government.”

Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, tried to put the best face on it, noting, “This will make it easier for G.O.P. candidates in 2010 to ask to be elected to help restore some checks and balances in Washington.”

This is quite touching, given that the start of the 21st century will be remembered as the harrowing era when an arrogant Republican administration did its best to undermine checks and balances. (Maybe when your reign begins with Bush v. Gore, a Supreme heist that kissed off checks and balances, you feel no need to follow the founding fathers’ lead.)

There's little use pointing out this gob-smacking irony to them; they either get it and know they're messing with reality, or they don't get it and are in an alternate universe. Either way, why should we take them seriously? All that does is validate their points. I much prefer laughing at them; they make it so easy, and it pisses them off even more.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Newt Gingrich: wingnuttery with a smile

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In The Washington Times today -- and I feel dirty linking to it, and even dirtier for having been on its website -- Newt Gingrich asks the following question: "Where does the conservative movement go from here?" My answer is a simple one: Down the toilet and into oblivion. Newt, however, claims that it "has a simple and almost certainly successful future if it does three things," one of which, the first one, is this:

Advocate first principles with courage, clarity, persistence and cheerfulness.

Cheerfulness? Yes, because it's important to distract the baby's attention with a toothy smile before taking its lollipop.

**********

The second one has to do with "developing solutions based on those principles," which, I suppose, is suitably vague.

The third one is that conservatives ought to "[b]e prepared to oppose Republicans when they are wrong and side with Democrats when they are right." Which is so ridiculous as to be amusing, because conservatives aren't about to side with Democrats in any meaningful way, so attached are they to the GOP.

**********

Don't bother reading Newt's piece. It's predictable drivel from one of the right's leading egomaniacs. (I'm sure he thinks the conservative movement needs him if it wants to rise up from the sewer.) Even Maureen Dowd is more worthwhile today -- and I even find myself in partial agreement with her over the Wall Street bailout.

Stupidity, thy name is Maureen Dowd

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I used to read Maureen Dowd. Once upon a time. Way back when. I can admit that, can't I? She was funny, sometimes, and her intertwining of pop culture and pop politics amused me. There was never any depth to her, but it didn't matter. Reading her Times columns, pithy drivel and all, was a fine way to pass the time -- when I had some time, didn't feel like having to think all that much, and nothing more compelling was available, mainly because I was too lazy to look.

And now? Not so much. Or, rather, not at all. Part of it, I suppose, is that her former targets -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. -- are no longer in power. Another part of it is that she's gotten worse. Nowadays, I find what she writes mostly unreadable. There was substance, if only a tiny speck, when she was exposing Bushworld as the bubble of darkness it was. Now she just seems shallower than ever, with little of value to add. This was the case during the primaries, when she resembled a gossip columnist more than an op-ed columnist for the leading newspaper in America, if not the world, and it is certainly the case now, training her sights on the new targets in the Obama Administration, starting in the Oval Office itself.

Case in point: Her column in today's NYT, which begins thusly:

On 9/11, President Bush learned of disaster while reading "The Pet Goat" to grade-school kids. On Tuesday, President Obama escaped from disaster by reading "The Moon Over Star" to grade-school kids.

"We were just tired of being in the White House," the two-week-old president, with Michelle at his side, explained to students at a public charter school near the White House.

Even as he told the children his favorite superheroes were Batman and Spider-Man, his own dream of being the superhero who swoops in to swiftly save America was going SPLAT!

It just ain't that easy.

Where, oh where, to begin. (And why even bother?)

First, losing Daschle -- which is what is behind this -- isn't a disaster. It's a shame that Daschle had to withdraw, and it was his own fault for being so reckless with his taxes, but Obama will simply replace him with another, and hopefully less compromised and less corrupt, nominee. True, I thought that Daschle was the right man for the job -- or, rather, for the two jobs of HHS secretary and head of the White House health care reform office -- but there are other good candidates out there, including Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

Second, losing Daschle is not akin to 9/11. And reading to children at a local school on the day you lose one of your key nominees is not the same as freezing on the spot when you're told of attacks on the United States. And what's wrong with reading to children anyway? Why refer to it as escaping from disaster?

Third, Obama is a sensible and sober leader, as we have already seen. He does not see himself as some sort of superhero on a mission to save America. He has his feet firmly planted in reality, unlike a certain Times columnist desperately trying to make waves.

Fourth, Obama's presidency didn't suddenly go SPLAT! just because Daschle withdrew his nomination. That's just stupid.

Fifth, while it is indeed true that Obama admitted to screwing up, it's not at all clear what he should have done in place of standing by his friend. After all, Daschle didn't do anything illegal and his failure to pay taxes on a car and driver was probably just an honest mistake. What is refreshing is that Obama was able to admit that it could have been handled differently -- the nomination, that is -- and to stress that "there aren't two sets of rules." So how was Obama's attitude "arrogant"? How was he trying to protect "his charmed circle"? After all, Daschle resigned soon after the story about his tax problems broke. It's not like Obama thwarted justice or kept up some sort of double standard, he just thought Daschle would be good for health care reform. Furthermore, was what Geithner did so bad as to disqualify him from office regardless of his many qualifications? He apologized and paid his back taxes (with interest). Disagree with him on the issues, and recoil at Daschle's consummate Washington insiderdom, but don't slam Obama as a failure, and a hypocrite, for seeking to put together the right Cabinet for these challenging times.

I could go on, but the rest of Dowd's column is a meandering mess that further attacks Obama for, among other things, not "smack[ing] down those who would flout his high standards or waste our money." She even suggests that Americans should not have put so much trust in him -- as if he really could single-handedly fix everything that ails the economy.

The problem for Dowd, I suspect, is that she really did think that Obama was Superman. Unlike many of the rest of us Obama supporters, who never deified him and who therefore had more reasonable expectations, Dowd and her ilk set standards for him that were simply impossible to meet. It should come as no surprise that the early days of Obama's presidency have had their rocky moments. It's Washington, after all. It's politics. And the good thing is that Obama himself understands that much better than Dowd, who continues to pump out ridiculous columns at a newspaper that itself should have higher standards.