Bush 2.0

By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: For my take on Obama's "end of the war on terror" speech, see here. I thought it was, in general, a thoughtful, intelligent speech that addressed, without entirely disregarding, my progressive concerns, and I applaud him for presenting a serious understanding of the complexities of the world and America's place in it, as well as for encouraging a broad discussion of national security, but he's got an awful lot to prove after more than four years of continuing, and in some cases worsening, the Bush-Cheney national security state. The rhetoric was there, but, then, the rhetoric's often there with him. The question is where he actually goes from here and whether there will actually be meaningful change, and of course whether that change actually puts an end to endless war and largely unlimited executive power. -- MJWS)

In general, I like caveats. The world is not a simple place. But that can be taken to extremes, especially by supposedly liberal politicians. The best description I've ever heard of Obama is by Roger Hodge in The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama presents a dizzying series of hands -- on the one and then the other, repeatedly, like some hyper-discursive blue-skinned Hindu deity -- in which he discusses the Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (the wing to which he belongs, but he doesn't really come out and tell us that), which embraces the new economy of advancing pools, even though 'a sizable chuck' of the Democratic base resists the agenda." In other words, Obama is a conservative Democrat but he respects the rest of us who aren't.

After President Obama's speech last week, I didn't know what to make of it. As usual, it sounded very nice. He got all the stuff that I didn't like out of the way at first so he could provide me with a soft landing. But I've been hearing pretty words from Obama for five years and I've been disappointed in his actions for four. On economics, I feel more qualified to cut through his bullshit, but I'm none too clear on the War on Terror, regardless of what the current administration wants to call it. So I have to depend upon more knowledgeable people like Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald to clarify what the truth actually is. So I was very eager to hear what Greenwald had to say, especially given his tardiness in weighing in. Finally, yesterday morning he published "Obama's Terrorism Speech: Seeing What You Want to See."

He started out saying what I've long known, although in this case specific to Obama's speech on Thursday:

If one longed to hear that the end of the "war on terror" is imminent, there are several good passages that will be quite satisfactory. If one wanted to hear that the war will continue indefinitely, perhaps even in expanded form, one could easily have found that. And if one wanted to know that the president who has spent almost five years killing people in multiple countries around the world feels personal "anguish" and moral conflict as he does it, because these issues are so very complicated, this speech will be like a gourmet meal.

He then went on to point out the fundamental purpose of the speech was to calm progressives.

Read more »

Keeping the winning coalition on side

By Richard K. Barry

There is a kind of laziness in post-election analysis that focuses too much on demographic changes favourable to Democrats in order to announce that American politics is now owned by progressive forces for the foreseeable future. It's pretty silly stuff, but that can be the nature of punditry - keep it simple and stupid. 

What demographic changes and the success it brought may provide is an opportunity for Democrats to solidify their support if, and only if, they do the right things. 

Republicans are not going to sit back and accept the fact they they are doomed for the next 25 years. 

In The Washington Post over the weekend, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made much the same point:

Demographics alone are not destiny. There is nothing in this year's election returns that guarantees Democrats a permanent majority in the years to come. President Obama and the Democratic Party earned the support of key groups — young people, single women, Latinos, African Americans, auto workers in the Rust Belt and millions of other middle-class Americans — because of our ideas.

But we cannot expect Republicans to cede the economic argument so readily, or to fall so far short on campaign mechanics, the next time around.

Read more »

The Republican war on education

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Paul Ryan came out yesterday and expressed his support for Rahm Emanuel against Chicago teachers. Like his running mate, he's trying to score some political points by beating up unions and trying to tie President Obama to this particular one, even though the president has stayed out of it so far, refusing to take a stand one way or the other.

It's the Republican politics of vilification, this week directed at teachers, who are being made out to be overpaid, good-for-nothing layabouts wallowing in moral degradation.

Because, of course, Republicans don't give a shit about education.

Oh, maybe for the rich, who can afford to go to, or be sent to, elite private schools (like the one Mitt attended in Michigan), or otherwise for the select few who get to go to charter schools (as promoted not just by Republicans but by Emanuel and, yes, President Obama), but not for the vast majority of young people who must instead rely on mostly under-funded public schools of dubious infrastructure.

Personally, I have nothing but praise for those teachers who dedicate so much of themselves to public schools despite, or perhaps in some noble cases because of, the various problems they face. I'll leave it to others to determine just how much they ought to be paid, but within reason I'm not sure they'll ever be paid enough.

On this, our friend Libby makes some great points:

Anyone who doesn't stand with the teachers in the Chicago strike has never taught in a classroom setting. Public school teachers are woefully undervalued in our country. They're so overloaded with mandated testing and unrealistic productivity metrics, their ability to innovate has been completely stifled. The student populations they're left with after private and charter schools have poached the easiest to teach students are difficult to teach in small groups and nearly impossible to even control in too large classrooms.

Surely, our public education system presents a complicated problem, and is in need of some reform, but the solution is most assuredly not [fewer] teachers at lower pay. 

See also Freddie deBoer at Balloon Juice (linked by Libby):

The reality is that you can't be pro-education and anti-educator. Not just in the sense that you shouldn't be, ethically, although I certainly believe that. I mean the notion that you can say that you care about education while working relentlessly to attack our actual teachers is nonsensical. If you want to attack our teachers as "overpaid," OK. Go ahead. But you don't get to pretend that you give a shit about education. If you don't have a problem with celebrity dog trainers who make 7 figures or personal stylists who make $5,000 a consultation or people who sell artisanal moonshine for $400 a bottle, but you have a problem with teachers working in one of the most difficult teaching environments in the country making $75K a year, hey, alright. But save me the platitudes. Save me your chest-beating and your weeping for the children, the children. Quality health insurance, pensions, job security, a strong union to represent your self-interest: these are the only tools we have to attract people into this profession, when so many other educated professions make so much more. Advocate the end of those benefits and you declare yourself an enemy of education. You make it plain that you don't actually value it with the only currency we care about in this culture, hard cash. You are saying that you don’t really value what you say you value. Period.

In this capitalist system of ours, what people make is a statement about how much society values what they do. Honey Boo Boo Child will make more this year than most Chicago teachers, and our friends in the media think they make too much. That's all you need to know. If you think that people should be willing to teach for less, than shut your mouth and go apply to teach in Chicago yourself. 

No, much easier to vilify. It's the Republican way.

Bad teachers: The Republican politics of vilification

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Republicans like to call themselves patriots, but they're the party of discord and division, among other things vilifying entire regions, entire states, entire cities. (E pluribus unum is their anti-motto.)

In '88, it was Massachusetts, whence hailed Michael Dukakis and, worse, liberalism. In '08, it was the coasts, home to Sarah Palin's detested elites, in contrast to the all-American heartland of her fantasies.

This year, it's Chicago, Obama's degraded hometown, and Romney-surrogate Republicans are going all-out trying to connect the president to its supposed political and union thuggery.

You know, to political bosses like Rahm Emanuel, his ex-chief of staff, and to public-school teachers behaving like the Khmer Rouge.

Except, of course, that they're not. The Chicago Teachers Union went on strike not because it's made up of a bunch of thugs, or a bunch of layabouts being manipulated by a bunch of thugs, but because it wants fair pay, reasonable working conditions, and the best educational environment for students -- all perfectly reasonable demands that are being blocked by the city, led by Emanuel.

I'll let others debate the details, but here's where Republicans are contradicting themselves:

They vilify Chicago because of people like Emanuel, but here they're siding with Emanuel, even if they won't admit it, against the teachers. So what is it? Do they like Big Bad Chicago or not?

It hardly matters. Consistency is not their aim, just cheap political points. Besides, it's not Chicago they loathe, it's "Chicago," the nightmare they concoct in their propaganda.

And now, of course, they're trying desperately to connect Obama to the teachers, led by Mitt himself:

Obama has not taken sides in the standoff between Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the president's former chief of staff, and the city’s teachers union.

But Romney, who routinely slams teachers unions as an obstacle to education reform, is trying to break that silence by accusing Obama of cozying up too close to labor in general.

"President Obama has chosen his side in this fight, sending his vice president last year to assure the nation's largest teachers union that 'you should have no doubt about my affection for you and the president’s commitment to you,'" Romney said in a statement. "I choose to side with the parents and students depending on public schools to give them the skills to succeed, and my plan for education reform will do exactly that."

Again, Romney lies. Obama may have affection for teachers -- who doesn't? oh, right, Romney and the Republicans -- but that doesn't mean he necessarily supports this strike action.

Furthermore, he and his party do not support public education in any meaningful way. Rather, they support bleeding the public-school system to benefit private education that itself benefits the select few, and mostly the rich, leaving everyone else behind, American public schools in ruins, teachers underpaid, infrastructure collapsing, education next to impossible.

This is not to say the strike isn't bad news for Obama and that Romney won't be able to, and make every effort to, take advantage of it.

But here again there is that contradiction. The president's own education policies suggest that he is indeed in line with Emanuel. And so once again Romney is trying to have it both ways, vilifying both Chicago and the teachers union and then both Obama and the teachers union. Obviously, he's hoping something sticks, but it's the usual nonsense of someone who prefers the politics of vilification to the politics of principle, and whose entire campaign is based on contradiction and dishonesty.

Union-busting and the Koch brothers' plans for our future

By R.K. Barry

As we consider attempts by Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin to bust public sector unions, not to mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's constant rants against these unions in his own state, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is a plan afoot – a concerted effort by Republican politicians to do something that they always wanted to do but may not have previously seen a clear path to accomplish.

And, although former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been widely credited with saying that one should never let a good crisis go to waste, it seems his best students have been Republican governors.

Yes, the economy went to rat shit because of the malfeasance of Wall Street types, leaving everyone feeling vulnerable to personal economic collapse, which, in turn, has given Republican politicians the excuse they have longed for to get rid of public sector unions.

It's pretty simple. Point to people who have bargained their salaries and working conditions in good faith, have come to agreement with their employers as part of a legitimate negotiating process, and make them a target for others who are in precarious employment situations, or perhaps unemployed.

Feed on the worst aspects of human nature, which is to say that if some people are not doing well, others, with whom they may generally occupy the same economic class, should not be doing well either. Make it sound like everyone in a public sector union is driving a luxury car and vacationing in the Riviera. Divide working people so they cannot be a threat to the power of wealth and privilege in American. Make then forget who got us into this mess in the first place and stop them from asking annoying questions. Brilliant.

What is not being talked about enough, I believe, is that the assault on public sector unions is an assault on the idea that government is an effective force for good in our society. But, in this case, it's a two-for-one sale. Attacking public sector unions is an attack on the idea of an expanded role of government but also on the idea of unions: two forces that have always been a major impediment to massive private wealth in the United States doing whatever it chooses to do (while admittedly playing that role imperfectly).

Two things that wealth and privilege hate in America: government regulating their activities and working people having their own independent base of power. Take away collective bargaining for public sector unions and you clear the way for making government smaller and destroy yet another potential oppositional force. 

The rhetoric of someone like Governor Christie is priceless. In his world, gold-plated public sector contracts are paid for by working people who don't happen to be on the gravy train. This creates the potential of working people at each other’s throats with the goal of reducing the size of government and its ability to regulate the economy while destroying unions all at the same time. Who would have thought that an economic crisis could be so useful for the power elite?

How any working people can believe that smaller government and fewer effective unions will mean that they will have more freedom and autonomy to do the things they want to do is beyond me.

Whether one wants to go back and look at John Kenneth Gailbraith's theory of countervailing power or some variant of Robert Dahl's theory of pluralism, whatever else their defects, it's pretty obvious that there is real and concentrated economic power in America and those who hope to have real freedom and autonomy had better consider how they will come together, and organize, to challenge that power. Government at times can be helpful, unions as well, as can many different kinds of social movements.

Working people who fail to organize in their own interests or fail to support others who do will wonder how it is that their piece of the pie got so small.

Reduce the size and effectiveness of government, destroy the right of people to bargain collectively, to organize politically, and you will have ceded the entire playing field to the same Wall Street hacks and their cheerleaders in the Republican Party who have grown pretty comfortable with the growing inequalities of wealth in America.

The genius of the right is that they have always been able to find ways to get working people to fight amongst themselves.

Tea Partiers may think that reducing the size of government and the power of public sector unions will lead to a utopia where everyone, even the least among us, is free to realize his or her own version of the American Dream.

The Koch brothers sincerely thank you for being so naive.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The return of Rahm (or, so much for my schadenfreude)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Alas, that didn't last long.

Earlier this week, an Illinois Appellate Court panel booted ex-Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel off the Chicago mayoral ballot, ruling that he didn't meet residency requirements, but yesterday the Illinois Supreme Court put him back on again:

The unanimous decision brought a close to months of legal debate over whether Mr. Emanuel qualified for the ballot, specifically whether his time in Washington as President Obama's chief of staff meant that he had given up his residency status in Chicago, where he was born.

By Illinois state code, candidates for mayor are required to have resided in Chicago for at least one year before Election Day. Mr. Emanuel left the White House in October, and the election is Feb. 22, but Mr. Emanuel argued that he was still a Chicago resident because he owned a house here, paid taxes here, voted here, and left his most cherished possessions in the basement of his house here. 

Well, so much for my schadenfreude.

Rahm Emanuel and the meaning of schadenfreude

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The New York Times:

With only a month to go until Election Day, more than $10 million in campaign money in the bank and an overwhelming lead in the polls, Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff, was disqualified on Monday from appearing on this city's ballot for mayor.

A panel of Illinois Appellate Court justices, in a 2-1 ruling, found that Mr. Emanuel failed to meet a state code stipulating that candidates for mayor reside in the city they hope to lead for at least a full year before an election.

**********

Dictionary.com:

scha·den·freu·de

 /ˈʃɑdnˌfrɔɪdə/ Show Spelled[shahd-n-froi-duh]

 

–noun

satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.

---

Origin:
1890–95; < G, equiv. to Schaden harm + Freude joy

********** 

Chicago Tribune:

Attorneys for Rahm Emanuel late today asked the Illinois Supreme Court to prevent Chicago elections officials from printing ballots for the Feb. 22 mayor's election without his name.

Emanuel's legal team also said they will ask the state's highest court on Tuesday to hear their appeal of a decision by an appellate court today to knock him off the ballot on the grounds he doesn't meet residency requirements.

**********

Emanuel is one of those Democrats whom I support only when the alternative is a Republican. And while I admired, once upon a time, his apparent ability to navigate Capitol Hill and get things done, and while I was fairly ambivalent about it when newly-elected Obama named him chief of staff, I was happy to see him leave the White House.

Sure, there were many successes during Obama's first two years in office, but Emanuel distinguished himself by being a determined anti-progressive, including on health-care reform. I understand the need to make deals when you're trying to get things done, but Emanuel, to me, was an obstacle, pulling Obama away from his liberal-progressive base (even if Obama himself seems to be more Emanuel-style centrist than progressive). Not much will change with Emanuel not running the West Wing, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a massive nuisance, to say the least.

He may still get the chance to inflict himself, his anti-progressive centrism, and his party-boss ways on the people of Chicago, as it may well be, as he claims, that "his time in Washington, which ended in October, was always meant to be temporary and ought not affect his legal status as a resident of Chicago," according to the Times, but, for now, let's take some pleasure in his apparent demise, or at least in his temporary misfortune.

(photo)

Nice going, Rahm

By Edward Copeland 

Not many people can have the claim to fame that Rahm Emanuel now does. He has now managed to ruin the attempts of two Democratic presidents to reform America's miserable health care system and as a result have had both presidents' parties manage to lose their control of the House of Representatives two years later. God help you Chicago if he actually becomes your mayor.

*****UPDATE*****
Apparently, many Obama advisers agree with me and are blaming Rahm for the Election Day losses.

An open letter to Rahm Emanuel

Dear Rahm,

So long.

I'm not a Beltway insider, nor a major Democratic player, just a blogger who believed in Obama, and sort of still does, despite everything, and who cares about America's future.

And all I can say is that it's been a genuine displeasure.

For sake of the good people of the City of Chicago, where you hope to be the new boss, here's hoping you don't do to them what you did to Obama's presidency.

And here's hoping that your successor, Peter Rouse, isn't such a disappointment. Not that you've really been a disappointment. I mean, many of us expected you to be what you've been, even if your constant attacks on the president's, and Democrats', liberal-progressive base have been more virulent than expected.

Thanks so much for being such an asshole to us. Perhaps it's not too late for the president to recover, and to be what some of us think he is capable of being, a genuinely transformative president who leads America into a brighter and more just future, a progressive future in which the country lives up to its most noble ideals and principles.

Without much regard,

Michael Stickings

Whoever shall replace Axelrod and Emanuel?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Obama White House will look a lot different in 2011 than it does today -- hopefully for the better. Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council, is taking his smug arrogance and conflicted Wall Street ties back to Harvard. Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod, will be doing some "hippie punching" out on the campaign trail, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, expected to be the next major player out the door, will likely be heading back home to Chicago, where it is expected he'll run for mayor.

So who will the new faces be? Who knows? (Who cares?) Howard Kurtz tweeted that, according to CBS, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could replace Axelrod. But, honestly, does it matter?

Given what we've come to expect from Obama so far in his presidency, which is disappointment after maddening disappointment, I wouldn't be surprised if he re-populated his inner circle with a bunch of pro-DADT, pro-Bush-Cheney national security state, pro-Wall Street neocon-lite Republicrat Blue Dogs just to stick it to his liberal-progressive base and ensure that his policy agenda is solidly moderate Republican and uncompromisingly untransformative.

Pardon my mood, but that whole "change we can believe in" rhetoric now seems like a steaming pile of horse manure.

SNL does Rahm

By Creature

Rahm

By Creature

It's pretty clear at this point that Rahm Emanuel is scared of Republicans (and fearless of hippies). Maybe his, yet to be seen, legislative brilliance outweighs all that, but it seems the trade-off has resulted in weak politics and an even weaker moral standing. He's the wrong man for the times. It's a shame the president can't see that.

Breaking! ... Groundhog sees Palin's shadow, predicts winter through 2012

By J. Thomas Duffy

The first signs of something gone awry came on Punxsutawney Phil's new Twitter account;

Eek! A horrifying shadow!

Stunning his handlers, from the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club, as well as tens-of-thousands of fans and spectators who make the pilgrimage to this tiny Pennsylvania berg, the infamous prognosticating groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, saw the shadow of the abdicating, half-term former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, which spelled out we are in for winter, extending through 2012.



"This is terrible, just terrible," offered club president Bill Deeley, adding "we've never had anything like this happen before."

Reports indicate that other club members, as well as an untold number in the crowd, closest to Punxsutawney Phil , apparently also saw, what appeared to be, the likeness of Palin.

Deeley went on to say that "I hope this isn't that O'Keefe kid, or one of his friends, trying to pull a stunt... Or that Andrew Breitbrat guy, sending someone here ..."

William Kristol, the person who first promoted last years' losing Vice Presidential candidate, thought "it would wonderful for the groundhog to see Sarah Palin."

Maybe, the day after she gets elected President, in 2012, the sun will come out."

A spokesperson for the National Weather Service declined comment, stating, "We need to look at this more closely."



At the White House, a team of both administration personnel, as well as scientists, were abruptly dispatched to Punxsutawney, to investigate the claim further.

Peter Orszag, the President Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget was devastated by the news.

"We just released our budget and, now, that's all out the window."

Orszag indicated that most of the budget will have to recalculated, to take into account the loss of crops, and jobs, from the extended period of cold, snow, and ice, as well as the potential for catastrophic healthcare needs.

"We're talking about almost two-years of being in a deep freeze ... That's unprecidented, no government in our history has had to contend with something like this."

Palin, an undeclared candidate for President in 2012, and, under fire for using PAC money to make bulk purchases of her own book, said, through a spokesperson, that she welcomes the news.

"Snow and cold, youbetcha ... That be some good huntin' and dogsleddin' weather."

The Palin spokesperson added that "the governor was, no way, near Punxsutawney today", and immediately cast suspicion, blaming the prolonged winter, on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual.


Bonus Punxsutawney Phil Riffs

Ker Than - Groundhog Day & Punxsutawney Phil: Facts Behind Forecast

Chris Gaylord: Groundhog Day: PETA wants to replace Punxsutawney Phil with a robot

Altoona Mirror Editorial: Hey, PETA: Don’t bother Punxsy Phil





Bonus Bonus: Punxsutawney Phil On The Garlic

Groundhog Lied; Investigation Launched

Breaking News! ... Bush Administration To Tap Punxsutawney Phil To Bolster Foreign Policy ...Gobbler's Knob Appearance Tomorrow Will Be Last For Famous Prognosticator

More Discord In The White House ...White House At Odds With Groundhog Hire, Handlers Over Cheney Shooting ...Bush Said To Be "Livid, As Famous Prognosticator 'Never Tipped Us Off"; UK's Blair Said To Be Frantic For Direction

Breaking News! Bush Sees Shadow; Another Year of Lawbreaking Predicted ...Oval Office Event Draws Thousands; Top Hat and Tails, and an Outcome "Just Like The Movie"

Breaking News! Groundhog Sees Obama's Shadow




(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

Rogue Vogue

By Capt. Fogg

Was the huge vogue for Going Rogue helped along by having SarahPAC purchase thousands of copies of the best seller? Campaign contributors' money and funds from right-wing publications were used to produce and promote the book by giving out free copies while she got royalty checks.

"Irregardless" as a Sarah fan might say, it did help her legally transmute PAC money into a royalty check and since she walked off the job and isn't running for another position of public trust, the conversion apparently wasn't illegal. For those of us still interested in why she quit the Governorship, perhaps the ability to pocket all that PAC cash and avoid going to jail for it might help us to understand.

Perhaps some will remember that before she donned the robes of roguery, it wasn't a particularly nice way to describe anyone. Certainly not as nice or as honorable as Maverick, the title she was forced to relinquish after threats from the descendants of the eponymous cattleman, but who can doubt that the robes fit?

Meanwhile, back at that rogues' paradise called Facebook, Sarah has been channeling the wolves she used to strafe from various aircraft and attempting to sink her teeth into the Obama administration by going after Rahm Emanuel for using the word "retarded" in an internal strategy session -- as though it had been directed at Down's syndrome children and the Special Olympics and not at the stupidity of a co-worker. No, Sarah, retarded is not like the "N word" and although you'd love it to be, and although Mr. Emanuel has already been put in the position of having to apologize to the Special Olympics organization, you haven't said much about the "witches" you've praised your beloved pastor for persecuting. There are no Witches, only innocent people who don't share your religion -- there are people whose cognitive skills fall behind the norm no matter what euphemism you prefer. There are people who are stupid and there are people who are inexcusably and viciously retarding the progress of our country toward Liberty and Justice for all.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Is Rahm Emanuel trying to kill health-care reform?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sure looks that way, what with the proposal he's floating that Democrats should focus on job creation, deficit reduction, and banking regulation before turning back to health-care reform.

Aside from the fact that this won't work, because Republicans aren't about to play along on anything, delaying health-care reform is tantamount to killing it. Ezra Klein explains:

It is very, very, very important to be clear on what the death of health-care reform looks like. It is not a vote that goes against the Democrats. It is not an admission that the White House has moved on from the subject. It is continued statements of commitment from the key players paired with a continued stretching of the timetable. Like everything else in life, policy initiatives grow old and die, even if people still love them.

The timetable Emanuel is laying out makes little sense. The jobs bill will take some time. Financial regulation will take much longer. Let's be conservative and give all this four months. Is Emanuel really suggesting that he expects Congress to return to health-care reform in the summer before the election? Forgetting whether there's political will at that point, there's no personnel: Everyone is home campaigning.

Moreover, there's a time limit on health-care reform. The open reconciliation instructions the Senate could use to modify the bill expire when the next budget is (there's disagreement over the precise rule on this) considered or passed. That is to say, the open reconciliation instructions expire soon. Democrats could build new reconciliation instructions into the next budget, but that's going to be a heavy lift. The longer this takes, the less likely it is to happen.

In other words, the longer the delay, the less likely there's reform. The Republicans know this, which is why they've tried to obstruct it at every turn, and the "put it off for now" strategy, such as it is one, has become a preferred option for those, like Emanuel, who don't see it as priority (or who oppose it altogether or want to water it down to the point of utter pointlessness).

So what's Emanuel up to? Jonathan Chait speculates:

I see two potential explanations. Either Obama doesn't know what he wants to do, and his deputies are spreading conflicting stories in order to see what takes, in which case he needs to make up his mind pronto. Or else he wants to do what he says he wants to do, but his chief of staff is out there subverting his agenda and making Congress doubt his seriousness, in which case Obama needs to shut up Emanuel or fire him.

I'm hoping it's the latter, and that Emanuel gets what he deserves. (No, he shouldn't be fired, not if Obama thinks he can still help twist some arms up on the Hill, or if he's so invaluable in the West Wing, but it might work if he just told him to keep his mouth shut. And yet, I worry that Obama actually approves of what he said and is similarly hoping to delay reform despite his supposed support for it.)

Cutting a deal with Lieberman

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Following up on Creature's post from earlier this evening...

The White House is apparently behind the move to scrap the Medicare buy-in, pushing Reid et al. to cut a deal with Lieberman. Specifically, and not surprisingly, it's Rahm Emanuel behind it.

It's a flip-flop for Lieberman, who was for the buy-in just a few months ago.

Honestly, how is it that one senator, and specifically a moral vacuum like Lieberman (who's all about himself, and getting what he wants, and basing his policy positions on ever-fluctuating whims), is able to hold the entire reform process hostage? How is it that he gets what he wants while the majority party is forced to give in and compromise again and again?

Is Tom Harkin right that the bill would be good enough without the public option and the Medicare buy-in? It could be, yes, and Democrats seem to have resigned themselves to giving Lieberman what he wants. At least, that's the takeaway from their public utterances.

Arlen Specter ought to be praised for saying this at a Democratic caucus meeting this evening: "Don't let these obstructionists win. I came to this caucus to be your 60th vote." The problem is, those 60 votes include a vote for Lieberman, an anti-Democrat who has been allowed to caucus with the Democrats despite his Republican inclinations.

Is there no way to win over Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins while giving Lieberman the boot he deserves?

For more on Lieberman's threat to reform, see Jonathan Chait, who is extremely critical of Lieberman and yet:

I don't think that health care reform is in peril. If Harry Reid decided to submit to Lieberman's demands, the health care bill would basically revert to what the Senate Finance Committee produced. That's still a major piece of legislation. Expectations among liberals have risen since then, so the come-down is understandable. But this isn't the end of reform.

No, perhaps not, but it's a tough pill to swallow, not least when you have 58 votes (60 minus Lieberman and Nelson) and when you've already given in and given up a lot already.

Here's American democracy at work, the sausage-making of the legislative process. It's ugly, and it's stupidly unfair, and, ultimately, it's the American people who get screwed.

In this case, all because of Joe Lieberman and his enablers, including those in the Obama White House.

Too much like Bush: The fall of Greg Craig and the rise of Rahm Emanuel's Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday, quoting Andrew Sullivan, I noted that I remain bullish on Obama -- though I also noted my own rather significant reservations.

Well, those reservations deepened when I read Time's excellent piece on the fall of Greg Craig, Obama's ex-counsel. Craig, a Clintonite turned Obama advisor, was the man tasked with undoing the dark side of Bush's war on terror, including torture and Gitmo. At first, he and Obama were pretty much on the same side. In time, with partisan politics trumping principle, Obama moved away from some of the commitments he made during the campaign and sided increasingly with Rahm Emanuel and his political, as opposed to legal, advisors. Here's a key passage:

Obama needed to regain control quickly, and he started by jettisoning liberal positions he had been prepared to accept — and had even okayed — just weeks earlier. First to go was the release of the pictures of detainee abuse. Days later, Obama sided against Craig again, ending the suspension of Bush's extrajudicial military commissions. The following week, Obama pre-empted an ongoing debate among his national-security team and embraced one of the most controversial of Bush's positions: the holding of detainees without charges or trial, something he had promised during the campaign to reject.

Yes, Obama has accomplished a great deal, including putting a stop to "enhanced" interrogation and closing the secret CIA prisons, but, on other key matters, he has turned on the old Obama, the Obama of last year's campaign, and embraced Bush and Cheney.

Yes, I'm still bullish, even now. I still think he can do great and transformative things as president, that he can still be the progressive yet pragmatic president I and so many others hoped he would be, and I credit him for being so politically astute. But it's hard to be optimistic when a good, decent, and principled man like Craig is basically sent packing and when Obama seems to be moving further and further away from the man who was elected with hope and the promise of change.

I demand that you shoot me now

By Creature

Even talking about a "trigger" is wrong. If the public option is not present from go then we will be right back to square one in a few years after having wasted more time, more money, and more lives in the process. If the White House wants to cave to pressure from lobbyists, fine. But don't do it, say you didn't, and call anything that passes reform. We are not that dumb.

Yes, my friends, Rush Limbaugh is indeed a leader of the Republican Party

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Okay, this is just plain stupid:

Despite efforts by the Obama political team and its surrogates to link Rush Limbaugh to the Republican Party, just 11% of GOP voters say the conservative radio commentator is the party's leader.

That's from Rasmussen, reporting on a new poll that asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high."

Why is it stupid? Here goes:

First, although the statement comes from a liberal, it's far too loaded for what is supposed to be a neutral poll. It is meant to provoke a visceral reaction from respondents, not a considered assessment.

Second, Rasmussen's lede is self-contradictory. While it is true that there has been an effort to link Limbaugh to the GOP, being linked to the party is not the same as being the leader of it. The effort is intended to show that he is a major player in the party, as well as in the conservative movement that supports it. While some no doubt are suggesting that he is indeed the party's leader, it is grossly misleading to suggest that the efforts succeeds or fails based on whether or people see him as such or not.

Third, the effort is not meant, or at least not meant solely, to persuade Republicans that Limbaugh is the leader of their party. While the effort may be aimed at some Republicans -- say, moderates like Sens. Collins, Snowe, and Specter -- it is really being aimed at independents, including former and soft Republicans who are uncomfortable with the direction the GOP has taken, its shift to the far right.

Fourth, it is not clear what "leader" means. The poll suggests that Democrats are split, but it is possible that some respondents on both sides disagreed with the statement because they took "leader" to mean an office-holder in a leadership position, like John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, or perhaps even Michael Steele, the new head of the RNC.

Fifth, as Greg Sargent points out, it is "a grotesque exaggeration" to suggest, as Rasmussen does, that the effort has been "[a] secret plot hatched solely by the White House." Rather, the "strategy" began "outside the White House," with James Carville and Stan Greenberg, and then groups like the Center for American Progress and Americans United for Change. The White House may be involved with it somehow, and may be promoting and encouraging it, but it developed "organically," as Paul Begala put it, and was not masterminded by Obama. Yes, Obama's surrogates have been involved, but Rasmussen's claim is still grossly misleading.

Simply put, the poll results do not really show anything, and certainly not that the effort has failed. And, of course, Rasmussen does not look beyond the results to examine whether or not the claim that Limbaugh is a major player in the GOP is true or not. This requires far more nuance that tossing around the term leader.

What Rahm Emanuel has said is not that Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP but rather that he is "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. Similarly, Robert Gibbs has said that Limbaugh is "a national spokesperson for conservative views and many in the Republican Party." Leader may or may not be right, but are those two statements not true? After all, Limbaugh presents himself as the voice of conservatism, a key figure in the GOP.

Whatever Rasmussen's poll respondents may say, however they may interpret a loaded statement like the one they were presented with, the fact remains that the Obama-led "effort" has largely succeeded -- consider all the attention Limbaugh has receiving of late, and not just because of his much-ballyhooed appearance at CPAC this past weekend, an appearance that received rousing applause from the assembled faithful. And it has succeeded largely because it is right. No less an authority than Dear Leader Rush himself knows it.

What qualifies as news on a slow news day?

By Carol Gee

This is news -- "Death Toll surpasses 350 in Fourth Day of Conflict," at Memeorandum from the New York Times. Twenty-one different stories follow the site's same Middle East theme. This disturbing conflict broke out, hundreds are dead and our future and current presidents remain on vacation, "getting regular briefings" as they say. So far, President-elect Obama has deferred to President Bush, not commenting directly on the outbreak of violence. Transition/vacation/holiday time in the USA appears to be the perfect period for the protagonists. All of us are waiting for THE CHANGE except the Israelis and the Palestinians. They are in predictable sync after decades of THE SAME, unable to think new thoughts or try new solutions. And it will not be over by January 20, as Steve Benen wisely reminds us.

What about Congress and this issue? Congress is also on vacation, and that usual Tuesday theme is almost devoid of any meaningful items these days. However, Congressional Quarterly yesterday reported on what various legislators are saying about the conflict between Hamas and Israel. Predictably, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), up for reelection in 2010, Reps Howard Berman, D-CA) and Illeana Ross-Lehtinen, Chair and Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, all come down on the side of Israel. In contrast Rep. Dennis Kucinich is calling for a UN inquiry into the Gaza situation. To quote:

“Israel is leveling Gaza to strike at Hamas, just as they pulverized south Lebanon to strike at Hezbollah,” Kucinich said. “Yet in both cases civilian populations were attacked, countless innocents killed or injured, infrastructure targeted and destroyed, and civil law enforcement negated. All this was, and is, disproportionate, indiscriminate mass violence in violation of international law. Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable. It is time for the UN to not just call for a cease-fire, but for an inquiry as to Israel’s actions.”

The Palestinian death toll from the Israeli air strikes has reached 300 so far, and Israeli officials said they were expecting a lengthy campaign to destroy Hamas’ military capacity. Israel has called up 6,500 reservists for a possible ground assault on the Gaza Strip.

So far, Hamas rockets have killed two Israelis and wounded scores of others.

Any other news about Congress? Rep. Rahm Emanuel will resign his House seat on January 2 to become President-elect Obama's Chief of Staff. A special election in the spring will fill the vacancy, the WaPo's Anne Kornblut reports. Senator Norm Coleman and would-be senator Al Franken are still in a tussle over counting rejected ballots, the count stalled by their lawyers, and facing a court imposed deadline to finish. And because the Illinois seat of Barack Obama will remain vacant for a time, the Senate will have 57 Democrats, a majority short of being able to break a Republican filibuster. What would the Congressional Republican opposition target? Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) are already signalling that they intend to slow down any early passage of an economic stimulus package by demanding "a more methodical process that might delay the legislation's passage will into February," according to the Washington Post. Ironically, they are now calling for fiscal responsibility and opposing "more pork-barrel spending." Why are we not surprised that bipartisanship has not broken out all over the Hill? Watch and take notes, as this minority tactic will be a model for the 111th Congress starting January 6, 2009.

This is not news -- Also at Memeorandum from People.com: "Bristol Palin welcomes a son." A couple more stories follow along, including sites named appropriately, The Dish Rag and The Swamp, along with the predictable Anchorage Daily News. So what else is new? I admit that I am doing here what I hate in the MSM -- repeating inane gossip. So Sarah Palin is a grandma; so am I (six times). You know it is a slow news day when I join the chattering class to once again discuss Sarah Palin.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)