New York Times publishes Politico-style smear job targeting Hillary Clinton right on its front page

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As far as political reporting goes, the transformation of The New York Times into another Politico -- gossipy, with a right-wing bent, regurgitating Republican talking points and otherwise kowtowing to the right-leaning Beltway establishment -- is almost complete.

Okay, okay, the Times has had problems for some time now. Remember when it was regurgitating the Bush-Cheney lies about Iraq, cheerleading the country into a disastrous war? Well, it may not be The Washington Post, which editorially has fully embraced the center-right, but the Times continues to get worse on the political reporting front.

And the connection to Politico is clearer than you might think. 

One of the Times's newest reporters, holding the lofty position of national political correspondent, is none other than Jonathan Martin, who had been at Politico for almost seven years and who was one of the key figures at that mostly wretched place.

And yesterday the Times published -- on Page A1 -- a piece by Martin that is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to find at... Politico.

Entitled "Republicans Paint Clinton as Old News for 2016 Presidential Election" for the web version, the piece acts as a vehicle for the latest Republican line of attack on Hillary: her time is done, she's a thing of the past, she's way too old.

And just to make that clear, Martin hands the first three paragraphs to three leading Republicans, quoting each one: Romney strategist Stuart Stevens, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The next two paragraphs reiterate this "theme," telling us what "Republican strategists and presidential hopefuls" are going to say about Hillary and stating, citing "Republican leaders," that Hillary is "vulnerable to appearing a has-been." 

Does the article then at least give us the other side? Maybe quote some Democrats leaders? Maybe something about how Hillary was both a senator and secretary state after being first lady for eight years, and before that in Arkansas, and all that after a long and successful career in law? Maybe something about how her age doesn't really have anything to do with it, about how her extensive experience actually means she's qualified to be president, about how there would be nothing odd about her becoming president at her age and with all that experience behind her, about how others have run for president and won at similar ages and also with a lot of experience behind them, like, say, Ronald Reagan?


Read more »

Unreasonable reasonable Republicans

By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: See also Chait's follow-up, after Scarborough threw a tantrum at him yesterday morning, "Joe Scarborough Hates Moms, PowerPoint." -- MJWS)

Do you know who is a real Reasonable Republican? Joe Scarborough. And that pretty much explains why the search for the lauded Reasonable Republican is such a foolish errand. When you find them, they simply have all the stupid policy prescriptions of other Republicans but don't think that rape victims ought to have to carry their pregnancies to term.

Of course, in Scarborough's case, since he isn't in office, his thinking has been heavily influenced the Very Serious People in Washington. This was fully on display a couple of weeks ago when Paul Krugman came on Morning Joe to discuss the economy. Scarborough just could not understand what Krugman was talking about. How could the budget deficit not be the most important issue facing the nation when everyone Joe knows thinks it is?!

You think I'm kidding? After the show, Scarborough took to Politico to write a column, "Paul Krugman Vs. the World." In it, he wrote: 

But maintaining calm was not as easy for Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass, who agrees with former Joint Chief chairman Michael Mullen, that longterm debt poses the greatest threat to America's national security.

In other words: "I've talked to other people who know nothing about economics and they agree with me!"

Read more »

There is no fucking spending problem

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Appearing on Fox News today, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the following:

It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.

She's almost right.

It's an entirely false argument to say the U.S. has a spending problem, and to the extent there's a deficit problem it's a problem of revenue, specifically not enough of it, not expenditures.

But if you really do want to cut spending, the place to look is defense, where a bloated military sucks up an extraordinary amount of the overall budget. It isn't discretionary spending, which is government spending in a whole range of areas, which is at an historic low thanks in large part to recent cuts that President Obama himself supported alongside Republicans and a good number of Democrats.

Read more »

Luke Russert should step aside for a qualified applicant

By Richard K. Barry

Come over here. I can't smack you from
where I'm standing.

I have a simple rule when watching news/public affairs programming. I don't like to be embarrassed by the reporter/interviewer. You can never tell how silly the guest might be, so you have to be prepared for what you get. But the "professional" on stage shouldn't make you squirm.

I tend to avoid Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz for this reason. I like their politics, just not the personality they bring to it. I don't doubt their intelligence or their experience as political commentators, watching them just makes me more nervous than I like to be.

Then there is Luke Russert, the kid who only got the job at NBC because his father died. And don't tell me there was any other reason. He is neither intelligent nor experienced, and man is he embarrassing.

The latest is that he asked Nancy Pelosi if maybe she wasn't too old to be leading her party in the House. Well, she smacked the young pup hard by pointing out that older men in Congress, like Mitch McConnell and Steny Hoyer, don't get asked questions like that. Then she turned on the lad and added, "Let's for a moment honour it as a legitimate question although it's quite offensive although you don't realize it I guess."

As Daily Kos put it, "she then went on to offer a lesson in what fighting your way to the top looks like as a mother of five born in 1940."

Yes, Luke Russert, who got a job in network television right out of college through nothing but nepotism, thinks Nancy Pelosi, who fought her way to success over a lifetime, should step aside for a younger person.

Maybe Luke should step aside for a qualified person. What a twit.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Why the FUCK didn't you, Madame Speaker?

By Carl
(ed. note: Please pardon the colorful language, but in context, it's appropriate and really about the only way to truly express my outrage)

"I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day," Nancy Pelosi said to laughter, during a sit-down with reporters. "I'm not kidding. There's a prison here in the Capitol ... If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him."

You mean like so many on the left asked? Begged? Pleaded? Why not?

"It doesn't serve our country, and it undermines the true purpose of contempt of Congress."

Get the fuck out of here. No, seriously, GTFO! When are the Democrats going to get it through their thick skulls that the only way they're ever going to right the ship of state and get to a place where Republicans are willing to be flexible and negotiate is to smack the fucks on the snout with a 2x4?

If the Teabagger movement tells us anything, it's that Republicans are not only perfectly willing and capable, but seem to enjoy sinking into the gutter in order to stop this nation from doing, well, anything except a war that Republicans themselves declare (else why the argument over Libya?)

The Democrats are the human in the middle of a pack of rampaging junkyard dogs and you know how you beat down a pack of junkyard dogs? You don't try to soothe them or bribe them: you take the lead dog, and crack him across the nose to show him who is boss.

Arresting, even just arresting, Karl Rove would have gone a long way to making the GOP realize you're serious and to be taken seriously.

My God, woman, these are the thieves and crooks who stole elections, raped our nation, destroyed her good name and credit both domestically and internationally, Murdered thousands of our young men and women for wars that had no point and no end, and plundered the values of our homes! Fuck "contempt of Congress," they are traitorous, murderous slimy bastards who if we had a Bastille and guillotine would be lined up at La Barrière!!

Arresting Karl Rove would have been, as they say, a nice first step.

How much different would the first four years of the Obama administration have been if, say, you had on January 1, 2007, slammed your gavel down and said "I will entertain a bill from Congressman Kucinich authorizing an investigation into a bill of war crime charges against officials of this Administration"? Or criminal negligence for ignoring the urgent warnings surrounding 9-11? Or hell, any number of things including charges of voter caging in 2004 or rigged elections in 2000?

I can tell you this much: Karl Rove would have spent the last six years running and hiding and spending money on lawyers and not building a superPAC war chest (after persuading five SCOTUS justices to pervert the First Amendment) to try to get the HNIC out of the White House. The Republicans would have thought twice before raising the birther issue, or banning abortions, or passing "Stand Your Ground" laws.

They would have respected you. Yes, they would have worked overtime to get rid of you, to take Congress over anyway, but guess what? It happened, despite your gestures of conciliation. You know who else reconciled with a tyrant hell-bent on destroying nations?

"Peace in our time," my lily-white ass!

(cross-posted to Simply Left Behind)

Nancy Pelosi is still big on a Hillary Clinton Presidency

By Richard K. Barry 

Nancy Pelosi is still very excited about the prospect of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton running for the White House in 2016. Asked in a recent interview about the prospect of a woman president in her lifetime, she immediately brought up Clinton.

She summed up her opinion by asking, "Why wouldn't she run?" She added, "she's our shot" that year. Well, as simple as it sounds, I have been saying for some time that Clinton would run if the pieces were in place, or could be put in place. But four years is a long time in politics. Very attractive candidates like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo might be interested. The support might not be there for Clinton. The money might not be there. Who knows? That's why she wouldn't run.

Where I will agree with Pelosi is that there is no reason for Clinton not to run if she thinks she has a good chance of winning. The pull of being the first woman president, but also of being president at all after the great disappointment of 2008 would be powerful reasons to go for it.

Hillary is saying precisely what everyone says and does in her position about future political plans. Let's see what her "retirement" looks like starting in 2013. We should be able to tell a lot by how far she actually strays from politics. I'm guessing she keeps her hand in enough to be able to gauge what her support might look like. No reason not to if you're the kind of political animal Hillary Rodham Clinton is. Seems obvious.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Still pushing Hillary in 2016 -- and I'm not alone

By Richard K. Barry

In my own small way, I have been pushing the idea of Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016. I think she'd be great, and apparently I have company.

What does the list of encouragers look like, in no particular order?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently told Charlie Rose on PBS that, "Yes, that would be so exciting."

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said that she would be "one of the first" to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016, and, if you can believe it, Donald Trump has even said positive things about the possibility. Go figure.

Most intriguing, though, is the comment by Bill Clinton that he would be "happy" if Hillary sought the presidency, though he is sticking to the script that he doesn't think she will. As he told Good Morning America:

I believe that she's being absolutely honest with you when she says she doesn't think she'll go back into politics. But if she comes home and we do this foundation stuff for the rest of our lives, I'll be happy; if she changes her mind and decides to run, I'll be happy.

I think that comment speaks volumes. It says to me that Bill knows his wife and knows that when the time comes she will be very tempted to get back into politics.

For her part, Hillary has been saying things like, "It's flattering, but, you know, I'm not planning to do that," adding that she has no "desire or intention" to run again for the White House.

Of course, even a casual observer would realize that these are non-denial denials. All they suggest is that someone else in her party currently has the job and is running for re-election and that it would be highly inappropriate for her to create unwanted background noise. We get that. 

I'm not saying she will do it. I don't think she would risk a high-stakes run in which there were difficult odds against success. But if things align in any reasonable fashion, I don't see how she could say no. 

In my humble opinion, her kind of political talent comes around rarely, and it would be foolish for the Democratic Party not to encourage any aspirations she might have.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Republican idiot extraordinaire Allen West says liberals should "get the hell out"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's really not worth paying any attention to Allen West, the insane right-wing Republican Congressman from Florida who says stupid things (and bigoted things) pretty much everytime he opens his mouth.

But pay attention we do, if only because it's good to keep track of the crazy things Republicans say and do and because in his own way West speaks to the current degraded state of the conservative, er, mind -- a mind that has been purged of reason and civility.

Here, for example, is what West said yesterday at a dinner -- and of all things a Lincoln Day dinner, as if the GOP has anything at all in common with Mr. Lincoln -- in West Palm Beach:

We need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and my dear friend the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain't on the table. Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.

Of course, this is the usual sort of ridiculousness we hear from so many Republicans these days, even the supposedly sane (but not so much) Mitch Daniels. Seriously, in what world is any of this true? Unless you're completely delusional, perhaps as a result of spending too much time in the presence of Republican propaganda without an ounce of critical thinking, how can you possibly think that Obama and the Democrats are anti-free market? And how exactly do Democrats seek equality of achievement? By refusing to gut Social Security, pumping (not nearly enough) money into the economy when it's just about to go off the cliff, and bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry?

It's like some bat-shit-crazy bizarro world these people inhabit. And it is.

And, yes, Europe, that anti-capitalist, freedom-hating dystopia with... with... with all that social mobility and those hugely profitable companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Siemens and Novartis and Shell and Nokia and Airbus and those massive banks like HSBC and Santander, and those dynamic global cities like London and Paris and Berlin, not to mention that great quality of life.

Slavery!

This is the level of "discourse" we've come to expect not just from West but from Republicans generally. And, as the GOP descends further and further into madness, it's not going to get any better anytime soon.

Is Nancy Pelosi waiting to unleash the dirt on Newt?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ABC News reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi now says she is not sitting on a trove of opposition research on former House Speaker-turned-GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

In an interview conducted Friday and published Monday, Pelosi hinted that once the time is right she has some juicy stories to tell about her former colleague.

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich," Pelosi, D-Calif., told Talking Points Memo. "I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him. Four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

But this afternoon, Pelosi's spokesman, Drew Hammill, suggested that her comments have been misconstrued beyond the leader's intent.

"Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware," Hammill wrote in a statement.

Yeah, right.

Pelosi and others, not just Democrats but many anti-Newt Republicans as well, have a ton of dirt on Gingrich and will use is as needed over the coming weeks and months, depending on how he does. But, right now, the Democrats, at least, don't need to use it. Because they don't want to knock Newt off his perch as frontrunner and (gasp!) possible (probable?) nominee? No, they want him to win.

Win the GOP nomination, that is, because he'd be much less of a threat to beat Obama in the general election than Romney, who, for all his faults and unpopularity with the GOP base, is fairly appealing to moderates and independents given his reputation as a moderate technocrat who understands business and the economy (that this isn't what he actually is, or is no longer, could eventually turn moderates and independents against him, but at least for now he can ride the perception and avoid the reality).

By "one of these days," then, Pelosi either misspoke, revealing too much when she should have kept quiet, or meant "after Newt wins the nomination, if it comes to that." Or both. As TPM's Brian Beutler put it:

There's no better illustration of how ecstatic Democrats are about Newt Gingrich leading the GOP primary pack than Nancy Pelosi's strategic silence.

Though she wasn't so silent as to avoid providing that glimpse into the future:

Pressed for more detail she wouldn't go further.

"Not right here," Pelosi joked. "When the time's right."

Which is to say that if Gingrich somehow clinches the nomination, there's one hell of an oppo dump coming. 

Pardon me, and so many others, for salivating.

**********

Actually, though, I'm not sure the dirt would matter. The media would dig up the old Newt anyway, and the new Newt really isn't new at all. He's still an arrogant egomaniac who says (and believes) insane things, like how poor (i.e., black) children should be forced to work because all they're good for is criminality.

And if that weren't enough, he's been rather eccentric in his conservatism, promoting relatively humane views on undocumented immigration and even -- yes, even -- responsible views on energy and climate change, two absolute no-nos in today's GOP.

Hey, he even did an ad on climate change with... Nancy Pelosi. And this could be as damaging to him as any oppo research dirt.

How do you think the Republican base will react when this little nugget makes its way around the right-wing insanitarium? The dirt would turn off moderates and independents, to the extent he'd have any such support, but his heterodox positions, past and present, would surely turn off conservatives. He's managing to weather any such criticism now largely because he's seen as much preferable to Romney (and because most people still aren't paying attention), but his record speaks for itself.

In 21st-century America, it's still okay to beat up on women

Guest post by Ramona

Ed. note: This is Ramona's second guest post for us. Like the first, on cruelty in America, it's excellent, a defence of basic decency (and rights) against those who would abuse it. You'll be seeing more of her here at The Reaction, and I encourage you again to check out her wonderful blog. -- MJWS

**********

Ramona is a freelance writer based in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Her blog, "Ramona's Voices," is liberal-leaning, with such a small amount of navel-gazing you'll hardly even notice. She is also on the masthead at dagblog, a gathering place for dissidents and reprobates and other friendly people.

From The Kansas City Star:

The Topeka City Council on Tuesday voted to repeal the city's law against misdemeanor domestic battery, the latest in a budget battle that has freed about 30 abuse suspects from charges.

One of the offenders was even arrested and released twice since the brouhaha broke out Sept. 8.

It started when Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor announced that a 10 percent budget cut would force him to end his office’s prosecution of misdemeanor cases, almost half of which last year were domestic battery cases.

With that, Taylor stopped prosecuting the cases and left them to the city. But city officials balked at the cost.

Tuesday’s 7-3 vote to eliminate the local domestic violence law was designed to force Taylor to prosecute the cases because they would remain a crime under state law.

Hey, all you totally misunderstood guys in Topeka who feel the need to smack around your women, good news! As long as you don't get too heavy-handed -- blackening eyes, loosening teeth, leaving really ugly bruises -- your city officials are on your side.

In a fledgling century of new lows, this may not rank up there with the worst of them, but as an indicator of how low our new austerity drives have allowed us to fall, it's right up there. Misdemeanor violence against women has now been approved by a city council for no other reason than to play chicken with a county prosecutor looking for creative ways to get around budget cuts.

Tack on top of that last week's action by the House to bully insurance companies into refusing to cover abortions:

The House approved a bill that Republicans said would prevent last year's healthcare law from funding abortions, but which Democrats said would go far beyond that and make it much harder for women to exercise their constitutional right to have abortions.

The bill, H.R. 358, was passed in a 251-172 vote that saw more than a dozen Democrats join nearly all voting Republicans in support of the measure.

Republicans said throughout the day that the bill is needed because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was approved without any limitation on funding for abortion rights. They also dismissed President Obama's Executive Order that Democrats say reinforces this prohibition.

"Thus ObamaCare, when phased in fully in November 2014, will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs, including and especially in exchanges, resulting in more dead babies and wounded mothers than would otherwise have been the case," Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) said.

I expect that sort of thing from Republicans, but 15 Democrats bought into it, too. It would still have passed without them, but that doesn't make me any less ashamed of them. (Here is the list.) Don't tell me they're only doing what their constituents expect of them. Either they're Democrats or they're not. A real Democrat wouldn't be caught dead voting for something like that:

"This bill is a radical departure from existing law," House Minority [Leader] Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. "This legislation is bad public policy, it is the wrong priority for Congress, it is an assault on women's health, and women should know that it prevents them from using their own dollars to buy their own private insurance should they be part of an exchange."

Never mind that this action by the House is as phony as the bill's moniker, the "Protect Life Act." Where are the bills to protect jobs, to protect children already living, to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of this country? Nowhere to be seen. There are some battles we shouldn't still be fighting. A woman's right to choose is sacrosanct. A woman's right to protect her own body is not now and never should have been up for debate. 

You protect life by respecting the living, by nurturing the living, by honoring the living. You accept the job as representative of the people by promising to preserve and protect. This bill and the actions in Topeka turn those notions upside down, and do it in mean-spirited, draconian ways too many people are finding acceptable. But change is in the air. If we can keep it going, a great awakening is about to begin. If we can keep it going, we'll be looking back on the last few decades of wicked wrongheadedness, wondering how we ever let it happen in our lifetime.

It can't come soon enough for me.

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices.)

"You can't outsmart crazy"

By Edward Copeland

With those words, Jon Stewart gave another eloquent speech at the beginning of Monday night's Daily Show, dispensing with humor to address Saturday's horrific events in Tucson.

With each passing hour and day since alleged gunman Jared Lee Loughner opened fire on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, critically injuring her, killing six and wounding 14 others, it becomes clearer that this 22-year-old man was not a political partisan but someone who was severely mentally ill. With Arizona government offices finally open Monday, The Washington Post finally was able to answer one simple question that's not open to debate: his voter registration. The answer turns out to be that he was a registered independent but was considered inactive because he hadn't bothered to vote in such a long time, including in November. Hardly indicative of a Tea Party participant.

I am guilty of jumping to conclusions. With the precursors without body counts such as smashed windows, threats, cut gas lines, it was an easy assumption to make. However, in my horror of the moment I forgot the old line about what happens when you assume: it makes an ass out of u and me. Subconsciously, there probably was part of me as there consciously was in many others who wanted this tragedy to turn out to be that way for political advantage. I may disagree with the Tea Party, believe them to be terribly misinformed and inflamed by the likes of Glenn Beck, but they aren't all homicidal lunatics.

When so many on the left criticized Jon Stewart's rally, claiming he was trying to make both sides equivalent, in the wake of Saturday's events, now he seems more right than ever. Keith Olbermann's Saturday special comment didn't say so explicitly, but if you read between the lines, it was a bit of a mea culpa for his own role. As Sarah Palin rushed to delete her graphic with the gunsight over Giffords' district, Daily Kos also had to delete a post where one of Giffords' constituents said that Giffords was "dead to me" because she voted against Nancy Pelosi for House minority leader.

Already, both sides are starting to revert to old habits. Because we on the left rushed to link the act of a madman to the politics of those we oppose, now those on the right revert to defensive mode and attack us. Hopefully, someone can stop this quickly. This is an opportunity for everyone to step back, take a breath and restore civility to the political process. I'm not saying compromise your principles, but it's long past time where both sides stop treating political opponents as the enemy. As it's been said many times, you can disagree without being disagreeable. The political climate probably didn't set Loughner off, but both parties need to look at themselves critically and seriously.

I hope that people take Pima County, Ariz., Sheriff Clarence Gupnik to heart and start rejecting the Becks and Limbaughs, but the only way that happens is when they get hit where it really hurts: the wallet. Beck has shown those signs with the loss of lots of sponsors, being taken off a big New York radio station and even dropping numbers on Fox News. I wish their listeners realized they were in it for the money, but oh well.

What really needs to be addressed seriously is the fact that this country has a gun problem and it's had a gun problem for a long time. A man rejected by the military, kicked out of college and who worried others around him was still allowed to legally purchase his Glock and, more importantly, his high-volume ammunition clips. He had three clips which had 33 rounds each. These sorts of clips were illegal under the assault weapons ban which was allowed to expire during the Bush Administration. If that law were still in place, he could only have purchased clips that held 10 rounds, meaning he would have to reload more frequently and the bloodshed would have been less. I hope the NRA and their friends in Congress are proud. Right now, Arizona is considering allowing faculty and college students to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

We also have to improve our ability to treat the mentally ill. In a rare moment of a television newsperson saying something profound, Lester Holt did the other day when he said that in the end, the motive doesn't matter. Six people are still dead, including a 9-year-old student council president born on 9/11.

Pelosi's last stand

By Creature

She's standing firm with the majority of her caucus and demanding changes to the tax deal before it comes to the floor. Maybe we'll get that game of chicken after all.

My general state of mind

By Creature

Obviously, I haven't been blogging lately, but I did have the time today to write an email about my state of mind and what's irking me. So, here goes, for what it's worth:

I’m having a hard time dealing with politics right now. The mere fact that these GOP bastards are going to the mat for the top 2% (proving they are true deficit hypocrites, I mean we’re talking $800 billion added to the deficit here), while at the same time blocking an unemployment extension (the best and purest form of stimulus-—not to mention people will suffer) has me enraged. At the same time all our ball-less president can do is repeat his happy bi-partisan bullshit (while they stab him in the back). The only one with balls in this whole thing is Nancy Pelosi.

If I had the money I would gladly pay more taxes to help. However, the key here is that I’d still get a break up to 250K. Everyone still gets the break (even the billionaires), just not over 250K. It would be one thing if the GOP didn’t say all they care about is the deficit, but that is their mantra and they are prepared to blow a giant hole in it. Hell, it's two wars, Medicare Part D, the Bush tax cuts, and a collapsing economy that got us in this HUGE hole to begin with and they take no responsibility for any of it. Also, their line about not taxing “job creators” is total bull. I loathe them and the feckless Democrats who enable them. I’m this close to checking out and not voting again.

Mean Politicians

By Distributorcap

MEAN POLITICIANS

Raised in potato country by her centrist parents, Olympia Snowshoe thinks she knows about survival of the fittest. But the law of the jungle takes on a whole new meaning when she enters the US Congress for the first time and encounters psychological warfare and unwritten social rules that Senators and Congressmen face today.

She instantly makes friends with Nancy Pelosi and Chris Van Hollen, who, in the terms of the Congress, are now the "out crowd."  Soon Olympia meets the Teabags, three crude, spiteful, but popular girls.  The Teabags consist of Sarah, the unofficial leader, Kay-Bailey, Sarah's full-time follower, and Michele, "one of the dumbest people you will ever meet." They immediately let her into their group, but Sarah is unsure. Her old friends convince Olympia to keep her relationship with the Teabags, only so that they can know their dark secrets. However, events turn for the worse when Olympia falls for Sarah's ex-boyfriend, Aaron Schock. When Sarah finds out, she seeks revenge. However, as Olympia spends more time with the Teabags, she begins to become one.

Dialogue from Mean Politicians

Nancy: [reading list the major cliques in Congress] You got your freshmen, ROTC guys, preps, J.V. jocks, Asian nerds, Cool Asians, Varsity jocks, unfriendly black hotties, girls who eat their feelings, girls who don't eat anything, Desperate wannabes, burnouts, sexually active band geeks...

[a picture of herself and Chris come on screen]

Nancy: But we are greatest people you will ever meet. And then there are worst - beware of Teabags.

Nancy: That one there, that's Michele Bachman. She is one of the dumbest girls you will ever meet. Chris Von Hollen sat next to her in Financial Services last year.

Chris: She asked me how to spell orange. I told her B-O-E-H-N-E-R

Nancy: That little one, that's Kay-Bailey.

Chris: She's totally rich because her dad invented Jesus Kites.

Nancy: Kay-Bailey knows everybody's business, she knows everything about everyone.

Chris: That's why her hair is so big, it's full of secrets.

Nancy: And evil takes a human form in Sarah Palin. Don't be fooled because she may seem like your typical selfish, back-stabbing slut faced ho-bag, but in reality, she's so much more than that.

Chris: She's the queen bee - the star, those other two are just her little congressional aides.

Sarah: Oh my God, I love your skirt! Where did you get it?

Blanche Lincoln: It was my mom's in the '80s.

Sarah: Vintage, so adorable.

Blanche: Thanks.

Sarah: [after Blanche walks away] That is the ugliest fucking skirt I've ever seen.  What a hick.

Sarah: I gave him everything! I was half a virgin when I met him.

Kay-Bailey: Do you wanna do something fun? Wanna go to Taco Bell?

Sarah: I can't go to Taco Bell, I'm on an all-carb diet. GOD Kay-Bailey you're so stupid!

Michele: Wait, Sarah! Talk to me!

Sarah: No one understands me...

Olympia: You're not stupid, Kay-Bailey.

Kay-Bailey: No, I am actually. I'm failing almost everything!

Olympia: Well... there must be something you're good at.

Kay-Bailey: I can stick my whole fist in my mouth! Wanna see?

Olympia: No no no... Anything else?

Kay-Bailey: Well... I'm kinda psychic. I have a second amendment sense.

Olympia: What do you mean?

Kay-Bailey: It's like I have C-SPAN or something. My breasts can always tell when we should cut taxes.

Nancy: Explain how you forgot to invite us to your GOP party?

Olympia: You know I couldn't invite you. I had to pretend to be a Teabag.

Nancy: Hey, Limpie, you're not pretending anymore. You're a dunker on a string. Cold, shiny, full of shit.

Nancy: Did you have an awesome time? Did you drink awesome shooters, listen to awesome music, and then just sit around and soak up each others awesomeness?

Olympia: You know what? You're the one who made me like this so you could use me for your Congressional revenge!

Nancy: God! See, at least me and Sarah Palin know we're mean! You try to act so innocent like, "Oh, I use to live in Maine with all the little mooses and the little lobsters!"

Olympia: You know what! It's not my fault you're like, in love with me, or something!

Nancy: What?

Chris: Oh, no, she did not!

Nancy: See? That's the thing with you Teabags. You think everybody is in love with you when actually, everybody HATES you! Like, Aaron Schock, for example, he broke up with Sarah and guess what? He still doesn't want you! So why are you still messing with Sarah, Olympia? I'll tell you why, because you are a mean Congressperson! You're a bitch! Here. You can have this earmark. It is a bridge to nowhere.

Chris: And I want my pink shirt back! I want my pink shirt back!

Olympia: [about Sarah] I have this theory about Sarah, that if you cut off all her hair she'd would have 8 chins like Mitch McConnell

Nancy: Okay, yeah. I've got an apology. So, I have this friend who is a new Congressperson this year. And I convinced her that it would be fun to mess up Sarah Palin's life. So I had her pretend to be friends with Sarah, and then she would come to my house after and we would just laugh about all the dumb stuff Sarah said. And we gave these candy bar things that would make her gain weight, and then we turned her best friends against her. And then... Oh yeah, Olympia -- you know my friend Olympia? We gave Sarah foot cream instead of face wash. I am so sorry Sarah. Really, I don't know why I did this. I guess it's probably because I've got a big liberal crush on you!

Olympia: Hey Sarah!

Sarah: Why were you talking to Nancy Pelosi?

Olympia: I don't know, I mean, she's so weird, she just, you know, came up to me and started talking to me about Iraq.

Sarah: She's so pathetic. Let me tell you something about Nancy Pelosi. We were best friends when I was Governor for like 2 minutes. I know, right? It's so embarrassing. I don't even... Whatever. So then, I started going out with my first boyfriend Rand who was totally gorgeous with this poodle haircut but then he moved to Kentucky, and Nancy was like, weirdly jealous of him. Like, if I would blow her off to hang out with Rand, she'd be like, "Why didn't you call me back?" And I'd be like, "Why are you so obsessed with me?" So then, for my birthday party, which was an all-girls pool party, I was like, "Nancy, I can't invite you, because I think you're liberal." I mean I couldn't have a liberal at my party. There were gonna be girls there with their rosary beads. I mean, right? She was a LIBERAL. So then her mom called my mom and started yelling at her, it was so retarded. And then she dropped out of Congress because no one would talk to her, and she came back in the fall, all of her hair was cut off and she was totally weird, and now I guess she's a vegan.

Michele: [to Olympia] If only you knew how mean Sarah really is... You'd know that I'm not allowed to wear hoop earrings, right? Yeah! Two years ago Sarah told me hoops earrings were her thing and I wasn't allowed to wear them anymore. And then for my birthday my parents got this pair of really expensive white gold hoops and I had to pretend like I didn't even like them and... it was so sad. And you know she cheats on Aaron? Yes, every Thursday he thinks she's doing SAT prep but really she's hooking up with John Kyl in the projection room above the auditorium! I never told anybody that because I am such a good friend!

Olympia: [after humiliating Sarah] Wait Sarah, I didn't mean for this to happen!

Sarah: To find out that everyone hates me? I don't care!

Olympia: Wait Sarah, just listen!

Sarah: No! Do you know what everyone says about you behind your back? Hmm? They say that you're a five college potato freak, that's a less hot version of me! Yeah, so don't try to act so innocent!

Olympia: But your the one who went to five colleges.

Sarah: You can take that fake apology, and shove it right up your hairy ..

[Sarah gets hit by a moose]

Olympia: [after seeing Sarah in mirror] Sarah, wow, you look really beautiful.

Sarah: I'm wearing a spinal halo.

Olympia: Look, I'm really sorry about the moose. I feel like it's all my fault.

Sarah: Stopping making this about you, it's always about you. I'm the one that got hit by the moose

Olympia: I'm really sorry about all the other stuff too.

Sarah: Okay, I'm going to forgive you because I'm a very Zen person... and I'm on a lot of pain medication that Rush gave me right now.

[Olympia smiles]

Sarah: You know Aaron Schock really does like you. He's always talking about how unusual you are and it really pissed me off. Like this one time, I got this really expensive Matryoshka nesting doll from Russia, but I never played with it. So my mom wanted to give it to my cousin. But even though I didn't want it..

Olympia: You begged your mom to let you keep it?

Sarah: No. I threw it in the backyard. That is why I can see Russia from my backyard.

Pelosi elected House minority leader, Democrats avoid self-destructive bloodletting

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As expected, House Democrats have chosen Nancy Pelosi as minority leader, essentially keeping the party's leadership intact after the midterms.

Last week, I wrote about why this is a good idea. Basically, in ensures unity and continuity at a time when Democrats need to move forward by defending their impressive record (health-care reform, Wall Street reform, the stimulus, the bailouts, etc.), not by making a show of throwing out those who helped guide the party to those successes. Changing the leadership, including forcing Pelosi out, would have been an unwarranted admission of failure and an insecure act of cowardice, an expression of fear and weakness, essentially a self-vote of non-confidence.

There was every reason to believe the Democrats would undermine their credibility, and choose weakness over strength, fear over self-confidence, but I applaud them for doing the right thing.

But allow me to object strenuously to the headline at Politico: "Nancy Pelosi survives Democratic revolt."

What revolt? Blue Dog Heath Shuler challenged Pelosi for the top spot, but the vote was 150-43, hardly a close one. Did Shuler try to lead a revolt? Not really. He and others thought that Pelosi shouldn't be leader and launched a fairly mild challenge. (Surely they knew they weren't going to win.)

And given that the Democrats won in a number of conservative seats in both '06 and '08, it's hardly surprising that Pelosi has her critics and that, post-defeat, there was an effort to push her out. That's what happens when a party loses. There's always some clamour for fresh blood. 

In the very first paragraph, the Politico piece states that Democrats in the House are "fractured," even if the challenge to Pelosi was merely "quixotic" -- that is, if I may thesaurusize, idealistic and impulsive. So what is it? If Shuler's challenge wasn't really to be taken all that seriously, how was it a revolt -- and how is the party fractured?

And how is it any more fractured that the other side, with Republicans at each other's throats over earmarks and with the GOP Civil War already well underway, just two weeks after a supposed "wave" election that left Obama and the Democrats supposedly shellacked?

If anything, what we're seeing from Democrats is admirable restraint, not self-destructive bloodletting. And I expect Shuler and his allies to get behind Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn and the rest of the House leadership. If the party that get through this challenging period without imploding -- and the signs are all promising -- they will be well-positioned to withstand the Republican onslaught of investigation, gridlock, and right-wing extremism and to work constructively with Obama and Senate Democrats to get things done for the American people at a time of continued economic uncertainty.

For Democrats, unity and continuity in the House

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm not a big fan of Steny Hoyer, quasi-leader of the Blue Dogs, and I'd prefer to see someone else back up Nancy Pelosi as minority whip, but Pelosi's move to keep Hoyer in the #2 spot and make James Clyburn, his chief rival for minority whip, "assistant leader" is simply brilliant. It ensures peace, albeit tenuous, and continuity. And while there's something to be said for fresh blood after a big electoral loss, Pelosi did a fine job as Speaker, is poised to be a similarly fine minority leader, a position she's held before, and, in my view, deserves to remain atop the leadership. And she wasn't going to remain there unless she made sure that there was no civil war over the minority whip spot:

Supporters said her remaining obstacle to staying in power was achieving consensus on her leadership team because rank-and-file Democrats did not want to face a choice between Hoyer and Clyburn. As the minority party, Democrats will lose the speaker's slot and end up with one less seat at the leadership table. Hoyer and Clyburn are liberals, but Hoyer has strong ties to the several dozen moderate Democrats in Congress. Clyburn has equally deep ties to the liberal wing as the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus in an elected leadership slot.

Rather than allowing the two men to continue a divisive battle -- which Hoyer appeared to be winning, based on public letters of support -- Pelosi created a new position for Clyburn, with undefined responsibilities. Its title is similar to a different, non-elected post known as "assistant to the speaker" or "assistant to the minority leader." It's unclear how the new position will be funded or where its offices will be.

But unity was the goal and, if rank-and-file Democrats agree on Wednesday, unity will be achieved.

Why is continuity important? Because the Democrats need to move forward in large part by defending their impressive record (health-care reform, Wall Street reform, the stimulus, the bailouts, etc.), not by making a show of throwing out those who helped guide the party to those successes. What, after all, would fresh new leadership signify? That the party was going in a different direction, that it was abandoning what it had done, all that it had accomplished, and that the midterms really were a rejection of the Democrats and their agenda. Changing the leadership, including forcing Pelosi out, would have been an admission of failure and an act of cowardice, an expression of fear and weakness, essentially a self-vote of non-confidence.

Because, as I and many others keep saying, the result of the midterms, particularly in the House, was not an expression of popular support for the Republicans and their agenda (which is extremist and obstructionist). It was, rather, a reflection of deep public discontent rooted in the still lousy economy, with anger and frustration directed at incumbents, at the party in power. Certainly, the Democrats failed to make a convincing case for themselves, and, given the swing, failed to hang on to seats in heavily conservative districts that they won in '06 and '08, but that's hardly Pelosi's fault, or hardly hers alone. And while the Democrats, both in the House and elsewhere, do have some bitter lessons to learn, there is no need to overreact and certainly no need for a purge.

Republicans will likely remain united on Capitol Hill, but there are already signs of fracturing as the party gets ever more extreme and as the Tea Party acquires ever more power within the GOP. (It's one thing to be thoroughly obstructionist, as establishment types like Mitch McConnell want, and to end up with gridlock, quite another to turn the House into a hyper-investigative inquisition. And, of course, there will no doubt be a good deal of internal conflict as the 2012 primary season draws closer and the likely candidates jockey for position.

All the more reason for Democrats to be as united as possible and to defend what they've done and what they stand for with conviction and purpose. There is certainly diversity in the Democratic House leadership, and it's not clear how they'll all get along, and there are quite a few Democrats who think Pelosi should have stepped down, but there is good reason to believe that, with Pelosi at the helm and her team settled in place, the party will be effective in opposition, working constructively and productively with Obama and Senate Democrats to get things done for the American people.

Smarter Than The Average Bear or Op Ed Writer

by Distributorcap

I guess we live in a country where - if you write for 'venerable' organizations like the Washington Post - you must smarter than the average bear.

In his November 12, 2010, WaPo column, Dana Milbank chalks up another day to punditoria arrogance, stupidity and revisionism.

"Democrats in the House are set to keep the same three leaders - Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn - who led them to their historic wipeout. This is the preschool-soccer theory of accountability: Nobody keeps score and everybody gets a trophy. The fallen House speaker seems to speak for a number of her colleagues when she says she has "no regrets" about the past two years."

and the inanity continues if you care to read.

First of all - I have had plenty of issues with Pelosi & Company with the things she they done ("impeachment is off the table") and haven't done ("impeachment is off the table"), but I believe she has been a pretty decent Speaker considering everything that has been tossed at her and her lieutenants.  They have had the obstructionist GOP (who would vote down a cure to cancer), the DINO Blue Dogs (who would sell their mother out), a President who has failed (yes I will use failed) to take stands, fight the GOP and follow through on many of his pledges and finally a media cheering for her demise.

Yes it was a pretty overwhelming wipeout.  But I can guarantee Mr. Milbank that NOT ONE person who voted on November 8th (except in CA-8) gave a rat's ass about Nancy Pelosi (or Stoyer or Clyburn).  I would bet over 50% of the country has no idea who the Speaker of the House is!  I would also bet well over 50% of the country has no clue whom their own House Rep is.  I live in deep blue 'sophisticated' Manhattan - where over 80% of registered voters are Democrats.  I know several people who have no idea who their Representative is (Carolyn Maloney) and there are many who still think Hillary Clinton is still our Senator!

When people voted last week - they voted against Obama - period.  They went into the booth (or 'private voting area' that we now have) and filled in straight Republican.  They could have been voting for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun for all they cared - it was a repudiation on Obama.  Less than 0.1% of the voting public went in to the polls and chose their Rep based on the actions of Pelosi or Stoyer.  Many of them may have actually benefited from House actions - but that didn't matter.  It was Obama they were repudiating and Pelosi was the indirect victim.

Then again Pelosi isn't as hot as Palin - so maybe that was the reason she was booted.

To say that those three led the House to an historic wipeout is disingenuous and another sign of a lazy writer.  The House and the Dems suffered because of the weakness of Obama, the weakness of the economy, the obstruction and great marketing of the Republicans, Fox News & Propaganda Inc., the Citizens United decision and the media's elevation of the teabaggers to lofty levels (without bothering to call them out for the racists and greedmongers they really are).  Sure the Democrats made major blunders and have the spine of a squid - but not one voter pulled the lever (an old school term - there are no more levers) based on the leadership of Pelosi.

Milbank knows this, the media knows this - but telling the real story requires work and probably doesn't sell a lot of columns or get you on TV.

Why Nancy Pelosi should be House minority leader

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's a movement afoot to give Nancy Pelosi the boot, to remove her as Democratic leader in the House. Even the Times has gotten in on the action, editorializing (somewhat persuasively):

Nancy Pelosi has been an extremely effective speaker of the House for four years, shepherding hundreds of important bills toward passage and withstanding solid Republican opposition. Her work in passing health care reform and strong ethics oversight achieved what many thought was legislatively impossible. But is she really the best the Democrats can come up with as their leader as they slip into the minority.

Ms. Pelosi announced on Friday that she would seek the post of House minority leader. That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House. What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public's throat. Both Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, are inside players who seem to visibly shrink on camera when defending their policies, rarely connecting with the skeptical independent voters who raged so loudly on Tuesday.

With President Obama proving to be a surprisingly diffident salesman of his own work, Congressional Democrats need a new champion to stand against a tightly disciplined Republican insurgency.

I don't buy it. While Pelosi certainly deserves some of the blame for the Democrats' loss of the House, and is certainly not a great communicator, she shouldn't be held up as the scapegoat for a loss that was unavoidable given the state of the economy, widespread anti-incumbent sentiment, and Democrats having to defend many largely Republican districts after their '06 and '08 "wave" wins, among other factors.

Now, I realize that the Times is actually praising Pelosi as a legislator. Its argument is that she just isn't right to lead the opposition, which requires communications skills that she doesn't seem to possess.

But I'm not sure that's really what's needed of the House minority leader. After all, Democrats should be able to communicate their policies and principles, and to advance their own narratives, from the White House and the Senate -- yes, yes, lest we forget, given how the midterms are being spun far and wide as an unmitigated triumph for the GOP, that the Democrats were not only not obliterated ("shellacking" is the popular word) but are actually still in power.

On what is needed in the House, Greg Sargent, contra the Times, makes a great point:

[A]ll this seems to badly miss what one of the most important roles of the new minority leader will be: to draw a very sharp line against GOP efforts to roll back Obama's accomplishments.

This task could matter at least as much for the new minority leader as communications or presenting a new face for the party. And while Pelosi clearly has a negative and polarizing image, few would argue that she hasn't succeeded at building coalitions and maintaining unity at moments of extreme political stress -- exactly what she'll need to do if she's going to hold the line against repeal efforts. 

He continues:

The key thing to understand is that we're about to enter a period of bruising procedural wars -- precisely the type of thing that Pelosi has already excelled at. Republicans are already discussing ways to starve the new health-care law by, say, limiting funding to agencies that would implement portions of it or using spending bills to block federal insurance regulations they don't like. The next minority leader will have to be ruthless in her willingness to use procedural tactics to combat this kind of stuff.

So why not Pelosi, who has a strong record of standing up for liberal-progressive policies and principles and against the determined partisanship of those across the aisle?

The midterms, after all, were not a rejection of liberalism, nor of the Democrats' agenda -- even if this is what Republicans (and many in the media) would have us believe. On the issues, the Democrats remain popular, or at least their policies do. The Republicans have no mandate to govern, and Democrats certainly weren't given a mandate to move to the center. To the contrary, the poor performance of Blue Dogs suggests that the party should reject appeasement and commit itself to a liberal-progressive agenda that embraces what they've done so far, including health-care reform, and seeks to bring meaningful change to America.

In other words, there is simply no mandate for someone like Blue Dog Heath Shuler to take over the party in the House.

I've never been a huge Pelosi fan, but there's no denying the success she had as speaker, not least in keeping a rather disunited party together, and, with Republicans itching for a fight, she may just be the best person for the job.

NYT comes out against Pelosi as Minority Leader

By Creature

While I'm fully on board with Pelosi being Minority Leader, I do agree with the NYT on this point:

What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public’s throat. Both Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, are inside players who seem to visibly shrink on camera when defending their policies, rarely connecting with the skeptical independent voters who raged so loudly on Tuesday.

Both leaders made horrible spokespeople, but, then again, I haven't really seen any Democrat out there doing any better (Barney Frank being the exception). Pelosi deserves to keep her leadership role, mainly because I trust no one else to fight like mad for the gains achieved.