A Little Necessary Perspective (yet again)

I do get tired feeling like I have to be a constant defender of Obama, but there really seems to be a total lack of perspective about his presidency and what it means to progressive politics. 

First, let's look at just one aspect of the stakes involved in Obama remaining in office for another six plus years.  Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a book party for Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times' longtime Supreme Court reporter.  Greenhouse is quite simply one of the finest journalists of the last generation, a person who, without being a lawyer, mastered the intricacies of constitutional and Supreme Court litigation, and managed to convey this knowledge in remarkably concise and precise prose.  She was so well respected in her work that seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices attended a retirement party in her honor when she finally left the Times.  She earned this respect while never sacrificing a bit of her journalistic integrity (a phrase that is not inherently ironic, even if it seems to be these days).

Greenhouse has a new book out, Before Roe v. Wade, that documents the state of the abortion debate in the years preceding the Roe v. Wade decision.  (Greenhouse is an unapologetic supported of Roe by the way.)  The book is largely a compilation of original documents from the pre-Roe era, including everything from philosophical statements for and against legalized abortion, to campaign memoranda from Pat Buchanan suggesting how Nixon could use abortion to his advantage, to individual stories regarding the hardships imposed by the restrictions on abortion that existed prior to Roe. 

Greenhouse did a lengthy Q and A session with us and when asked if Chief Justice Roberts would look to overturn Roe v. Wade -- not distinguish it away, not slowly chip away at it, but reverse it -- she answered unequivocally that if he could get the fifth vote he would do it in a heartbeat.  In a heartbeat.  She is confident that he has three votes to join him and that all it will take is a Republican presidency and a Court vacancy.for him to be able to accomplish this.

When the most acute observer of the Court for the last generation tells you something like this, I think it is worth taking very seriously.  These are the kinds of stakes for which we are playing over the next few years, and it is why I am so concerned about the state of mind of the progressive community as we gird for battle in the mid-terms and thereafter.

Let's review again what Obama has accomplished in 18 months:  A stimulus bill that has created or preserved 2.8 million jobs.  (Was it big enough?  Clearly not.  Would co-presidents Snowe and Collins have permitted a bigger bill?  Probably not.)  The apparent preservation of General Motors and Chrysler and the domestic auto industry.  The avoidance of a collapse of the financial markets -- and at far less cost than initially forecast.  A health care reform bill that should result in 30 million people becoming insured and the transformation of the basic rules under which people are insured.  No, it's not single payer.  But the expansion of Medicaid, the additional money for community health centers, the provision of subsidies to middle class people to buy insurance, the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, the banning of rescission, the removal of annual and lifetime maximums, the requirement that certain services be provided without co-pays or deductibles, the ability to keep your children on your insurance through age 26 -- these are huge accomplishments.   The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  And on deck -- Don't ask, Don't Tell repeal and financial regulation reform.  (I liked this comment and post at Balloon Juice the other day.)  

And all being done by a guy who is intelligent, level-headed, and secure in himself.  (Let me digress for a minute -- Maureen Dowd has written some of the most execrable drivel in the Times over the last few months about Obama's insufficient emoting and his unforgivable failure to love the press.  But this piece by Charles Blow on Saturday might have been the worst thing I've read during Obama's term to date:

He’s the emotionally maimed type who lights up when he’s stroked and adored but shuts down in the face of acrimony. Other people’s anxieties are dismissed as irrational and unworthy of engagement or empathy. He seems quite comfortable with this aspect of his personality, even if few others are, and shows little desire to change it.

This just strikes me as the complete opposite of reality.  Obama, in my estimation, appears to be the most emotionally healthy occupant of the White House since Eisenhower.  He doesn't appear to desperately crave being stroked and appears non-plussed by the unbelievable vitriol thrown his way.  Indeed, it is his seeming lack of concern regarding the opinion of the Dowds of the world that drive them crazy.  I think that he tries to avoid getting overly caught up in the craziness of the 24-hour news cycle and tries to keep his eyes on the prize, advancing his agenda patiently and deliberately.

In closing, let's reflect a bit on what the last Democratic occupant of the Oval Office allowed to occur on his watch -- the passage of Glass-Steagall repeal, NAFTA, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Welfare Reform, the Defense of Marriage Act, the adoption of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as policy -- not to mention the triangulating, and the rhetorical disaster that was "the era of big government is over."

We need to make sure that we avoid a 1994 type election in the mid-terms and we need to remind ourselves that, whatever his shortcomings, this man in the White House is, for better or worse, the vehicle on which any reasonable hope of liberal progress lies.  

Comments

[Eric Wilde]

I've got my differences with Obama; but.... BOTH SIDES ARE NOT THE SAME!

And as you say, the stakes are high.

[big bad wolf]

SC, your commitment to reason and empiricism are commendable. your belief that persons can be reached and improved through reason and empiricism, touching and necessary

[kathy a.]

also, i think SC is right.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C: I second bbw's comment, but am glad that I know you realize that 'using reason and empiricism' does not preclude 'scaring the shit out of people' or vice versa. After all sometimes the most 'empirical' response to a situation is to realize you have had the shit scared out of you and you better act.

Yes, we have to continue to demonstrate Obama's acconplishments, but we have to realize how different this is from the past, even '94, because of the difference in the Republican Party. The Supreme Court and Roe -- and the other danger areas -- is just one area. (And again, four more years in the minority, knowing that every replacement will be more liberal -- and that Obama now has the votes to confirm them and has retained them through '10 and '12 -- might convince one or two of the recalcitrants to 'give in to their boredom' and we have a chance to return to the Courts of the past.)

But -- well, before I e-mailed you that list of Republicans in line for House Committee Chairmen, i wonder if you realized how vital it was that we not lose many seats there. (If it looks like there is a ruising Republican tide, there might be some party switching, so if McIntyre and Minnick, for example, are re-elected, they might join with the Republicans.)

Sometimes liberals act like 'using emotion' or 'scaring people' is somehow 'not cricket.' But how do you differentiate the two -- even if you feel that way.

If i put together a list of every Republican elected official who has been recorded attending homophobic meetings or supporting homophobes -- or who are homophobes themselves -- and circulated it in every gay venue I could find -- would that be using 'reason' or 'scaring the shit out of them.' Or, in fact, would it be both. The key thing is whatever it's called, it could be used to make a strong GOTV move. The same with Hispanics and the Arizona Police State Law.

And if that list of potential committee chairmen was used for ads -- as i think it should be, with plenty of background given -- which would that be?

[oddjob]

He’s the emotionally maimed type who lights up when he’s stroked and adored but shuts down in the face of acrimony.

???

If anything that describes Shrub (if imperfectly). Obama is temperamentally placid, period. He doesn't get as excited as everyone else when the room's rocking on elation and he doesn't get as upset as everyone else when the room's full of people riven with anxiety or anger.

This has been obvious to anyone who's been watching at least since he started campaigning for president. Remember his inaugural address (as apparently the pundit doesn't)? What did he start in with? On a day when most human beings would have exulted in the understandable jubilation, he instead launched into a bit of a Jeremiad about how the economy (& thus unavoidably much of the rest of our lives in general) was going to get worse rather than better. This was unavoidably true since much of macroeconomics is a function of momentum, and most of the economic momentum prior to the inauguration was f'king horrific.

Apparently that pundit hasn't been living in the same USA as the rest of the world........

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I still believe, as well, that we should consider concentrating much of our ads towards Republicans, and use several specific techniques. When an Angle, a McMahon, a Paul, a Dino Rossi, or a Mary Fallin (Gov-OK) wins a primary, we should immediately have people demanding, in ads and op eds if they support the positions of their Senatorial or Gubernatorial nominee, and keep pushing them on this.

We have to, wherever possible, force incumbents and candidates to choose between the tea-partiers and standard Republicans -- and hope whichever way he chooses costs him votes.

Most importantly, and frequently overlooked, we forget that a substantial minority, even a majority, of Republuican voters in districts represented by the real crazies are simply unaware of the positions their representative -- or the whole party -- actually have taken. (These are the many who use the 'political' part of the news to finish dinner, who turn past the editorials and only read the sports, who -- in many cases -- think the Republican party is still the party they grew up with -- whether the Republicans of Eisenhower or of Reagan. Even for those who have a moderately sane conservative Representative might be shocked to know who he is caucussing with, or that at least 10% of the Republican Caucus is arguably, literally, mentally unhinged.)

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

I think the past week or so has shown that Obama faces a political landscape unlike anything ever before seen in this country.

First of all the neocon, theocratic, plutocratic, element of politics is coming off an 8 - 10 year long binge of giddy success having their way. They are as mad and frustrated as a five year old who didn't get the pony for the birthday and they are hell bent on thwarting any progress away from their grand designs on a utopia of some rich guy, all of them believing somehow they will be him.

To a great extent it seems that the progressives, or the left, or the liberals or whatever you can call the confused polity that actually concerned themselves enough for a couple of months to elect Obama, have largely forgotten why they elected him and have gone back to stareing dumbly at their televisions and bitching because that one guy can't carry all their water.

Then there is a full third of the populace so shell shocked, so utterly bemused by the pace and scope of events, so innured to avoiding even greater suffering at any cost that they will probably never be engaged enough to even bother to vote, let alone make an intelligent choice. If they are moved to participate, there is an even chance they will be swayed by the siren song of that cynical set of politicos who has one answer for everything.

Not being a politician or even able to be very involved in politics it is probably absurd for me to speculate but I will do so anyway.

Obama must realize that to really have a long term effect he has to manage to stay in office for 8 years and not just 4, so he is hopefully making what progress he can, trying to winkle out the systemic rot that Whitehouse talked about in his speech, and counter the deliberate and determined effort to make justice a commodity that Franken talked about in his. But he is too astute and too intelligent to think that he can bulldog the congress and really turn things around unless he can manage to keep the reins, so he should be focused on one thing only in the near term, the fall elections.

He has four months more or less to work things out, but he is a Kenyan after all and so he knows that if you are running a marathon you don't kick until you can bring it home right to the finish line flat out.

I may be disappointed, he may indeed be faltering in the face of relentless and ruthless opposition at all levels and from nearly every quarter, even the so-called left. But I don't think so because he appears to have a good sense of what it takes to lead. For all of our sakes, even the deluded hate filled Palinbots, I hope that is the case. We certainly need a leader.

The other side of the coin of course is what SC is really talking about here, not what he does, but what WE do, or more importantly perhaps don't do.

Every one of us who is so old we can remember what it was like in this country in 1970 should remember and perhaps focus on just two things. Abortion and the draft. Remember that? The right of passage at that time for becoming sexually aware and politically aware involved two mills running 24 x 7 that determined your entire future or lack thereof and you, as an individual were essentially powerless to do anything at all about either one. Forget about regressing to the dark ages, would anyone here want to revert to the 1960s? I hope not.

So what should we do? Well to begin with perhaps we should remember we are in the majority. Even though it is hard to credit that there may be as many as 30 million people in this country who think republicans are sane or honest or both, they are a fractional minority.
If just 80% of the sane people show up to vote the nutjobs won't have a chance. So we don't have to change anyone's mind, we don't have to persuade anyone really other than for them to arrange to take time off and vote for a congress that will actually help Obama lead instead of one that can't stop prevaricating and procrastinating.

The calculus to do this is not simple because the elections involved are purely congressional so there has to be a bottom up kind of realization that it is up to us at the local level in every district and state to take away republican seats. All this dewy eyed hand wringing over inevitable losses in the mid-terms is just that. Concern trolling.

Electing Obama didn't accomplish a single thing, all it did was make accomplishing things *possible*. If we as a collective with similar if not identical objectives are not able to muster our strength and actually pursue the aims we claim to aspire to, then we will deserve the consequences.

Four decades of apathy and passivity has not done well by the vast majority of the citizenry.

I have rambled on far enough, but I do want to say one more thing that I think is critical. We have to accept the obvious fact that the ordinary channels of information upon which most of us have learned to rely are both corrupt and ineffectual to our purpose. But we have this medium which can function like a flock of starlings with virtually perfect choreography based on local rules alone: Never allow a lie to go unchallenged, accept what you can discover to be the truth even if it is unpleasant, talk to others honestly and determine if they intend to vote or not, if not try to convince them to do so. (subject to change without notice to become more effective).

We should stop kidding ourselves. This is a fight, no question about it. Call it class war if you want, call it social apoptosis, call it natural selection, call it what you will. Those who belong to the small class of what we call *wealth*, will do anything to prevent any erosion of their eminence.

[oddjob]

Not being a regular reader of The Gray Lady, I was not aware of Greenhouse. Thanks for filling me in on her assessment of the lay of the land. It matches mine (although mine was necessarily instinctive rather than schooled as hers is). I have no doubt that the hopes at the time were that David Souter (a New England Yankee conservative, thank you very much since unless I'm much mistaken "conservative" also historically has meant an adherence to stare decisis, something the present SCOTUS "conservatives" seem to care little about) was going to be that fifth vote.

(I don't know whether Warren Rudman, the one who recommended Souter, cared all that much about Roe v. Wade, but obviously other Republicans did.)

[oddjob]

Not being a regular reader of The Gray Lady, I was not aware of Greenhouse. Thanks for filling me in on her assessment of the lay of the land. It matches mine (although mine was necessarily instinctive rather than schooled as hers is). I have no doubt that the hopes at the time were that David Souter (a New England Yankee conservative, thank you very much since unless I'm much mistaken "conservative" also historically has meant an adherence to stare decisis, something the present SCOTUS "conservatives" seem to care little about) was going to be that fifth vote.

(I don't know whether Warren Rudman, the one who recommended Souter, cared all that much about Roe v. Wade, but obviously other Republicans did.)

[oddjob]

if that list of potential committee chairmen was used for ads -- as i think it should be, with plenty of background given -- which would that be?

Obviously that would be both (because sometimes the truth, as expressed in hard, empirical data, is fucking frightening).

[oddjob]

They are as mad and frustrated as a five year old who didn't get the pony for the birthday and they are hell bent on thwarting any progress away from their grand designs on a utopia of some rich guy, all of them believing somehow they will be him.

On other blogs I have noted that the Tea Party Movement is not, and never has been a political movement.

It's a temper tantrum.

Having said that, to the extent that Barak Obama's election can be credited to "minority votes", it's a risky place to be. Unless I'm much mistaken many of those same "minority votes" are rather less likely to vote during the Congressional "off-year" election when their votes actually matter just as much (if not more). I don't know how political geeks like us actually make a difference in that sort of an election.

[oddjob]

Obama must realize that to really have a long term effect he has to manage to stay in office for 8 years and not just 4

In that scenario (at least as far as SCOTUS was concerned) he'd also have to get lucky, and replace Kennedy or Scalia (or Alito or Roberts or Thomas, assuming an unforeseen serious health problem with them).

I can't help but think that THAT nomination would be the knock-down, drag-out SCOTUS nomination of our lifetimes.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I don't think the fight will be that great, nor do I think we need a 'health crisis' for a vacancy. Scalia might 'pull a McReynolds' and stay around forever, and Roberts probably enjoys being Chief enough to rule out his retirement. But for Alito and Thomas, if they saw from the election results not only that the next nomination would move the Court further to the left, but that Obama was so assured of renomination that there was no chance of another Conservative Justice before 2016 at the earliest, I can see them retiring.

And that is more than possible, as I keep insisting. I am sure we will pick up at least a net of two Senate seats, with a good shot at 4 or even 5 if we get all the breaks. If at the same time we can minimize our House losses to single digits, at most 15 -- and that is doable if we actually concentrate on the races more closely -- we will go a long way to destroying bpth tea-baggism and Republican 'Party Discipline.' Suddenly blind, stubborn opposition won't be seen as the 'way to go' but the 'way to get defeated.'

If we have that majority, I think that the 'Ladies from Maine,' Mike Castle (an almost certain Rep. pick up) and maybe the Lost Soul (Scott Brown) will be more willing to compromise, less willing to go down fighting for a philosophy they really don't share. And if McCain survives, and if Lindsay Graham gets mad enough at the censures he's getting -- and sees the tea-baggers lose -- both of them might throw the occasional vote our way.

On the Supreme Court, Kagan will go through pretty easily -- and the 'yea' votes from Republicans will cause consternation. But if there isn't another opening until after November, any nominee Obama makes should pass with ease -- even if it shifts the balance.

[low-tech cyclist]

I am sure we will pick up at least a net of two Senate seats, with a good shot at 4 or even 5 if we get all the breaks.

Prup, I'm more optimistic than most about the Senate, but realistically, we're starting off -4 from our present 59 seats, as North Dakota, Indiana, Delaware, and probably Arkansas are lost causes. If I'm right on that, then we've got to run the proverbial table to finish +2, holding Colorado, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and any other contested Dem-held seats, and picking up Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and North Carolina, and having Crist decide to caucus with the Dems after winning Florida.

It's possible, but it would take one hell of a swing of voter attitudes between now and November. I like our chances of having 55+ Senate seats in January (including Lieberman and Crist), and think our chances of breaking even aren't that bad. But getting past that requires another year like 2006 or 2008, when we made a race of just about every seat that could have been a viable race, and then won just about all the close ones.

And to get to +5, we'd have to do all of the above, hold Arkansas and Indiana, and pick up Louisiana, at rather astronomical odds just on those three alone.

"Has your luck run out?" she laughed at him,
"Well, I guess you must have known it would someday."

We can't keep getting all the breaks every year.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

Alito is 60, a young man by Court standards and is going to be around for a long time. I assume that he will serve at least another 15-20 years.

Thomas is only 62 and I likewise see him remaining on the Court for a comparable period. I think he is a deeply stubborn and troubled man, who would never give his enemies (and he does view us as his enemies) the chance to pick his successor if it can be avoided.

I think Kennedy and Scalia (both 74) represent the only possible pick ups in the reasonably near future and I think that will only be the case if we can get 16 consecutive years of Democratic presidents. If either of them feels like Obama will be succeeded by a Republican they will hold on.

I think you are being wildly optimistic about the Senate and the House. I think we lose a net of three Senate seats and drop about 25 House seats.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

Bob Dylan on elections -- very good. One of the best story songs ever.

[Joe]

Jim, our absolute best case scenario in the Senate is netting one, and we are much more likely to net lose 2-3 seats. In the House, our absolute best case scenario is losing about 25 seats and picking up 4 seats for a net loss of 20-21 seats. More likely, I agree with Sir C, we have a net loss of about 25 seats in the House.

You should read the Galston piece in the New Republic a couple of days ago. The piece, based upon recent polling, makes a persuasive case that the White Working class does not view Obama's policy victories as triumphs at all, but rather as not thinking about their needs (which are jobs). There's simply no way to turn this perception around, and we are fighting lots of tough individual, local battles to limit losses.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I agree: unemployment remains the killer politically. I think the Democrats have got to press the case that the Republicans have no plans to alleviate it, have stood in the way of what the president has tried to do, and bascially are a completely bankrupt force from a policy perspective.

They have given us plenty of ammunition, but it remains a difficult point to convey when you are dealing with a poorly informed sector of the electorate battling very real problems, a dismal or hostile mass media, a fractured progressive movement, and what is normally a low turnout election cycle.

The fact that the private sector working class is virtually all non-union at this point does not help.

[Davis X. Machina]

"I think the Democrats have got to press the case that the Republicans have no plans to alleviate it, have stood in the way of what the president has tried to do, and basically are a completely bankrupt force from a policy perspective."

America's favorite white meat isn't chicken, it's scapegoat. The GOP are the world's foremost scapegoat chefs, served up any way you like it, till it's almost as tasty as an actual job.

Aand the whole point is to win elections, and reap the rewards, not to win elections and govern.

[litbrit]

KN, thank you for that thoughtful and terribly accurate analysis. I fully agree that the media, by and large, pose a grave threat to any forward movement by American society--it is so very easy for them to frame as "the two sides" anything and everything they wish, even as logic and reason would dictate that one "side" is fact-based and real, while the other is nothing more than an a toxic amalgam of relgiousity, magical thinking, ideological bias, or all three. Media folk are also pathologically addicted to the word "controversial", and they apply it to all manner of issues and in so doing, cast doubt on the veracity of both positions, even as one has been proven, time and again, to be correct and the other side, flat-out wrong.

An example of this is global warming. They love to say "the controversial issue of global warming", as though there were any doubt that the planet has indeed been warming, as though every single bit of data did not prove this over and over.

But no, they use a word--controversial--that literally means debatable, or subject to argument, with its Latin orgins supplying contra (against) and versus (line, as in a line of writing or poetry). One line turned in oppostion to the other; there is debate; there is argument. When in reality, there is no debate or argument--the issue is settled, as much as anything in this universe is settled, based on enormous quantities of data and fact-based research.

When they do this--give equal weight to both sides--they legitimize the aforementioned magical thinking position. I find this to be dangerous in the extreme, because as much as we may ridicule the Palinbots, the Teabaggers, the global warming deniers, and the birthers, they are not so mired in their tantums (tantra?!) that they cannot peel themselves away from their posterboards and markers and go to the polls.

Enter the "God, Gays, and Guns" element. And of course, the fear element, always a great way to mobilize those whose limited thinking does not permit them to understand probability; who respond eagerly to the shining puppets who look like them, speak like them, purport to worship the same deity, seem to care about the same things as they do (i.e. not losing their right to shoot at each other on a Friday night), travel in the same manner as they do (trucks and SUV's, never private planes, one reason the Palin handlers were so rankled when her private plane use during her "bus tour" was revealed) and even dress like them (or rather, like they would if they had a Neiman's charge card and the bills were sent to someone else).

Finally, this:

But we have this medium which can function like a flock of starlings with virtually perfect choreography based on local rules alone: Never allow a lie to go unchallenged, accept what you can discover to be the truth even if it is unpleasant, talk to others honestly and determine if they intend to vote or not, if not try to convince them to do so

should be carved on virtual tablets and handed down to every progressive with an Internet connection. Especially the exhortation to never let a lie go unchallenged.

We have the smarts, and the data is all on our side. Do we have the energy and the will? I do. I most certainly do. I don't care how dreadful I might feel on any given day, I refuse to let lies go unchallenged.

It's part of our unwritten and loosely-assembled credo at this blog, as our name states: Cogitamus. We are thinking.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I continue to disagree. We will keep at least one of the 'sure losses'-- probably IN. We should hold all the contested Dem seats -- though CO will be a fight -- but the others you list will be easy. I am certain we'll get KY, and we should have a good shot at the others listed, The obnly doubtful one is NC, but then there are a couple of other 'sure things' that might turn doubtful -- I still think, now that both the Baroness and the Tea Party Express have endorsed Murkowski, that ther will be enough 'stay homes' to give Scott McAdams a good chance. (And if the distinct smell of fish of the SC election gets much stronger, and DeMint is implicated, there uis a slim chance of a surprise there -- towards a write in candidate or after the idiot refuses the nomination.)

yes, i do see this as exactly like 2008 and 2008 in that we can and should fight everywhere and will win all of the close ones. The "BP 114" will be another weapon for us -- see Steve Benen this morning.

And as I continue to point out, we don't just have to run against the nuts in their own state -- we can use 'Republican nuttiness' and 'Republuican obstructionism' as a theme in every Sebate race -- and Obama has already begun to use it in his own speeches more forcefully. "Mr. Candidate, Republican voters in this election have chosen a number of candidates who have been challenged as 'fringe candidates,' representative of extremist positions. If you were a resident of Nevada, Connecticut, or Kentucky, would you tell your constituents to support the party's candidate in those eletions -- despite their posiions?"

And remember that 'who they caucus with' means little after the Senate is organized. What matters is who they vote for. (See Lieberman, Joe; Lincoln, Blanche; and Nelson, Ben.) The Republicans did a truly remarkable -- if evil -- thing in maintaining discipline this session. And they went into the election expecting at leastt half dozen pickups in the Senate. Once they've borke even at best, and once they realize they lost because they nominated tea-baggers and ultras, don't you think that we'll start getting more of the dubious, borderline votes.

Snowe and Collins might not be the ;liberals' they've appeared, but they aren't the 'ultras' that they've been forced to be. Castle is likely to be even more of an "Eisenhower Republican" than he already is. And who cares which party Crist caucuses with -- if either -- he's going to have plenty of resentment stored up at the fight he had to make for what should have been an easy victory.

My worry is the House. We can limit our losses there with an agressive campaign, again with the BP 114 and 'Republican nuttiness' as two main themes. But it is looking like we aren't exploring the options or putting enough resources there. There's a long time to go.

And one final point about the House. Again, the seats we are in danger of losing are mostly "Blue Dog' seats -- losing Minnick, McIntyre and Shuler cost us no votes at all on any controversial issue. But we stand good chances of winning some upsets in Gulf Coast states that see the oil coming or already there. (Can we please start using Haley Barbour's statements, including his "the moratorium is worse than the spill" from MEET THE PRESS yesterday against all Republicans?")

Even if we do as badly as Sir Charles predicts, and the rest of you, but no worse we may actually move the Gpuse as w hole to the left, slightly.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And also 'what litbrit said.'

[oddjob]

Media folk are also pathologically addicted to the word "controversial", and they apply it to all manner of issues and in so doing, cast doubt on the veracity of both positions, even as one has been proven, time and again, to be correct and the other side, flat-out wrong.

Have you ever read the lyrics to Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry"?

[oddjob]

Darrell Issa: If GOP wins House, corporate America can breathe easy

[litbrit]

oddjob, yes! Henley nailed it in that song. All these years later, nothing has changed. In fact, it's worse than ever (I don't think we had 24 hour cable news when that song hit the airwaves in the 80's--not quite--and we definitely didn't have the Intertubes).

[Joe]

I'm going to have to admit to not being aware of this specific internet tradition. What does: "move the gpuse as w hole left" mean. It sounds kind of dirty. . .which could be intriguing.

[Sir Charles]

It's the painkillers talking Joe.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

no, it's my fumble fingers. "Gp"="ho" and I haven't the faintest idea how they did that, or I missed it -- probably called away for something and just hit 'post.'

[oddjob]

I don't think we had 24 hour cable news when that song hit the airwaves in the 80's--not quite--and we definitely didn't have the Intertubes

Well, CNN existed, but it was still run by Ted Turner. However the three main networks still mattered a lot. That was when the influence of Nightline was at its peak.

Yes, it has gotten much worse since he released this song.

[oddjob]

A bit OT, but it is by comparison about journalism. It's must watch:

THIS is a journalist!

(Hat tip, Sully, who in turn credits HuffPo.)

[low-tech cyclist]

I am certain we'll get KY

I wish I could be so certain. But pro-Conway Kentuckians at my longtime online hangout are a good deal less than convinced. I've 'known' some of these people for a decade or more, and have no reason to doubt what they're saying.

I certainly believe that Kentucky is a good pickup opportunity, but until I see some better signs, I'll continue to believe that this one leans GOP. KY is also in that band of states running from WV to OK where Dems actually ran worse in 2008 than in other recent elections.

[kathy a.]

oddjob, love the link!

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

Litbrit -

Thanks for the kudos, I have seen you around other places on the net so you might be hearing more from me.

Other commenters point out that the 'base' which elected this administration is not as motivated to vote in mid-term elections and that was the whole point of my post. The one thing we, the people, can do that no corporation can do is vote. And since the majority of people eligible to vote are not insane or particularly greedy, or besotted with magical thinking, then the logic dictates the more people who vote the better the chances that reason will prevail.

There may be many flaws to that thinking, but to me it seems superficially sound. Another side to that strategy is to fully exploit absentee and early voting. As in the recent runoff held in Arkansas, votes can be manipulated by resources alone at the polls.

My allusion to the flight of bird flocks was not casual either, their collective behavior is determined by each individual having a set response to different kinds of events around them. I don't quite know how that concept can be implemented in terms of the critical issue of GOTV, let alone all the things that could be coupled to that, but there are plenty of clever people out there, far more clever than I, who also have in depth experience with politics and elections. Some useful google terms are "local rules" and "embryonic development".

I appreciate and admire the observations of other commenters concerning the projected specifics of many individual elections. I don't know enough about it all to even comment on their predictions or speculations which ever they are. I don't profess either to 'know the common mind' whatever that is. Not that anyone here has mentioned it but it is a general misconception, such as what you mentioned concerning the fact of AGW. Even the obvious can be made to seem improbable with sufficient screaming.

There is another perhaps critical issue that is being contested now and that is Internet neutrality. In the 15 years since the Internet became a factor in the daily life of the world, the neutrality of it has been one of its most outstanding characteristics.

At the moment, Internet freedom is constrained only by the usual capitalistic limits. You have to pay for bandwidth. What the backbone owners want to do with net neutrality is turn it into the new Madison Avenue, you pay not just for bandwidth but visibility. The more visibility you want, the more your bandwidth will cost.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Let me see, Rabd Paul has averaged one major embarassment a week, more or less, since he won the nomination, from the civil rights comments, through the 'family-owned' certifying board, through his latest 'tell the unemployed to stop whining and get a job.' There is no reason to assume he's going to slow down any time soon.

He has also stated (on the Alex jones show) that his father's philosophy and his are essentially identical, but that he sometimes phrases ideas differently so they are more attractive to Republican Primary voters. Which throws all of Daddy's positions and 'acquaintances' open to be used agauinst Sonny Boy.

Finally, Paul already embarrassed McConnell by defeating his chosen candidate, he has stated he will NOT be a reliable vote in the caucus, and he has also stated that he entered the race to 'destroy the Republican establishment' which, in Kentucky means Ol' Mitch above all. How sad will McConnell be if Paul starts sinking?

And none of the Kentucky House Members qualify for the Caucus of the Insane -- though Geoff Davis comes close. If their opponents start using Paul's statements against them how long before they toss him overboard?

Given all of this, if Grayson can figure out how to lose, he doesn't deserve a seat in the Senate, but one in the corner, with a large, conical hat.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Grayson? Sometimes I get rushed late at night. Conway, damnit! (Why my mind keeps making that slip I don't know.) Anyway, the DNC is running the sort of commercials I want to see featuring Paul among others. Now if Conway can only use them himself.

[Joe]

FYI, Jon Chait has a good blog post up today on the limitation of the Administration vis a vis Congress- and debunking Greenwald on domestic issues.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I took a look at the Greenwald side of the debate -- must not post again on this -- and was once again struck by his utter lack of nuance in these matters.

No one is arguing that the presidency is impotent generally or that Obama can't make certain things happen specifically. Obviously in the realm of foreign policy and in regulatory matters, the president has enormous powers. He is, however, at his least powerful when trying to get ambitious legislative proposals through Congress, particularly the Senate. And yes, he has some leverage over his fellow party members, but as I've pointed out time and time again, he does not have a whole lot of leverage in places in which he is not terribly popular. Thus, Greenwald's notion that he could exercise greater control over Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln or Joe Lieberman is pretty fatuous. Ben Nelson is far more popular in Nebraska than Obama will ever be -- there is no accounting for tastes -- and a threat to primary Ben Nelson would be either futile or a means to deliver the seat to the Republicans. I suppose Obama could have supported Halter, but I just don't see what the upside for him would have been. As for Lieberman, he knows that everyone is going to come after him hammer and tongs in 2012. Nothing Obama could promise would make a difference -- Joementum is out on a limb of his own making and there is just no way to do much with him for now.

Again, Greenwald the tactician is found wanting.

[Joe]

The problem as I see it with your argument Sir C, is that Chait has a strong point in regard to the Administration's actions on civil liberties and foreign policy. On foreign policy, nobody should be surprised. Obama campaigned on continuing and escalating the war in Afghanistan. However, on civil liberties, Obama has backtracked considerably (see Jon Stewart's recent parody of candidate Obama's position on treatment of detainees and President Obama's position). The Obama Administration really doesn't seem like much of an improvement over Bush era abuses. Obama does have the ability to change policies in those areas, but has chosen not to do so.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I am sorry that I never responded to this -- I got distracted in mid-comment and never finished it.

I certainly agree that Obama has a lot of leeway to change Bush-era policies on civil liberties issues. He obviously made an important step in stopping torture and other unlawful interrogation techniques. Has he done enough? I am afraid I would have to agree with you and Greenwald that he has not.

On the other hand, I do think it is important to stress that even here the President does not act in a vacuum. His attempts to bring about a closure of Gitmo were hysterically and nearly unanimously rebuffed by the Seante, which must, after all, agree to budget money for these purposes. Similarly, the attempt to hold civilian trials for at least some of the detainees was met with a great deal of opposition on both sides of the aisle.

I think that Obama could have handled these issues more skillfully and boldly -- but again he is a political actor operating in a system in which he has an awful lot of issues facing him and only so much political capital. You can see where the civil rights of accused terrorists might be an area where he is reluctant to spend too much of it -- alas, even where the accused may well be innocent.

I am not agreeing with that -- just noting the reality of it.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir Charles: Ironically my favorite curmudgeon, the woderful Morialekafa had a piece on this last Saturday -- and follow-ups Sunday and Monday. It's long, but, like so much of his writing, 'all of a piece' so bear with me while I quote it:

I don’t know what is going on. I doubt that anyone does. I wonder about President Obama, and although I still like and support him, he is doing things that I seriously do not like. But I wonder about this a lot. Perhaps it is the case that in many respects he is helpless and might want to do things differently but for political or economic or other reasons cannot. For example, does Obama himself really believe in this senseless, useless, even ridiculous “war” in Afghanistan? And even if he does not believe in it what can he do? Can you imagine what the neocons and right-wingers would do if Obama did the sensible and right thing to do and withdrew our troops? He would immediately be branded as weak, not experienced enough, anti-American, and even cowardly. As in Vietnam, they would say we could have won if it hadn’t been for Obama and blah, blah, blah. They would raise such a ruckus it would surely end his Presidency. Thus it is he couldn’t realistically end it even if he wanted to do so. The entire military/industrial/political complex would rise up and crucify him. And this would mean he would be unable to complete any other goals he might have in mind. Would he like to end the “war” immediately or does he believe in it? I don’t know.

I am especially angry and upset with Obama because he has not done anything to bring Bush/Cheney and their criminal administration to justice. This infuriates me. But here again, what would happen if he tried to bring them to justice? His critics would immediately say it was just political (even though it would obviously be a criminal matter rather than political). They would say it was revenge, or an attempt to destroy the Republican Party. They would argue that it is unprecedented, no previous administration has ever before tried to investigate and punish their predecessors (of course no previous administration was ever confronted with confessed war criminals who actually boast of their criminal deeds). Perhaps Obama would like to bring these criminals to justice but realizes just how risky and virtually impossible that would be. On the other hand, perhaps he actually approves of what they did and doesn’t think they deserve to be punished. I, of course, do not know. In any case, as in the case of Afghanistan, he is practically powerless.

Similarly, with respect to this horrific oil spill business, he might want to punish BP severely, fine them until they go out of business, throw them all in the slammer, or whatever. But how can he do that knowing the crucial position they occupy in Britain where their pension system depends importantly on BP, to say nothing of the British economy in general. Here again, I don’t know what Obama would like to do, but it doesn’t matter because in very important respects his hands are tied. BP is too big to fail, unfortunate, but true. I don’t know how Obama truly feels about this, perhaps he is furious because of being so helpless. But perhaps he doesn’t believe they deserve to be severely punished and is caught now trying to placate the victims while at the same time letting the guilty off the hook. I just do not know.

Then there is the situation with Israel. I am absolutely opposed to our uncritical support of everything they do even when they are committing acts so blatantly illegal and even horrifying. I cannot (or at least do not want to) believe Obama truly supports this near genocide, but he seems to support everything they do no matter how awful, unpopular, or illegal. He claims to support the Palestinians in their desire for a state of their own and the right to manage their own affairs. But time after time he continues to side with Israel. Of course it is true that the Israel lobby is powerful, and it is also true that the Jewish vote and financial support are significant, so here is another case where Obama cannot do what he may want to do, but on the other hand, maybe he is doing what he wants to do. I do not know.

Paradoxically, President Obama is said to be the most powerful person on earth, but he is often powerless. But it doesn’t even matter what he may personally believe or feel because in any case he cannot practically do anything about it. In fact, the most powerful people on earth are not even in the administration but still have the power to control it, which they do. So here I am, wanting to believe in Obama, trying to continue to support him, wanting him to succeed, and trying to believe that he would really like to do what I would like him to do, but I don’t know. What a way to run a railroad!

I guess I also continue to support him because he is basically “the only game in town.” The party of NO has been so despicable as to be beneath contempt. And most of his critics are so predictable, petty, and often absurd, to say nothing of usually being completely ignorant of that of which they speak, they are not worthy of a second thought. In this context Obama is still a giant being set upon by Lilliputians and the demented. Long live Obama! (I think and hope).

As always, I don't agree with all his points, but they are worth hearing.