Saturday Musings and Open Thread

 

"I Want to Help You Ann" - The Lyres

A little nostalgia from my life as a Boston youth.  I was talking to a young waiter at the local pizza joint the other night while out walking Stan -- I am sure his table was appreciative -- a kid who is a musician moving back to Cleveland where you can be a struggling artist and not starve -- or at least not as quickly as you do here in DC -- and he mentioned this band to me.  It's a great garage rock sound -- reminiscent of "? and the Mysterians" and the Kingsmen.  (One can really waste a prodigious amount of time on youtube -- this led me to a whole bunch of other Boston-based bands of the same time period, acts that had regional followings and local radio hits, when such a thing as local radio existed.)

Well, the big storm has not yet proven too terrible here in DC.  A whole lot of warm rain -- Stanley and I just took a spin around the neighborhood and saw a few limbs down, but that's about it.  I hope that this is as bad as it gets.  If the power stays on I will be a happy camper. 

Here's a few things that hot gotten my attention the past couple of days:

- Dave Weigel and Cornel West both remind us that Martin Luther King was a man of the left, a radical who was disliked by a large chunk of the American populace.  I suppose it's great that he has become an unassailable icon, but I fear the real man and his politics have been lost in the process. 

- I find the notion that building (or not building) a pipe line being a "make or break" environmental issue for Obama to be absurd hyperbole.  So if this pipe line is greenlighted, I guess environmentalists are going to rally around Rick Perry.  Evidently the Obama Administration is not afraid of the fall out.

- I never wrote much about the Libyan intervention.  I was ambivalent and skeptical about the whole affair.  But I never found the comparisons to Iraq to be very compelling.  If anything, it reminded me much more of the Kosovo intervention, another situation where U.S. airpower was brought to bear with an insurgent local ground force.  And, in the end, it has been very much of an allied effort, which makes it wildly different than the Iraq disaster. 

- Glenn Greenwald really is an idiot about politics.  I couldn't even write about this post for days, it made me so pissed.  A ridiculous apologia for Ron Paul, a man who thinks we should get rid of FEMA, the Federal Reserve, shouldn't have passed the Civil Rights Act or Social Security or Medicare, who thinks women should not have the right to an abortion -- this guy is a right wing lunatic.  And Greenwald thinks he deserves a serious look from progressives because he is opposed to military interventions and the war on drugs.  Amusingly, while defending a guy who thinks Social Security should be abolished, Greenwald castigates Obama for contemplating changing its cost of living increase formula.  Greenwald's politics, such as they are come down to two things: 1) he thinks that the maximalist civil liberties position -- at least those he cares about -- trump all things; and 2) he really hates Obama.  He's a child.  And how someone who thinks he is the ultimate civil libertarian can cozy up to a guy who wants to abolish the right to an abortion is beyond me.

Update: A must read column by Charles Blow about child poverty and attacks on family planning services and abortion rights.  And, it should be noted, that the Obama Administration has 1) drawn a line in the sand against efforts to defund Title X, the federally funded family planning program for low income women; 2) intervened in law suits on behalf of Planned Parenthood in several states where Republicans have sought to defund its operations. and 3) made contraceptive coverage without co-pays a required benefit under health care reform.  But hey, what's that as a progressive move compared to what Ron Paul has to offer.    

What's up with all of you?   

Comments

[Everythings Jake]

From the Greenwald piece:

"However much progressives find Paul's anti-choice views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Paul's domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldn't progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates?"

That's a little more nuanced than you've painted above. It's hardly a ringing endorsement for Paul, and it's set in the context of how progressives ignore much of what is disappointing about Obama.

[Sir Charles]

EJ,

Read the whole piece. It's effectively an attack on party politics and suggests that there is some possible basis for an alliance between progressives and the libertarian right.

There isn't.

As for "entitlement cuts" -- again, versus what -- encouraging people who don't believe the programs should exist in the first place?

[oddjob]

I suppose it's great that he has become an unassailable icon, but I fear the real man and his politics have been lost in the process.

I think that's true and not true at the same time. I think what has become iconic about his politics were what led to greater equality (not full equality, but greater equality) for dark-skinned Americans.

I also think the rest of his politics (firmly anti-war, pro-union, pro-significantly greater wealth redistribution by the use of the federal government's taxing powers, etc.) has largely been forgotten. If it were more widely remembered he would still be a controversial topic. If he was still alive today his 80-some year old self would be just as busy stirring up the hornets' nests as he was then.

[oddjob]

It's not something I have expertise with, but what I've read before about extracting oil from tar sands indicates it's an unusually environmentally destructive way to get oil. It's not like drilling a well. It's worse than that.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

Yeah, I think it's a less than great practice as well.

But that battle really is being fought in Canada. I think the notion that building the pipe line in the U.S. is going to be a pivotal issue in the presidential election is much mistaken.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The Greenwald support of Paul is nothing new, in fact, it was why I stopped reading GG in early 2008. It wasn't just the support. Dave Neiwert published a sries of posts detailing Paul's long ties with the ugliest and mpost fulsome of the extreme Reight, the Stormfront crowd -- and even showed copies of STORMFRONT being sold openly -- and by just the biker types you'd imagine -- at Paul rallies.

(Of course Neiwert also went over the then less-familiar litany of racist and other vile comments in the newsletter that Paul sold, had his name connected with, but claimed he had never read.)

When Greenwald, rather than answering the questions raised, accused Neiwert of the equivalent of McCarthyism, I knew I could no longer read him. (And I wonder if all his subsequent support is a matter of 'doubling down' rather than admitting a mistake.)

Btw, power, lights still on, even the Southern and Western windowsills are still dry, somehow.

[oddjob]

In the Philadelphia area I have high school classmates sitting in the dark (or so they relay from the Blackberries to their F'book pages). Lots of wind there apparently.

[oddjob]

No Sunday public transportation in Metro Boston, beginning 8:00 AM

[oddjob]

(Well, no regularly scheduled Sunday public transportation.)

[beckya57]

Greenwald, the FDL crowd, the Greens, the Naderites--none of them have a clue about how politics actually works.

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

Here here Beckya57, they just don't get it - they seem to be an uncompromising superminority. Strange thinking to my mind.

Prup, hang tight, the worst is yet to come.

Oddjob, tar sands crude extraction is much more environmentally damaging than producing ordinary petroleum reservoirs for several reasons the major ones being a) it requires the use of immense amounts of water, b) it requires the use of immense amounts of energy (usually lpg) and c) it produces prodigious amounts of CO2 in the process. So you are right, it is not what you might call "environmentally friendly". However, in a purely political context is might be helpful to the US to support this extravagence simply because it reduces our dependence on middle eastern oil.

In a reasonable world it might be possible to achieve a balance in exploiting such a resource if carbon tradeoffs were explicitly included that involved development of carbon free technologies, but such a scenario I am very much afraid is far beyond the ken of the average Faux TeeVee viewer. Sad.

EJ, nice try. I am less generous that SC. Start by explaining exactly how anything about Paul is "nuanced". I am not holdng my breath.

SC - I can't keep track of pundits for the most part so your comments on GG kind of go over my head because I tend to duck whenever I see such tripe. Life is short.

The other issue you raise though is something to which I have been connected for long and about which I have an abiding passion, the plight of the helpless, the billions who have almost no say as to how their lives will unfold. We are concerned about the mysogynist tendencies of politicians here in the US to worsen the prospects of all women. Yet we are for the most part utterly ignorant of the sad state in which most women are compelled to live in the rest of the world. Our nation is a kind of beacon to that dark and horrific world in that it to at least some extent, women have wrested away from the praternalist dogmatists a few means of obtaining both liberty and equality, but the the battle is far from won.

In fact, the evidence is, purely on an empirical basis, that the battle is being lost. The population continues to increase. I cannot rationalize in any way how this could be a good thing. Yet it is the holy writ of those who exploit poverty. And for some reason that eludes me and my feeble reason, we tolerate it.

Let those who have witnessed death from starvation come forth and explain to me, why this is the divine destiny chosen for them by the all wise, ultraomnipotent father figure. I am listening.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Well, we seem to have made it so far, though we haven't had to deal with the worst winds. In fact, I think I am literally in the eye of the hurricane, and the stillness and quiet are all reports have made them out to be. I even saw one person on the sidewalk outside my house.

Meanwhile, we can count on Republican stupidity to be more certain than the weather. Behold Faux Noise. (h/t Steve Benen)

While Americans ought to prepare for the coming storm, federal dollars need not subsidize their preparations. Although it might sound outrageous, the truth is that the National Hurricane Center and its parent agency, the National Weather Service, are relics from America’s past that have actually outlived their usefulness.

Today the NWS justifies itself on public interest grounds. It issues severe weather advisories and hijacks local radio and television stations to get the message out. It presumes that citizens do not pay attention to the weather and so it must force important, perhaps lifesaving, information upon them. A few seconds’ thought reveals how silly this is. The weather might be the subject people care most about on a daily basis. There is a very successful private TV channel dedicated to it, 24 hours a day, as well as any number of phone and PC apps. Americans need not be forced to turn over part of their earnings to support weather reporting.

The NWS claims that it supports industries like aviation and shipping, but if they provide a valuable contribution to business, it stands to reason business would willingly support their services. If that is the case, the Service is just corporate welfare. If they would not, it is just a waste.

As for hurricanes, the insurance industry has a compelling interest in understanding them. In a world without a National Weather Service, the insurance industry would probably have sponsored something very like the National Hurricane Center at one or more universities. Those replacements would also not be exploited for political purposes.

[snip]

Disastrous? The $126 million in cuts would still have left the Service with a larger budget than it had a decade ago. The massive bloat in government should not get a pass just because it’s wrapped in good-of-the-community clothing. NWS services can and are better provided by the private sector. Americans will invest in weather forecasting because if there is one thing we can be certain of, people will want to protect their property and their lives.

Sadly, as Steve insists, this is not a parody. It is from two people connected to the "Competitive Enterprise Institute.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And on this Sunday Morning, our Sermon will be provided by our gyest preacger, Crystal Renaud of Dirty Girl Ministries:

The assignment for this week, she tells the women, is to write down their sexual histories. “I know it’s overwhelming, but don’t be defeated by this,” she says. “There’s hope. This is truth. Even though it’s hard and painful, the truth is what sets you free.”

The No Stones recovery group is part of an organization called Dirty Girls Ministries that Renaud launched in 2009 after suffering from her own self-described pornography addiction. She says she wanted to help other women recover from their X-rated fixations by connecting with them online and holding meetings at her local church. But her use of the terms porn and addiction may be misleading. The growing group of 100-plus members who participate in the forums say that they masturbate or view porn—which they define as including erotica and romance novels—twice a week or less. For most of us, that would hardly be considered excessive. But to Renaud, it indicates an epidemic of addiction, one that can be treated by helping women stay “clean” of masturbation.

In addition to the online ministry, she speaks regularly at various evangelical churches in Kansas and has written a book called Dirty Girls Come Clean. “Whether you believe it or not, women are addicted to porn,” Renaud preached in a recent sermon. “You’d be surprised at how many women—women in your own lives—are hiding this deep, dark, and dirty secret.”

While many of the women she counsels report turning to pornography as a form of escape—from traumas like sexual abuse, infidelity, and even prostitution—Renaud compares their masturbation to alcoholism, saying that “like drugs and alcohol, so many things that feel good in a short amount of time can end up hurting you.”

Renaud’s advocacy is labeled antipornography, but it aims to treat all masturbation, whether it involves porn or not. When you peel back the layers, the core of her crusade is against sexual thought—even within marriage—unless those thoughts are about your husband while you are engaging in intercourse with him.

and what is a sermon without a personal testimonial:

Mental purity is a state of mind Renaud came to after years of struggle. When she was 10, she discovered a dirty magazine in her older brother’s bathroom. She had never seen male genitalia before; she became increasingly curious and began to search for pornography. When she hit puberty, she says, her curiosity turned into compulsion, and she added masturbation to her porn-seeking behavior. At 15, she attended a Christian summer camp and heard the pastor talking about “a Father in heaven who loves you unconditionally regardless of what you do.” From then on, she became active in the church and vowed to end her masturbation and porn habits.

“I’ve been sober for seven years now,” she says of her masturbation-free life.

Although some married women participate in Dirty Girls Ministries, Renaud’s crusade is largely for single women like herself. The majority of Dirty Girls’ members are in their 20s and 30s, but many teenagers and preteen girls, some as young as 11, have also joined. Technically speaking, most are virgins, but because of their below-the-belt explorations, they report feeling tainted, undesirable, and perverted.

The whole thing is from the wonderfully titled "Look, God, No Hands" and I am still foghtig the temptation to quote even more -- and may not be able to resist.

[Beckya57a]

KN, you should read Kristof's and WuDunn's book Half the Sky. It is about the efforts worldwide to help 3rd world women. It doesn't sugarcoat their immense problems--parts of it are very hard to read-- but it also shows that much good can and is being done.

Prup, I'm not sure I can stomach more of that. Where is all of this masturbation hysteria coming from?? First Christine O'Donnell, now this.

[Sir Charles]

I'm working on my magnum opus, "It's Hard to Type with Hairy Palms" to jump in on the anti-mastubatory craze.

What utter madness. I really thought we had gotten through this sort of thing fifty years ago.

[kathy a.]

mark twain spoke on the subject of today's sermon, albeit for a different audience.

[oddjob]

The wind is still quite fierce, but the rain ended maybe half an hour ago. I still have power.

[kathy a.]

glad that oddjob, SC, and prup are doing OK, and that the storm -- while still a pretty strong one -- did not turn out as deadly as feared.

prup, that piece you linked earlier on the national weather service is just too ludicrous. americans *are* investing in weather forecasting, via the NWS. gathering that data is done most efficiently and with the broadest usefulness when the operation is centralized. it's not excessive simply because we all share in the cost via taxes.

[kathy a.]

the NRA is behind two certiorari petitions asking SCOTUS to expand gun rights -- to "correct the widespread misapprehension that the 2nd Amendment's scope does not extend beyond the home." cert is discretionary, and i'm thinking the NRA is fighting an uphill battle since even scalia doesn't appear to be with them:

The uncertainty began with the Supreme Court itself. In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia said the history of the 2nd Amendment shows it "guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." But other parts of his 5-4 opinion stressed there is no right to "carry any weapon in any manner," and that bans on "carrying concealed weapons were lawful" in the 19th century.

[beckya57]

My favorite recent gun insanity is the efforts in Florida to ban doctors from asking about guns in the home. In my (military) setting, this is an absolutely essential question with any family that has current or potential issues with suicidality or family violence. If this lunacy ever comes up my way, I suspect a lot of health care providers will start engaging in civil disobedience (I know I will be).

[kathy a.]

becky, i can't see how a ban like that can stand. it's an essential question in the situations you mentioned, civilian as well as military (although many military personnel have government issued firearms) -- and i would think in other situations where someone has mental health issues.

when i was a young public defender, i had a client who sounded so suicidal and out of it when we met that i called the mental health service for advice, and recommended to the client and his wife that they go over RIGHT NOW because i was worried about how distressed the client was, and i wanted him to get some help. they didn't do that. the next night, the client committed suicide by cop, killing a young cop in the process.

such a senseless, horrible tragedy. i was in over my head, had no idea of what kinds of questions to ask, only that someone trained could better assess what was going on. (i'm pretty sure that if that situation re-played now, i'd ask more questions; less sure of what exactly i'd do next. if i'd had a clear idea that he meant violence, though, i would have had an ethical duty to do something to prevent that.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On the medical 'gun gag' law, several physicians and physicians' groups filedsuit immediately opposing it. There are several good articles on it. this is one of the best. *There's also apparently an excellent piece in JAMA on it, but I'm not sure if this is the full article or an abstract.

I haven't heard what has happened with the suit yet, but apparently the Florida Medical Association passed a resolution requiring the Association to defend any doctor prosecuted under the law.

[nancy]

Well, what do you know. Is anyone in Wisconsin surprised? If Walker & Co can't smear the unions one way and make it stick, then why not try another. It's actually kind of comical -- damn, shoot-that-other-foot-too thinking. What a dope.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

As for the amti-masturbation group. yes, my first reaction was a combination of laughter at the absurdity and sneering at the people involved -- and I don't apologize for either, both were appropriate, and if the piece -- or our discussion of it -- had just stayed there, it would have been fine.

But I can't help taking it more seriously on second look, when I see it compared with a story that starts like this:

In 1982, Martha Roper received her first death threat.
 
Martha—perhaps better known as Ms. Roper—is not a drug trafficker or a gang member. She does not work for the government, or involve herself in dangerous, secret operations. She does not even run an abortion clinic. She teaches sexuality education.

Martha Roper is an award-winning, widely acclaimed sexuality education teacher and author in the state of Missouri. She holds a master’s degree in family and community relations from Teacher’s College, Columbia University, and taught sexuality education in Missouri for over thirty years.

“I had a 13-year-old son around that time,” Ms. Roper told me. “Fortunately, he had a sense of humor, and when a letter addressed to ‘Lesbian Slut’ or ‘Sex Sinner’ would arrive in the mail box, he would say, ‘I think this one’s for you, Mom.’”

Ms. Roper began receiving death threats and hate mail in the early eighties, and they have never completely stopped. Since the advent of the Internet and online technologies such as Google Earth and Google Maps, Roper has had to become much more quiet for her own safety.

But then I go to the original article and read this and take it a step further.

Dirty Girls member Amy Christine Proctor, a self-described addict and a flight attendant from Colorado, started masturbating while she was visiting chat rooms on AOL. Unmarried and a virgin at 30, Proctor has struggled with her sexual identity since puberty, believing her same-sex thoughts are a sin. Last year, she says, she was masturbating almost daily, sometimes twice a day. To rehabilitate herself, she became an active member of Dirty Girls Ministries and started driving two hours to attend a 12-step program for sex addicts called Heart to Heart. But when she realized the masturbation was stemming from underlying sexual-identity issues, she switched to a program called Where Grace Bounds that deals with “sexual brokenness and homosexuality,” while remaining an active member of the Dirty Girls forums.

And i can't help trying to use all the writing and acting talent I possess to put myself 'into' that character, to try and imagine what the world must feel like through eyes and a psyche that damaged. I try and feel the pulling apart as the woman is torn, so desperately trying to work towards what she perceives are the higher goals of obeying her God and saving her soul, and yet held by that essential person she is, a person she can't even yet learn to celebrate because she is 'of the flesh, not the spirit' and this is supposed to be less good.

And yes, I will still insist that the laughter and derision are justified and deserved, but I can't help feeling some tears belong in the mix.

[nancy]

kathy -- that's a terrible story. i know when the kids were playing anywhere other than under my roof, i always knew the answer to the guns question, helicoptering or no.

becky -- we have a good friend who went on a medication to assist in his efforts to stop a sporadic smoking habit. within a very short period of time he was planning his suicide by gun, and he had every intention of going through with it. luckily because he'd said some intemperate things to his wife, she picked up the phone. she was instructed to deliver him to the psych ward where he spent the next week locked up. it was a terrifying episode, left all of us shaken. the gun question was asked by his physician.

[beckya57]

nancy: was the medication Chantix by any chance? It's more effective than any other stop smoking medication, but unfortunately is known to have many psychiatric side effects. I've never prescribed it, as I work with children and it's not approved for them, but I would be pretty wary of it if I was an adult prescriber. Which is too bad, because smoking is deadly and Chantix is effective.

Good for the Florida Medical Assn for opposing this crap. It would be nice if the armed forces leadership weighed in on this: their population has a significant suicide problem and easy access to guns.

[big bad wolf]

i am delighted to hear that the kid at the pizza place likes the lyres.

i don't know that it is true, but i have heard that neither ron paul nor glenn greenwald likes the lyres or mission of burma.

glad to hear things were mostly uneventful for our east coast friends here. i hope ltc's power is restored soon enough, so that he can leave the undisclosed bunker

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

Greenwald no doubt would have been a Boston fan. Ron Paul strikes me as a Perry Como guy.

It was an absolutely beautiful day here today. Got out and about to survey the damage -- I saw a few big trees uprooted and leaning on houses, which is a common problem here when we have massive amounts of rain. The "sidewalk trees" -- the ones planted in the grassy areas between sidewalk and street have a nasty habit of doing this. I saw one in Georgetown today leaning against a townhouse that was probably 120 years old. I'm sure the owner was thrilled.

I hope l-t c gets his power back soon. I think his utility, BG&E, is at least better than ours, PEPCO, which is notorious for not being able to get the job done.

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

Prup at 09:55 AM - this is truly appalling but for some reason I am not in the least surprised.

I like the way the writer you cited claims that the average urban lizard can prognosticate about global weather events from his tiny view of the local sky as well as all the satellite systems, world wide weather stations, active investigators (i.e. hurricane hunters) and the aggregation of millions of individual observations. I am only surprised he did not invoke the old farmer's almanac as a predictor of weather.

One is also prone to wonder just how well Joplin, Mo. would have fared this past spring if had not been for those fancy doppler radars that give the billionaires who don't pay taxes chigger bites. (We have chiggars here in Brasil as well and they are more aggressive).

As to the last paragraph you quote, the first sentence is a bald assertion. Business sense would actually dictate otherwise. Rather than try to fathom the vagaries of weather that result in hurricanes the insurance industry would simply stipulate that anything involving winds greater than 74 mph, storm surge greater than 2' above msl, secondary effects from loss of electrical power or water service, etc. etc. is exempt from coverage as an "ACT OF GOD". Too bad suckers.

The wind, the rain, the waves, the high tides and the storm surge are all real.

There is a place in my heart that is soft on Brooklyn.
It was the incubator of my tertiary metamorphosis.

I rode out a residual hurricane/tropical storm back in the day, 76 or so I think. In S. New England, I was in
Boston general area. It was a little refreshing to me because it carried the scent of the tropics.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

KN: That wasn't a 'writer' but a candidate for the Republican nomination, and the same person who Glenn Greenwald thinks would be a good ally for Progressives -- despite the fact that he is also the favorite candodate (or was) of the STORMFRONT crowd (neo-Nazis).

Oh, and both of the sex-related stories deserve a hat tip to the wonderfully pugnacious Yellow Dog of Blue in the Bluegrass.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

Did you come through alright?

I realize that it is easy to underestimate the havoc caused by the storm when you basically emerge unscathed. But my sense is that even though it was not the cataclysmic event that some predicted, it certainly left a pretty substantial amount of damage.

[oddjob]

Shooting the Messenger

(A dismantling of Perry's risible conspiracy theory comments about climate change by a climate scientist at Texas A&M, Perry's alma mater.)

[oddjob]

...“We haven’t seen flooding like this in Vermont in 75 years,” [Governor] Mr. Shumlin said in an interview on Vermont Public Radio....

Other than power outages what I heard on the radio news this morning didn't suggest the damage in Massachusetts was horrific. There was flooding during the storm and there is a stretch of I-91 that's closed due to washouts & bridge damage caused by the flooding of the Deerfield River, but that flooding has subsided. Some Mass. residents may not have electricity again until next weekend.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C:
Came through fine, was even able to keep two windows open as the storm went past, by then a mild and enjoyable coolness for the most part. It hit other places really badly, but NYC got off easy because the main effect was downed power lines, and ours are already undeground, and we were just high enough to be safe from any flooding.

Haven't fone out yet, but after the hematauria, the leg problems, and the rest, it's like I've been in a 30s comedy car chase, with everything scaring the hell out of me but turning away at the last minute. Glad to avoid disasters, but my nerves need a nice long period of calm -- if only I weren't addicted to politics.

[kathy a.]

bachmann says irene was a divine message on spending.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Irene WAS a major disaster, and the response, and the way the headlines and stories come out will tell a lot more about the 2012 election than we think, because it will show if the Republicans will get away with 'reshaping reality.'

There is an exceptopnal piece by Sarah Burris at C&L about Congressman Hal Rogers, head of the Appropriations Committee blaming "Obama's cuts to FEMA" for the necessity of shifting funds that had been earmarked for Midwest flood relief to Irene clean-up.

Two quotes from Rogers from the article:

Rogers today:

"On Saturday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) urged the Senate to quickly approve the House GOP version of the annual Homeland Security spending measure that includes $1 billion for additional disaster funding this year and $2.65 billion for fiscal 2012.
"Time and time again, the [Obama] administration has ignored the obvious funding needs of the Disaster Relief Fund, purposefully and irresponsibly underfunding the account and putting families and communities who have suffered from terrible disasters on the back burner," Rogers said. "Now the administration has let the fund reach critically low levels, putting continued recovery at risk, without a plan for the future or a clear method for dealing with new disasters."

But when Rogers' Committee approved the continuing resolution, it was his committee that forced -- and boasted about -- the following:

"The National Weather Service, of course, is part of NOAA -- its funding drops by $126 million. The CR also reduces funding for FEMA management by $24.3 million off of the FY2010 budget, and reduces that appropriation by $783.3 million for FEMA state and local programs."

The point is not just that Republicans lie constantley -- we all know this by now -- or even that one of their candidates called for an end to FEMA entirely. The big question for me is this:

Now that Obama has -- at least verbally -- 'signed on' to the myths of Republicanomics (that 'Federal spending is job killing;' that balancing the budget is more important than Keynsian 'pump-priming'; and that there is enough 'fraud, waste, and abuse' in government spending that across-the-board cuts won't really hurt key agencies; and, at least implicitly, that savings can be made by cutting work forces and pension plans for workers)...

how can he avoid taking most of the blame for the inevitable disasters that this budget cutting will cause? How can he say 'it's the Republicans' fault' -- as it is -- if he's on record as agreeing with them?

Something tells me that keeping an eye on the local reactions to Rogers' statements -- and there are a lot of good KY blogs -- will tell a lot about how the coming election will play out -- but then if people had been watching the states in 2010...

(The preceding rant was ended prematurely on the grounds that it is merely repetitive. I've said it often enough before.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And right after I wrote the above, I checked out a piece from today's C&L Blog Round-Up. I've never read "Life and Times of a Carolina Parrothead" before, but if he's always this good, he goes on to my list of regular reads.

The following excerpt is a better description of the way my attitude has changed than anything I've been able to write:

Call me a sleazy sycophant but for the longest time I cut the guy significant slack given the dire situation the country faced. For starters, I can mention the two wars going on with billions disappearing into a black hole that had Dick Cheney’s Cheshire cat-like smile superimposed over the event horizon. We also faced a financial apocalypse caused by the finely dressed banking rats eating holes into the nation’s economic ship of state forcing the previous president to bail them out leaving Obama to finish cleaning up the mess and to be call nasty names by the moronic masses for doing so. Top it all off as if two southwest Asian quagmires along with a monetary disaster were not enough millions of Americans lose their jobs before and after he took office.

So excuse me for not jumping early on the progressive bitchy bandwagon and castigating the man for his failure to have unicorns and rainbows sprout from his and Michelle’s ass and cover the country in sweet rose pedals and happiness. The only problem with my early high optimism that slowly morphed into pragmatic realism then to impatient frustration is that while Obama was a great campaigner in all honestly we seem to have gotten a hybrid cross of Hamlet and Mr. Spock of Star Trek. He appears to be a president more interested in contemplating his existence while casting unemotional observations about how Washington is broken rather than getting involved in the dirty business of politics.

Once again, I do not completely blame him, there were disturbing signs and omens during the 2008 campaign that liberals were building him into something he was not. I remember some lady on MSNBC that literally had a religious look of utter rapture talking about how super duper things would be right after Obama took office. Cartoons of Obama wearing a Superman-like costume regularly appeared with him beating up corporate villains and fixing global warming as an afternoon project. In my ever-humble opinion liberals and progressives placed Obama on far too high a pedestal expecting far too much of him given the rules Washington works under.

Another problem that liberals/progressives created for themselves at the expense of Obama was the utter failure to counter the Koch brothers and Fox Noise sponsored Tea bagger movement that sent the country spiraling off the cliff to near default status. We had close to two-million people in Washington attending Obama’s inauguration and had that group stayed organized and vocal the assorted right-wing rubbish that arose to run such fine American intellectuals as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell would at the very least been blunted. Even better had right-wingers carrying assault weapons at town hall meetings during the health care debate screaming slogans about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed by the blood of tyrants been met with liberals passing out flowers the public would have freaked at the visual dichotomy.

Now I have come to the point where I have to express my disappointment with Obama. For someone who was the visual definition of high-energy charisma and dynamic action while running for president his lackluster leadership since taking office has been depressing and unexplainable. During the Republican drive to renew the Bush Tax cuts, something that created much of our current deficit, he shrugged off all suggestions to tie the agreement with an extension on the debt limit. The resulting uncertainty the prolonged and ugly battle to increase the federal debt limit threw the country into yet another crisis. This was a failure of leadership on Obama’s part that bordered on a George W. Bush level of incompetence.

[snip]

My biggest disappointment with Obama has to be his inaction on the unemployment front. Millions of Americans languish with no job or doing their best with underemployment and once again, the president is playing the dithering Hamlet. Several people light-years smarter than me like Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Chris Matthews of MSNBC have been screaming for months about tactics that the president could use to outmaneuver the Republicans on getting a jobs program going. But only very recently have we been rewarded with a pronouncement from the vacationing president that he will present a jobs plan after Labor Day. I just pray that many of the unemployed have the luxury of electricity then so they can hear about his wonderful path to salvation.

Here is where my conundrum comes into play. The Republicans running for their party’s presidential nomination make the aliens in the Star Wars cantina scene look like a white folks country club social gathering. They are the finest collection of paranoid fanatics, religious extremists, and sleazy flip flopping toadies ever assembled and given the comatose American economy Democrats would be suicidally insane to think the eventual nominee could not win the election.

Therefore, the question is do we reelect Obama despite his faults and failures or do we surrender the country allowing the Republicans to continue their assault on the working people? Because while I am seriously asking the question I feel many in the liberal/progressive movement are equally at fault for their apathetic laziness to the tea bagger movement and narcissistic infighting over their own special interests at the expense of the country as a whole.

Anybody got a good answer for him, or me? (I'll even forgive him calling Paul McCartney "Paul McCarthy" elsewhere in the piece.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Read more of Carolina Parrothead. Sir Charles, I think you would appreciate a kindred spirit -- sadly with the recent loss of an in-law another thing to share -- and would put him on your list of 'people I want to have a drink -- or several -- with.'

[paula b]

re: disaster relief/FEMA. From WV, we went north toCorning NY to wait out the storm. neighbors tell us our MA home is fine, but almost all roads we wuld take (going through 3 states) are closed, including VT 9, VT 100,MA 112,MA 2,I-91,US 5 and some county roaqds. we were going to stop off in Wlmington VT to check on our cabin,
but can't get in. Town is underwater, roads, buildings and at least one woman washed away. much of brattleboro has been destroyed same ting south of the state line. entire small towns were changed forever in the course of one afternoon. schools, libraries,medical offives swamped. at least 2 dams on the Deerfield River are or were under water.yeah, we don,t need no stinking gov. we can just pitch in and rebuild whole counties wth our own arthritic hands. anybody got a spare bucket?

[kathy a.]

paula, VT really got hit hard. glad you are OK, but you're right, lots of destruction.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I think you know my view -- that whatever disappointments we have encountered with Obama it is absolutely critical that he be re-elected. Everything we hold dear will be in jeopardy if the Republicans gain the presidency -- particularly in their current state.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And my point has been to agree with you unless it becomes obvious that Obama is unelectable. Then and only then do i want to have some idea of a Plan B. Because the important thing is to make sure we don't elect a Republican -- even a sudden reincarnation of Eisenhower, Javits and Rockefeller would be disastrous with the current Republican Congressional delegation.

If Obama can do that -- and we have to hope somehow he can -- but it is by no means certain -- then we support him whatever. VBut if it is obvious he would lose to the Fraud, the Dope or the Joke ...

...what then? That's my only real-world argument. My dreams of a new Eisenhower Republican party (which I would not support but welcome) is only years down the road, after 2012 keeps us out of total disaster where no democratic candidate (small D quite deliberate) could win against an attractive dictator.

[kathy a.]

prup -- at what point do you think it would become "obvious" that obama would lose to whichever one of the clown car is nominated?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Actually, this is one of te reasons why I feel the Hal Rogers story above is so important. AZgain, what matters is the perception of the average person who has little background or knowledge, who doesn't understand the Congressional problems that have hindered Obama.

If a Depression happens, or the recession becomes at least substantially severer -- as it will due to the layoffs in state employment -- and if Obama has forfeited any confidence that he can fix it -- if he does, in fact, become a Herbert Hoover -- then the only question is if he can win through the soial issues and with some support from labor -- if he keeps them.

The winner of the clown car Caucus Race is the key. If it's Bachmann or Palin, it will be very hard for Obama to lose. Perry will be harder, because he sounds less obviously insane. This is where the social issues could save Obama's ass, but only if he can keep damn near 85% of Gays, anti-forced pregnancy women, and non-Christians -- and if enough weight can be given to the ant-Catholic views. (The economic idicies might help or hurt him, because we are imagining a desperate situation, and people might fall for his nonsense, even about the entitlements.)

Romney would have a hard time with the nomination, but would get the most votes from a center we are assuming is disgusted or exasperated by Obama -- again, we are assuming that they don'y know or care much about his history of flip-flopping if he is basically receiving votes because he's 'not Obama.'

Again, it is a worst case scenario, and I have been saying this right along, but I think we'd know before the turn of the year, and still keep hoping for another couple of months, hoping he'd turn into the person we thought we were electing.

I'm not rooting for something like this, hoping for it, or even expecting it, just planning for the possibility, and asking people to be exqully aware.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One important thing Obama could do to change things, one thing we can all do, is get behind George Miller and his jobs bill.

Force this to public attention, start demonstrating for it, start demanding of Republican Congressmen why they won't support it. Use it to build support for Keynesian stimulus in general. Use it to show how desperate the Republican Governors and Lewgislatures have left the states.

SUPPORT THE MILLER JOBS BILL.

[kathy a.]

i'm not going there, prup, for all the reasons that i don't support a third party option from the left.

as you have pointed out, perry is every bit as nuts as bachmann and non-candidate palin.

we do not have a viable candidate other than obama.

there are a lot of arguments about how the financial crisis could have been handled better, but the basic fact is that we did not get into the mess because of democratic policies. that was the legacy of W, and those in the clown car are determined to make things worse -- every last one of them. that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I have repeatedly said I have no desire to support a 'third party option from the LEFT.' I want someone who appears centrist, who appears to the right of the 'mythical Obama' of the news stations, and actually to the left of where he has painted himself. I want a party that is making arguments for liberal projects that will resonate to center and center-right ears, who can show how important government, safety net, and regulation are for business, for the economy -- because sadly, that 'sells' while 'left-wing humanitarianism' doesn't in the current madness.

And again, i only want this if Obama falters so badly he is hopeless. Then I'd hope for a Hillary, hell, I'd even get behind an Evan *blech* Bayh, rather than concede to the clown car.

We both see this as vital, keeping the Republicans out of office. You are sure that we can only do this with Obama, my question is whether or not we can only do this without Obama. And it is a question I am months away from even thinking I could answer.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One very brief reminder of what I am afraid of. In 1938 -- I believe, may be a year off -- there was a substantial movement in France that said "Better Hitler than Blum." (Blum was a Socialist who had become Prime Minister, and was so handicapped by Parliament that his actual positions were extreme compromises -- but he was portrayed in the Press as a Socialist.)

I don't want people to be going "Better the Clown Car than Obama." Because France got Hitler, and Petain, and Laval, and Xavier-Vallat. Again, we aren't there yet, and hopefully never will be, and Obama will win 40+ States, we'll win back the House and even hold the Senate. If the electorate were as knowledgable as we are, this would be certain. But I just want us to keep eyes and ears open again...

...just in case.

[Joe S]

kathy, I have to disagree with you in part. It was the Clinton Administration that deregulated the financial services industry which was, in part, responsible for the financial crisis. The Bush Administration was even worse, but we can't keep our eye off the ball that the DLC types really were complicit in this awful situation we're in.

Prup, I think you're glossing over how popular fascism was in Europe (and Hitler was initially seen as a variant of fascism). Lots of members of the European Right saw the Nazis and Fascists as the best alternative to socialism. That's why there were approximately 30 divisions of non-Germans who fought in the Waffen SS (incuding a division from France, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia).

[paula b.]

prup-then can't we stop wishing for a fairy godmother (3rd party candidate.
by the way, we're stilltrying to get home. turned back by many roadblocks. had to go at least 100 miless out of our way today to avoid flooding from a dam break.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

If Obama falters we're fucked -- there is no Plan B.

Joe,

That's why the recent blip of "we would have been better off with Hillary" stuff made me laugh. The Clinton Administration jumped in on financial deregualtion pretty enthusiastically -- although I think Phil Gramm should still be saddled with the lion's share of the blame and Hillary would have been advised by the same people pretty much who have advised Obama.

Paula,

Good luck.

[kathy a.]

prup, i missed the link about george miller, who's great. his district is right next door, covering part of my zip code, even. [my town has but one zip code.]

[kathy a.]

yeah, joe - one of the many ways that clinton disappointed. i really don't get why they went with deregulation, or a number of other things. that bad turn, though, was nurtured to an extraordinary extent by shrub's crew.

oy, paula. sounds like the road trip from hell, and only a small indication of how bad things are for the residents along your path. safe travels.

[nancy]

SirC -- Maybe here's our plan B, as the far right splinters off into even more micro-caucuses. David Duke is seeking support from the as yet uncommitted. Wonders never cease.

Jim -- My fear is that what we'll find is that, just as with Kerry, and to some extent Gore, when the Dems turn out mostly to vote against the other guy instead of strongly for ours, bad things happen. I suppose even Carter in '80 fell into that category. I don't think it's too early to worry. And as noted, the clown car is getting increasingly less clownish and increasingly more menacing.

Paula -- Safe passage and soon, I hope.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Nancy: that's one of my points as well, but a relatively minor one. What i am trying to say is that if there is no Plan B, we damn well better realize what we are 'throwing into the pot' as we go 'all in' on Obama, and we better get him to realize it as well.

If Obama loses, we aren't going to regain the House -- unless on a total 'anti-incumbent' wave that would leave us in total chaos. We aren't going to keep the Senate -- it would take a repeat tidal wave for Obama for us to even have a chance of retaining it given the seats that are up.

And we are going to lose the Supreme Court as well, the first vacancy that occurs. Which means we are throwing Lawrence, Roe, Griswold, Miranda and every other decision the Scalia crowd doesn't like. "Wall of Separation" anyone? And how long will Dover stand?

The 'safety net'? How many chips is that, in the pot. Economic, health, safety, education, all in the loving hands of private industry.

It will be bad enough if the Christocrats get in directly, but if Romney holds them off, his failure may -- speaking absolutely literally -- result in a revolution -- and not a Progressive one.

Yes, my Plan B doesn't exist, my third -- centrist --candidate is a 'fairy godmother' and all that. But if we don't go that way, that's going to be an awfully risky hand that we have to play, we damn well better make sure we play it as well as we can.

[nancy]

Jim -- I guess what I'm suggesting is that Plan B is partially being arranged for us with no effort on our part. I don't think voter enthusiam is a minor point -- it could be the deciding point if all goes completely Koch-wired.

Team Obama needs my help. When do they ask me for it? They've not been spectacularly tuned in to my middle-class concerns (as I go out to unload the returning unemployed college grad's belongings from the 16 yr. old bought-as-used Honda wagon). And obviously, I consider us fortunate. I'm likely to be more patient than some others .

[low-tech cyclist]

Prup - first of all, by the time "it becomes obvious that Obama is unelectable" it'll be pretty much too late to do anything about it. The Presidency carries potent advantages. After the Dem convention in 1976, Ford was down by 40% - yes, by 40% - in the polls. And he lost by 2%. And Carter in 1980, a genuinely terrible candidate, was in it until about the last week, when the undecideds broke sharply for Reagan.

Second, other than the Tom Friedmans and David Brookses of the world, I really don't see much of an underserved market for "someone who appears centrist, who appears to the right of the 'mythical Obama' of the news stations."

Third, the moment such a person looked like they had a chance, they'd be painted socialist (and who knows what else) at light speed. And it would stick better on a less-known candidate than with Obama, who has an actual track record that pushes back more than you think, at least with non-fanatics. The right-wing noise machine is a very powerful thing when the electorate at large is just getting to know a candidate, as we found out when they turned Kerry's combat record into an object of ridicule back in 2004.

Nah, it's pretty much Obama or bust next year.

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

Prup, actually I was quite aware of the antecedants of the quotes but chose to obfuscate a little bit, apparently the irony was too oblique. Glad to hear you made it through the storm in fair shape though some other disturbing news was seen elsewhere in the above comments.

To everyone else affected by the storm best wishes and I hope you avoided any serious damage. Regrettably we are all bound to begin experiencing more of these kinds of events and in some cases they will be more severe than anything ever previously recorded.

As to the discussion of third party moves, can this be serious? First of all, it is far to early to think about anything much more than building up an enormous war chest for the democrats so they have at least a hope of stemming the tsunami of special interest money that is going to wash over next year's election. Secondly the way the republican field looks right now there is going to be a major shit storm down the road when they really start to slug it out between them. Since they are all ruthless greedy self serving and delusional bastards it should be quite a freak show.

I'd be willing to have a theoretical discussion of who to put in harness for 2016 at this point, but the one thing that will stave off the assault of the RWNJs is solidarity over what we have now.

Yes the senate is in danger of taking a swing as there are more democrats up for re-election than rethugs. That is what happens when you are a majority. We should suck it up and win an even bigger majority. The fact is the rethugs have an execrable record of voting against the common welfare. The house, everybody is up for grabs. So there should be a full court press to push every freshman teabagger obstructionist defaulting social security destroying idiot out of office and replace them with sane people.

Part of the problem is getting sane people to be involved when the game is so slanted. The so called MSM has an enormously greater collective audience than Murdoch's pernicious propaganda organ, yet they echo it with slavish devotion in a misguided and probably utterly unrelated effort to "compete". Under such circumstances no one without the teflon shield of right wing immunity would dare to enter "public service". They would be torn to shreds in short order.

Just look at the villification that Obama has endured to date. The relentless hate storm seems to be having an effect even on people who should be more objective and realize that under the present circumstances, it is impossible to remake society in four, or even eight years towards something more equitable, viable and self sustaining, when the effects of eight years of wanton pillage and profligacy are still materializing.

We need far more time than that to repair the damage.
Destruction is easy. Repair and construction is hard.

[nancy]

KN, l-t-c -- I wish no third party move. I wish for not winning via a default position.

I'd like positive movement, not winning because, "look at the alternative". Us or the crazies is no plan forward. That's a terrible map for stasis. Or maybe worse. Combative re-assembling. No thanks.

What kind of bumper sticker is "Obama or bust". Not gonna work in my neighborhood. And it's kind of blue in the midst of a purple demo.

My 82-year old mother, no high school diploma, is a bellwether. She's called every election as long as I've paid attention. I watched the Gore-Bush debates with her and she saw something I didn't. She said "Bush is going to win". I said "no way".

She's worried indeed. Wants to see more much more fight from the WH. She's extremely colorful about this. And she lives in KY -- red state land. I won't repeat her Kentucky-style color. :-) btw, Jim, she's appreciated your KY state blog links. Many thanks from me.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I am afraid that at some point people have to understand that voting against candidates is just as important as voting for a candidate.

"Vote your hopes and not your fears" is a nice slogan, but, at the risk of sounding uninspirational, I would suggest it's far more important to vote your fears.

[Sir Charles]

KN,

I think you're right. But I do think that Obama could help his cause by showing more fight. I know he thinks he has a plan here, but I don't think it is fully emotionally satisfying -- as nancy notes -- and sometimes you really do have to show the flag to your own troops a bit. Plus, I think Americans do respond well to a fighter, when there is a perception of unreasonableness on the other side. And that I think is something the public perceives big time right nwo with the Republicans.

[oddjob]

Present polling is highly consistent with that assessment. I've read there are even data suggesting people who don't identify with either party would be happier with Obama if he showed more fight.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I hate to be the constant nay-sayer in this, but I am worried that we are making the same mistake we did in the election of 2008, of deciding who we wanted, who we needed Barack Obama to be, and then convincing ourselves he was that person.

(And I fully meant that 'we' because I did it just as much. I was the one arguing that his refusal to engage his opponents was an MLK-like 'Eyes on the Prize.')

In fact, while the disconnect is far, far less by a couple of orders of magnitude, I have the same response to some of the comments here that I do when I read the worst conservative drivel about the 'radical dictator.'

"Are we talking about the same Barack Obama?"

Sir Charles, you talk about him 'showing more fight' but, in retrospect, when has he even shown himself to be a political fighter. His early elections were flukes, with his main opponent self-destructing. (Remember he probably would have lost to Jack Ryan if it weren't for 'Seven of Nine in a Sex Club' which meant he beat Alam Keyes.) His only contest before the nomination was the Congressional primary -- where he lost 2 to 1.

In the nomination fight, he never really took on Hillary. His supporters and handlers did that. And remember that there was only one serious policy disagreement between them. She supported the individual mandate, which he opposed. (In retrospect, that was much more serious than it looked and really showed he didn't fully understand the proposal he was putting forth, which couldn't work without the mandate. Furthrmore, once pushed, he abandoned his position.)

In the election, he had an opponent who was showing his age all too much, a vice-Presidential candidate who was a fool and a joke, and the economy imploded two months before the election. Without that implosion, if McCain had fought for Lieberman as his running mate, is there any doubt that we'd be wondering what President Joe would be doing -- or that, given the fact that Lieberman's weaknesses and uglinesses weren't economic in nature, that he'd probably have done most of the things that Obama was unable to accomplisg. (I hate the man -- so much that he almost kept me from voting for Gore in 2000 -- but he at least never triede playing a Taft/Hoover Republican iirc.)

In fact, it might be very interesting if each of us wrote a one or two paragraph description of who they think Obama "really" is, ideally without reading the other comments first.

I think our pictures would be fascinating, especially if we have to defend them.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I disagree strongly. You are basically dismissing his besting of Clinton and McCain, both of whom were very formidable figures with huge name recognition and a lot of favorable press coverage.

McCain picking Lieberman would have had nearly zero impact on the election. There is nothing to suggest that vice presidential picks are consequential except at the very margins. Certainly Lieberman circa 2008 was not going to grab any stray Democratic voters and he would have likely lost some of the hard core Republican votes.

You are also wrong about Lieberman on economics. Lieberman was a pain in the ass on health care reform and the stimulus. He is a corporate Dem through and through.

I think characterizing Obama as a Taft Hoover Republican is silly.

[nancy]

"One Way to Speed the Recovery? Help Households, Not Banks" This just seems so perfectly obvious. Had such a plan been set in motion in the last six months, instead of wasting time (how much was it? six weeks? two months?) on the debt-ceiling drama, I doubt we'd be having the discussion above about who Obama really is. I think it will be a good long while before liberals simmer down about that wasted "battle". Maybe there was more Machiavelli at work there than we know and the WH wanted the country to get a better look at the nuts, but trading away that precious time still makes me quite crazy.

[Joe S]

Prup, I really think you're mischaracterizing Lieberman who, for many years has been awful across the board- including on economics. Lieberman killed the public option, reducing the medicare age, and now is talking about increasing medicare. He's talked about endorsing Perry for President.

Also, McCain and Hillary Clinton were widely viewed as two of the toughest, most popular, and most canny politicians out there. I may have multiple problems with Obama's reaction to this economic crisis, but his skill as a politician shouldn't be questioned. He's crushed numerous extremely tough opponents.

I also think that you're belief in "center" or "center-right" challengers saving the day misconstrues what centrists are in this polity. Centrists like Bloomberg and Thomas Friedman are, for the most part, wedded to "the Treasury View"- the idea that deleveraging through suffering is good, and that any inflation or fiscal stimulus will drive up the cost of borrowing, even in a depression. That's why it's so hard to get traction for stimulus or monetary policy which will help (QE3). Centrists and conservatives are dead set against it. We have a problem of public opinion across the board- which is why a challenge to Obama is hopeless. We don't even have a consensus for neo Keynsian solutions within the Democratic Party, and there is no appetite for it among independents or Conservatives.

[Sir Charles]

What Joe said.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Y'know, sometimes I really think I must be the worst writer in the blogosphere. I keep thinking I am saying one simple thing, and the responses are all over the place, but none seem to come to grips with my point. So let's not explain it, just say it:

I am, above all, worried that, come the 2012 election, when voters ask themselves 'which is the lesser of two evils, Barack Obama or Rick Perry?' that they will answer "Perry." That is the only thing I care about, because, for reasons i'll undoubtedly discuss on the next thread, that would be disastrous.

I am simply trying to avoid that, and have bever been arguing that i would like a center or center-right administration. I think Obama, for any number of reasons could be in danger if the recession turns into a depression, or merely worsens. People who follow politics know how much of the fault belongs to the Republicans -- I might give more to Obama than most of you, but it is still prmrily the madness of the current Republican party.

But the voters aren't going to spend a couple of hours studying the issues, or studying the economics behind what we should have done. They may just blame the president, and decide to risk Perry.

And that would be a disaster the country might not survive.

Now, if I see any evidence of obama fighting back, of even arguing for authentically progressive positions, I'll feel differently. Yes, when i mentioned Hillary, youy were right in pointing out that Bill was a 'Rockefeller Republican.' What scares me is that Obama is the same, without Clinton's brains or ability to sell his ideas to the public.

[Joe S]

Well Prup, the problem is that what you're suggesting makes it more likely that we'll get a President Perry. There is nobody but Obama and there are no games in town but Rockerfeller Republicanism and insane teabaggery. Sorry. That's just the way it is and those are the cards we were dealt. Obama has the brains and political skills of Clinton, but had the bad luck to come into office at the time when all of Clinton and Bush I's follies came due. You're right, we may lose this election. You're right, Krugman at the Fed may have made this better. You're right, voters may punish Obama for not getting us out of this.

You're wrong that there's anybody out there who could get elected who would act differently. Given the institutional constraints, the weakness of the Democratic Party, the strength of monied interests, and the relative strength of movement conservatism, there's just nothing that can be done. Even the Fed which was supposed to be independent of public pressure has been cowed by public pressure. All that's left for progressives is to try and shape institutions (like the Democratic Party, the administrative state, local governments, and the courts) and hope for a better day down the road. The thought that there's some white knight to deliver us is folly.

[Sir Charles]

Again, yes.

[nancy]

SirC -- "if Obama falters we're fucked." We falter, I think, when we keep listening too closely to people who pay constant attention to daily politico temp readings, and forget to imagine how all this looks from the average suburban family room. That's where I fault TeamO. This stuff isn't words -- it's empty bank accounts for people trying to buy back-to-school supplies.

I'm not hearing an understanding of that from the administration. And I say that as someone who hated hearing Clinton's "I feel your pain" reassurances. I don't want people to "vote their fears" because that becomes too impressionistic and easily manipulated, sometimes late in the process. Swift-boaters will regroup I'm afraid. That crap has proven to work all too often unfortunately.

Jim -- I don't disagree that there's concern here. I simply want us to head to approximately the "same page-dom."

Apologies if I should have moved to today's open thread.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I can't seem to get the Tuesday thread moving.

I know what you're saying -- what I meant to say was that people should feel comfortable voting against the other guys -- it's a perfectly legitimate choice, to try to stymie people who want to do bad things.

I am not, by the way, suggesting that the Administration has been anything close to optimal in its messaging or tactics. Just that they are are only hope in the present situation. Let's hope they find a way.

[nancy]

SirC -- The Saturday thread just didn't want to yield to the next exchange. In high-school j-class I seem to remember a "-30-" when the editor decided the end had been reached. Collapse, edit and print. Maybe you should -30-.

Tuesdays are good. :-))

[Sir Charles]

I really like to let the threads go as long as people are interested and have something to say.

My only concern tends to be that if people aren't moving on to the next post that it means it has fallen flat in terms of generating interest.

[Krubozumo Nyankoye]

Well this is an interesting thread with a lot of good discussion so it is hard to leave it. One thing that might help expedite threads would be if the format could be changed to allow sub-threads to develop wherein one could respond in context to a comment or a comment on a comment. Dunno how hard that would be but it might make things more coherent. I know I have to read a lot to get up to date.

Last thing I will say here before moving over to the new thread - In some sense I think we are all missing the point. I know I tend to lose sight of it when I get wound up in thinking about all the missed opportunities, how radically things would be different if for example the ACA was a single payer plan that went into effect next year. If wishes were horses....

Obama has to get things done despite the fact that it seems like nearly nobody else in a position of power gives a damn.

We should ask ourselves, why are we even paying attention to the republicans at this stage? Well apparently it is because they are willing to do anything to diminish, demean and discredit anything that makes a real difference.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

On to Tuesday! oh wait...

[oddjob]

We should ask ourselves, why are we even paying attention to the republicans at this stage? Well apparently it is because they are willing to do anything to diminish, demean and discredit anything that makes a real difference.

Well, and beyond that, there's the fact that they are (as they have been since just before the Lincoln Administration) the country's only other major political party. In American news coverage inertia is a powerful, powerful unexamined feature.

I'm not sure that in my lifetime I've ever experienced a major political party going this far off into its own particular agenda wish list before. If it happened, it probably occurred in the early 1970's when I was an early adolescent and just becoming very familiar with politics. (I remember bits of the 1968 presidential campaign. I also remember some of the 1972 campaign, but only the autumn. It wasn't until the Watergate scandal that I really started paying attention to politics. I was fourteen when Nixon left office, and still remember where I was when I learned that Nixon was physically leaving the White House for California.) The last time I can recall a political party going this far off its own deep end was back during the 1980's, when Michael Foote was leading Britain's Labour Party into the wilderness of political purity/irrelevancy. Unfortunately for us at the moment, our lack of a parliamentary system's fluidity makes it much more likely that we'll be dealing with dangerously out there Republicans in the White House or in serious majorities in the Congress for some years, even though most Americans aren't interested in having our society become a theocracy with a banana republic economy (which are the two goals of today's Republican base, although most of their base probably hasn't even realized that yet).

[oddjob]

how radically things would be different if for example the ACA was a single payer plan that went into effect next year. If wishes were horses....

Indeed! How ironic that it took a Rockefeller Republican Democrat of a president to shepherd Nixon's healthcare plan through a Congress with a such a Goldwater-esque Republican Party (and in the process end up with that Rockefeller Republican getting branded as a dangerously left wing socialist)!

[oddjob]

(There are times when I'm very comfortable with Rockefeller Republicans. If you asked me where I stood on enough issues - in a face to face conversation - you might well conclude I am myself a Rockefeller Republican. Having said that, when it comes to healthcare I'd MUCH prefer "Medicare for all"!)

[Joe S]

oddjob, I always was open to Rockerfeller Republicans and voted for several of them before they became Democrats. The failure of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama policies on privatization have left me to doubt whether Rockerfeller Republicanism is an answer for our time.

[oddjob]

The failure of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama policies on privatization have left me to doubt whether Rockerfeller Republicanism is an answer for our time.

It also probably should be telling that the last nationally prominent Rockefeller Republican was Gerald Ford's Vice President (& Gerald Ford didn't select him to be his vice presidential running mate in 1976, either)....

The only Rockefeller now prominent in national politics is a Democrat from West Virginia.

One of the most powerful American political stories of my entire lifetime is the loss of clout and prevalence of moderate and liberal Republicans. At the inception of the Republican Party its political left (for that era) defined what a Republican was. (Go read up on Thaddeus Stevens if you don't believe me.) That all began to change very shortly after the end of the Civil War, when Rutherford Hayes became president. That was the beginning of when the Republican Party ceased to be a radical leftist party and began to become a party of conservatism.

However, we are now witnessing the transformation of the Republican Party from a party of big business conservatism to a political party of far right (almost fascist) theocracy and (simultaneously, but incompatibly) macroeconomic libertarianism.

If today's Republican Party had its wish list completely come to pass, the next generation of Americans would be living in a theocracy with a banana republic economy.

[Paula B]

Well said, OJ.

Just got back from a family reunion in West Virginia. On the way down, I told my husband what life used to be like there in the 1950s and 1960s. Then, in the 1970s something happened that changed everything for the better. That something was Jay Rockefeller.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

After last night's cave-in on the scheduling of the Joint Session, and the refusal to raise the roof in outrage over the games with FEMA relief, I don't believe I care who is elected to succeed President Boehner and Vice-President Cantor.

I no lnger plan on even discussing it, and if it weren't for the problems with the "Medicaid grab-back' that means that if we were to sell our house to move, medicaid would have the right to reclaim anything they have given us -- as would happen if we tried to will our properties (some "entitlement"!!), I would be trying to investigate the possibilities of moving to Amsterdam or London.

Was it just two days ago that Sir Charles wrote "But I do think that Obama could help his cause by showing more fight."

The epitaph to a failed Administration -- "it wouldn't even fight to protect its rightful prepogatives, it never could imagine fighting for the people who elected it."

As bad as the clown car is -- and remember I was the first person here to talk about the NAE as far back as Spring 2010 if not earluer -- there is about a .07% chance that they could create a peaceful revolution against themselves. Obama's wreckage is less repairable than even that.

I don't often quote Bramwell, a cartoonist who is extremely conservative and rarely funny, vut when he had Michelle Obama berating her husband "Honey, you shrunk the Presidency" he got it dead right.

No, I won't defend my remarks. After last night, I've got better things to do -- whatever they are.

[Paula B]

Prup---are you sure the Medicaid grab-back hasn't been in place for quite some time? When my parents died a few years ago, Medicaid 'reclaimed' whatever they left behind, which wasn't much. This was 3-4 years ago, before this administration.

[Paula B]

Ah, rules probably vary from state to state, since it's federal money administered by states. They didn't live in NY.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Never said it was new, just was in the way of moving. It's been around for years, just never gets mentioned it 'entitlement' debates.

[Paula B]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

[kathy a.]

oh, for dog's sake. i have absolutely no idea why a scheduling conflict that was resolved is being reported as some major cave-in by the administration, or some major victory of the GOP. wtf? why is this even an issue? is there no real news?

scheduling conflicts happen all the damned time, in all spheres of public and private life. this is not an issue.

prup -- with all respect, i appreciate the dilemma of paybacks to medicaid, but you aren't mentioning the other part. deals like that were brokered so that people with little income, facing medical needs, would not have to sell their homes and end up on the streets.

these deals generally require assets to be paid down before one is qualified for medicaid -- you can't keep more than a certain amount in savings, you can't keep the vacation home, you can't keep the collection of valuable items, etc., if you expect to be covered by medicaid. homes and household goods, though, are protected.

i have one of those proverbial bleeding hearts, but i can't work up a good argument against these arrangements. forcing people to sell their homes to qualify for needed medical care under medicaid would only create greater hardships. (you know i favor universal single-payer health care, which might alleviate this problem, but that doesn't exist here.)

[Paula B]

kathy, re: scheduling conflict as news. "Is there no real news?"

Obviously there is, but when you report on life/politics/national events as if you were reporting on a football game, you only look for the team that has the momentary advantage, the one that has moved ahead in the league standings, the injuries, the setbacks and the minor league players waiting for a chance at the big time. That's what CNN/Fox do ad nauseum, and apparently they've convinced the other networks (excluding PBS) to do the same.

The answer to your question is: yes, there is news, we just don't know how to report it.

[Sir Charles]

I'm with kathy on this. The moving of the speech is a nothing -- Obama engaged in a little gamesmanship over the scheduling. The Speaker balked -- he backed off. Within 24 hours no one cares. And none of the voters that we need to reach are even aware it happened.

As for the FEMA money, Jesus, if Cantor really wants to go down that path, why not give him enough rope. He is increasingly detached from reality -- his own constituents got hit pretty hard from the hurricane and McDonnell is screaming about getting aid for Virginia. Cantor, not Obama, will be the loser here if he persists.

[oddjob]

Freshman Republican representative from NY 19th Congressional District (immediately north of Metro NYC, extending from PA/NJ boundary to CT boundary and roughly centered on Peekskill), Nan Hayworth, wakes up to this in local newspaper:

Hayworth seeking to withhold disaster money unless it is offset by budget cuts

Hat tip, Talking Points Memo.

Cantor's not the only one not living in reality.

[nancy]

SirC -- Cantor isn't just persisting. He's expanding. Now blithely pissing off his own constituents . I didn't think he could exceed his previously established arrogance level. Wrong.

[Joe S]

And the sad thing is, he wins his district next year by 20-25 points.

[Paula B]

Most of Hayworth's district is just south of the horror area, which is all of the Catskills and north to Schenectady/Albany. Ulster County did have flooding and parts of it lost power, however, and I think her district includes the southern part of Ulster, including New Paltz. Hayworth ousted one-termer John Hall(D), songwriter and former lead singer for Orleans (You're Still the One, Dance with Me), fyi. I would suggest they do her part to balance the budget by giving up her salary and health insurance, if she doesn't really need it. I believe that would qualify as non-defense discretionary spending.

[Paula B]

Just looked up the 19th NY congressional district. It includes parts of Orange, Dutchess, Rockland, Westchester and all of Putnam counties. No Ulster, no New Paltz. That's a fairly affluent district, compared to its neighbors to the north and west.

[nancy]

Joe -- And I really will move over to the other thread for any further observations :+) --
as I've said previously, if I could be of service working at a phone bank, licking envelopes, doorbelling, whatever, to turn this clown out of office, I'd consider it a high-calling indeed and time well-spent.

Paula -- Until I saw the clips at your blog I wasn't entirely sure, but Wilmington is where we spent a time-share vacation some years ago. Last place we hit before leaving was Dot's. What I remember about all of those state routes is that they meander over hill and dale making getting from point a to b amazingly time-consuming, from the perspective of a transplanted Westerner. I can only imagine what this devastation will mean to Vermonters and upstate NYers this winter.

[Paula B]

Kathy---Wilmington sits halfway between Bennington and Brattleboro, each 20 miles away. NOw, with roads and bridges out, you have to drive about 40 miles on back (mostly dirt) roads to get to Bratt and probably closer to 50 to get to Bennington. In fact, you must drive to Mass, then back up on the other side of the breaks in the road to get to Bennington. Those are very slow miles, too, as you point out.
The damage to the Killington road is unbelievable. There's video on YouTube. Also video shot from a helicopter of the bridge west of Wilmington that collapsed. Unlike the 200-year-old, wooden, covered bridges that fell into the water, this one was concrete, engineered and part of a new four-lane section of Route 9, running between NYS and NH, connecting Bennington and Brattleboro, the two largest towns in the southern half of the state.
The owners just remodeled Dot's last year, after barely touching the place for, maybe, 50 years. Did you notice the foundation it came off of? Loose, flat rocks. That's very common here in older buildings. Quite amazing really.
Obama gave VT federal disaster status tonight, which will have big impact. A big morale booster. Thanks! Also, the National Guard has done amazing things with their earth movers, allowing people to feel safe enough to walk out and help clean up the muck. Still no potable water., but the grocery store plans to reopen tomorrow and will throw a free town picnic this weekend.
Add, I don't think people worry as much about winter as they do about losing tourist dollars because in some areas, that's all they've got coming in.

[kathy a.]

paula, i think you meant that for nancy. but i looked at the VT flooding map on mapquest, and wow. such a lot to deal with. i've only been to VT once, a long time ago.

[nancy]

Paula -- I think you meant my Vermont memories. No?

[Paula B]

right, sorry.

[krubozumo Nyankoye]

Okay Jim, here is my paragraph in response without reading any of the later comments first, I obviously had read all the comments up to yours.

Mr. Obama is a neophytye in the circles of ultimate power and he has not flexed his potential might yet. But he is not either intimidated at all by the obscenely bigotted opposition he confronts. Anyone who claims that it is not obvious that there is a strong racist taint to the whole republican attitude is either a fool or a liar. Thus Obama is confronted with a unique set of circumstances, but in my opinion he is equipped to deal with them, he managed to get elected president. That in itself is not a small thing. Subsequently he has managed as stated above against adamant and universal opposition to accomplish a few things.

Someone here please ask and answer if you can what the policies of Rick Perry would be concerning the major issues we confront?

I have to ask, is it raining yet in Texas?