Skip to content

Month: August 2008

American Dream X-Treme

by digby

Richard Blair at All Spin Zone writes today about how the right successfully paints the Democrats as elites.

I found this image illustrating McCain and Obama’s tax plans to be most intriguing:

To me, the Democrats should be able to rest their case on that alone.But because the right has been so successful in portraying vast wealth as the result of some sort of Randian heroics that Americans don’t grasp just what a scam McCain’s tax plan really is.

I don’t know how to change that. Every American seems to think he or she will be wealthy one day and therefore we must preserve the system that protects their future wealth. (I think it may be some sort of mass delusion that comes from reading too many articles in People magazine celebrating the vast wealth of talentless TV stars. (“If they can do it, I certainly can!”)

But this may not be as easy in the coming years as it once was. This new economic era will likely not be as comfy as we’re used to(although we’ll still have plenty of entertainment opiates to distract us) and that rising tide lifts all boats thing may look increasingly like the Ponzi scheme it really is. But I’m, not sure of it. Americans are so attracted to this American Dream X-Treme that I don’t know if they’ll ever wise up.

You have to wonder how anyone could look at that chart and think they will be better off economically under McCain. It takes a very “special” kind of optimism.

.

Two Front War

by digby

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I don’t have a lot of trust in some of the newest residents of the Big Democratic Tent. I just get the feeling that they don’t have a lot of respect for my values — or me. Pastor Dan explains why:

The man from Sojourners oozes patriarchy in response to his readers’ questions about discouraging abortions:

Support for women caught up in difficult situations and tragic choices is a better path than coercion for really reducing the abortion rate. Yes, I agree there is never a “need” for abortion except in the case where the health of the mother is threatened. But until we can reach out to women who “feel” the need for abortion and support them in alternative choices, we will never change the shameful abortion rate that both sides seem content to live with while they just attack each other. It is time to move from symbols to solutions.

[…]

This is literally the most patronizing attempt to legislate morality that I have seen in a long long time, outside of the Bush administration. It is smug, elitist and condescending. There is no vision of social benefit, no argument about the values of one policy option over another. When it boils down to it, the purpose of this dubious proposal is to make the Democratic party safe for people like Wallis and other pro-lifers who want to act upon women in the guise of “reaching out to them.”

I don’t want to hear any more crap about how “we’re all on the same team.” Until Jim Wallis can start his discussion of abortion with the recognition that women are moral agents in their own right and don’t need him to guide their decision-making, we’re not on the same team at all.

(read the whole post for the full argument…)

So that’s our new best friend’s argument from inside the tent. From outside we have this:

The Bush Administration has drafted a set of regulations that could seriously undermine the ability of American women to get birth control. The draft regulations put politics above women’s health care needs.

As currently written, the Bush regulations extend federal law, allowing more health care institutions like insurance companies, pharmacies, and hospitals to refuse to provide contraceptive services and information.

In recent years, states across the country have passed laws that protect women’s access to birth control. The Bush regulations specifically seek to undermine these important protections, including laws that:

*
Require employers to provide contraceptive coverage on an equal basis with all other prescriptions in their insurance plans,
*
Require pharmacies to fill prescriptions for birth control,
*
Require emergency rooms to offer rape survivors emergency contraception (under the draft rule, hospitals could be exempted from even having to tell rape survivors that such contraception exists),
*
Permit state and local governments to refuse to allow hospitals to merge when the result would be the elimination of reproductive health services.

In addition, the draft rule could require government-funded health centers to hire employees who will refuse to do their job. For example, if implemented, the regulations could force a family-planning center to hire a receptionist who refuses to make appointments for women seeking birth control. The rule could also make it easier for organizations that refuse to provide women with contraceptive services and information to get government money designed to support reproductive health care centers.

Who are these pharmacists who don’t believe in birth control and why is this suddenly the urgent business of the federal government? And what does Jim Wallis have to say about them?

Even so-called Republican moderates like Darcy Burner’s opponent Dave Reichert in Washington think this is good public policy, so this is clearly not a fringe position. Where’s this nonsense coming from? (Oh right…)

It seems to me that if they are sincere, Wallis and the other religious leaders who say they want to reduce abortions would be spending their time talking to people like Reichert about the need for people to have unfettered access to Birth control rather than lecturing liberals who already support those efforts and have for years. Of course, one would have to assume that Wallis really wants to help prevent unwanted pregnancy rather than just wants to make abortions — and sex — shameful and those who have abortions and sex subject to the “punishment” of childbirth.

It just seems to me that he and his pals would do more good persuading the right to stop demonizing sex and birth control than “persuading” women to give birth against their will. (And by the way, giving up a child for adoption is a hell of a lot more complicated than exercising the feel-good “Juno Option.” Ask women who went through nine months of pregnancy and gave up their kids just how “simple” it was.)

These two assaults on women’s reproductive rights — the “gentle” persuasion of our new friends who say “we just want to make women realize they don’t need to have abortions” combined with the harsh assault by the religious right to limit women’s access to birth control makes it obvious that this battle is now being fought on twin fronts.

And one day soon, I’m sure we’ll see a brilliant compromise brokered between the Democrats and Republicans — the Republicans will reluctantly allow the government to “force” people to dispense birth control against their consciences and the Democrats will reluctantly agree that it’s necessary to force women to have children against their will. A lovely bipartisan outcome.

And then we’ll fight the damned thing all over again in the states, thus making sure that all the important players still have careers.

.

Stalkers

by dday

CNN has a shot of each potential Vice-Presidential candidate’s home up, with another camera staked out at Midway Airport in Chicago. It’s exceedingly weird, as if they’re waiting for OJ or something. It’s just killing the Village that they have to wait like the mere plebes for this decision. Georgia10 had a great take:

I flip to CNN, where a perky Kyra Phillps leads in to “political expert” Bill Schneider for an update. Schneider blurts out with frustration what has been echoed by pundits across the channels all morning: they keep saying “I don’t know” and “it’s anybody’s guess” and “I wish there was some insider information I could give you, but….” Schneider and other are pressed for any hints, any indication of who He or She will be, and the pundits keep coming up dry.

It’s beautiful.

In one fell swoop, by choosing to disclose his vice-presidential pick directly to voters through text messaging rather than revealing his pick through choice leaks to the press, the Obama camp has given us a momentary reprieve from having to watch smirk-faced pundits gloat about “inside scoops” and “my sources tell me.” No “scoops” for the Villagers, followed by anti-climactic press conferences to the people as an afterthought. No “special access” to them, no matter how much they clamor. Technology has allowed the Obama camp to keep all, reporter and regular citizen alike, on the edge of their seats.

The text message thing was kind of brilliant, not only for the technological possibilities and the harvesting of contacts, but just to ramp up the suspense. And watching these media types flail about, reporting on absolutely nothing, spending hours dying for their insider access, is nothing short of priceless.

.

The Hits Just Keep On Coming

by dday

Another ad from Barack Obama on The John McCain Show:

Hilariously, the McCain campaign put together a new ad today as well, and it opens with – I kid you not – “Celebrities don’t have to worry about family budgets, but we do.”

Yeah, I guess when you don’t even know how many homes you have, a family budget is hard to set. Who knows how many mortgages you’re paying?

The house gaffe made every major paper this morning, and was featured on every nightly newscast. And even a fount of conventional wisdom like Chris Cillizza gets why this matters. And even the “You can’t say that to me, I was a POW” defense is ringing stale among the punditocracy.

I never thought I’d see this kind of paragraph in print:

McCain, who has portrayed Obama as an elitist, is the son and grandson of admirals. The Associated Press estimates his wife, a beer heiress, is worth $100 million. Obama was raised by a single mother who relied at times on food stamps, and went to top schools on scholarships and loans. His income has increased from book sales since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Hilarious.

Of course this is ticky-tack, but as I’ve said, this is how the media works in the modern age, and your choices as a Democrat are limited. Here’s Krugman:

First, Republicans always — always — campaign by portraying the Democratic candidate as an out-of-touch elitist, while their guy is a man of the people. Al Gore grew up in a penthouse apartment! (In a shabby residence hotel, but never mind.) John Kerry windsurfs! Meanwhile, George Bush vacations at his ranch (bought as a prop for the 2000 campaign — and he doesn’t ride horses — but somehow that never got brought up.)

Protesting that the candidate is really a wonderful guy doesn’t work. Stupid as it may seem, counterattack is the only option. If the Gore campaign had gone after the fakeness of the Bush ranch, or the cronyism that made Bush rich, the world would be a different place today.

Exactly. I would love a high-minded battle of ideals, but I’m not going to sit around waiting for it to happen.

There was worry that Obama wouldn’t be likely to attack in the same fashion as McCain, and would resort to “shame on you” entreaties. But yesterday’s action was swift, to the point, and overwhelming, and they’ve sustained it. The GOP does not make this kind of thing a one-day affair. They continue to mock their opponent in any way possible to cut into them and make them a ridiculous figure. Peter Daou has the blueprint:

Expanding the theme, it’s worth noting that the rightwing attack machine has been effective in the past because it serves a singular purpose: diminishing opponents through mockery and marginalization. Bloggers have referred to recent presidential campaigns as “genital-swinging contests” (we’re using the clean version). That crude image underlines the strategy: make your opponent look small – or smaller. Shrinkage, for Seinfeld buffs. Think of how Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and their cohorts operate – it’s all about the laughter, the joking, the snide remarks, the scoffing. It’s about cutting someone down to size, making them look meek and meager.

Democrats have been stumped by the technique, missing the underlying purpose and getting sidetracked by the minutiae of the attacks. ‘Rovian’ is an overused adjective, but it is mistaken as a strategy of attacking an opponent’s strength as an end in itself, when that’s just one tactic in the larger mission of systematically belittling the opponent. Going after their strength is a logical part of reducing their stature.

Democratic/progressive attacks generally run the gamut from negative character association (X is just like Y) to policy contrasts (we can handle the economy better than X) to one-off hits and ‘Macaca moments’ (X flubbed the name of a country) to impugning the attacker (look how nasty my opponent is). These can be effective, particularly the latter, but they are qualitatively different from the rightwing machine’s diminishment of an opponent’s character. That’s something that Democrats don’t do as well. It’s less about negative frames, contrasts, rapid response, and all the other mainstays of political strategy and more about making your opponent the butt of a joke.

It’s not like there aren’t additional facts to add into the stew. McCain’s net worth is $36 million dollars, almost 40 times that of Obama. McCain has butlers. BUTLERS! The John McCain Show had 9-car entourage at Starbucks to pick up a latte yesterday. There’s still the matter of getting McCain on the record about the exact number, and detailing – in excruciating detail – all the homes. There are potential events like ringing keys at the DNC and visits to all the compounds. If McCain does indeed pick rich venture capitalist Mitt Romney, then the whole thing is amplified.

A good example of how the right pulls this off is their war on George Soros, where they clamped down and simply didn’t let go:

Soros himself is now cautious about who he funds, refusing to act as lead donor in controversial initiatives where his presence could endanger the project’s credibility. Similarly, various programs and groups are now more cautious about taking Soros’s money because they’re worried about the association. Thus, these projects don’t get funded, and good work doesn’t get done.

It’s been a remarkable coup for the Right, who realized, in 2004, that Soros was readying to step up as an aggressive liberal donor and politicized his money so effectively that he couldn’t fully inhabit his role in the liberal fundraising universe. It’s been an extraordinarily effective effort to starve edgy initiatives of funding. Conversely, liberals have never put much energy into marginalizing conservative donors. If you called something Olin-funded, or Coors-funded, people would scratch their heads. Sheldon Adelson, the gambling tycoon who’s pumping tens of millions into the right wing advocacy group Freedom’s Watch, isn’t even a household name among liberal political professionals. Yet Soros, who spent most of his life funding democratization efforts in the post-Soviet bloc, is somehow radioactive. It’s nuts.

That’s because, even after they’ve destroyed the guy, they’re still going after him, like in this Michelle Malkin piece claiming that there’s some clause in the DNC platform that will open up the money gates for him in an Obama White House. One, what does a billionaire like Soros need with more money? Two, if anyone ought to know about corporate welfare programs, it’d be conservatives, particularly those like Malkin who might as well get a paycheck directly from Scaife or Olin.

It’s real simple; you choose your target, find a line of attack, and relentlessly hammer it in various ways, with total message discipline from surrogates (I’m looking at you, Russ Feingold). And you do it every day for about 3 months.

That’s how you fight fire with fire.

.

Taxes

by tristero

Krugman:

Mr. McCain wants to preserve almost all the Bush tax cuts, and add to them by cutting taxes on corporations. Mr. Obama wants to roll back the high-end Bush tax cuts — the cuts in tax rates on the top two income brackets and the cuts in tax rates on income from dividends and capital gains — and use some of that money to reduce taxes lower down the scale.

According to estimates prepared by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, those Obama tax increases would fall overwhelmingly on people with incomes of more than $200,000 a year. Are such people rich? Well, maybe not: some of those Mr. Obama proposes taxing are only denizens of lower Richistan, although the really big tax increases would fall on upper Richistan. But one thing’s for sure: Mr. Obama isn’t planning to raise taxes on the middle class, by any reasonable definition — even that of the Bush administration.

O.K., the Bush administration hasn’t actually offered a definition of “middle class.” But in May, the Treasury Department — which used to do serious tax studies, but these days just churns out Bush administration propaganda — released a report purporting to show, by looking at the tax bills of four hypothetical families, how the middle and working class would be hurt if the Bush tax cuts aren’t made permanent.

And when the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities looked at the report, it made an interesting catch. It turns out that Treasury’s hypothetical families got all their gains from the so-called middle-class provisions of the Bush tax cuts: the Child Tax Credit, the reduced tax bracket for lower incomes and marriage penalty relief.

These all happen to be provisions that Mr. Obama proposes leaving in place. In other words, the Bush administration itself implicitly defines the middle class as consisting of people making too little to end up paying additional taxes under the Obama plan.

Of course, all the evidence in the world won’t stop Republicans from claiming, as they always do, that Democrats are going to impose a crippling tax burden on ordinary hard-working Americans. But it just ain’t so.

Still At It

by dday

We often chronicle the voter suppression and intimidation machinations from the right. There’s also the use of US Attorneys to investigate Democrats at fortunate times for their Republican opponents. Despite the high-profile nature of the Don Siegelman case and others, this element of the Republican machine hasn’t been shut down. In fact, it’s in full force in a Senate race in Mississippi.

As federal courtwatchers wonder if the Mississippi Beef Plant investigation will entangle Senate candidate Ronnie Musgrove, a Federal Election Commission check shows U.S. Attorney Jim Greenlee contributed to his opponent.

Greenlee was nominated for the U.S. attorney post in 2001 by President George W. Bush, supported by Mississippi Sens. Thad Cochran and Trent Lott.

On Oct. 11, 2002 – just weeks before then-U.S. Rep. Roger Wicker won another term in Congress – Greenlee made a donation of $200 to Friends of Roger Wicker […]

In U.S. District Court, where Greenlee is the chief prosecutor, two Georgia company executives recently pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution to then-Gov. Musgrove’s 2003 re-election campaign. They admitted they hoped to ask Musgrove for help as they realized the Mississippi Beef Plant construction project was in trouble.

The project ultimately failed, leaving hundreds of people out of work and the state of Mississippi holding the bag on millions of loan guarantees. Two men have gone to prison on related fraud charges.

However, Musgrove has not been indicted and repeatedly insists he did nothing wrong.

Scott Horton has taken notice of this one, as it shares similarities with the Siegelman case that he’s been following closely – a former Democratic governor in the Deep South, a Republican operative masquerading as a US Attorney, and trumped-up charges designed to take down Musgrove. These executives plead guilty to the illegal contributions in a plea deal:

The three, all executives with The Facility Group of Smyrna, Ga., were largely left off the hook on the more serious charges that they had swindled the state out of at least $2 million and had left the plant’s vendors and contractors holding the bag. Instead, they were allowed in a plea bargain to confess to trying to buy influence with Musgrove by steering $25,000 to the then-governor’s unsuccessful re-election campaign in 2003.

The orchestrated guilty pleas — and the prosecutors’ suggestion that more indictments could be forthcoming — are a boon to the campaign of Republican Roger Wicker, who was appointed to the vacant Senate seat in December but is considered vulnerable. They leave a cloud over Musgrove in voters’ minds and provide more fodder for negative campaign ads from the G.O.P. camp, even though Musgrove has not been charged with any wrongdoing and there’s nothing in the court records to document he did anything illegal.

Well, maybe we can get somebody over at the Justice Department to investigate. Or I know, an independent body like the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights! Anyone know any of their new hires?

It looks like Hans von Spakovsky, an old TPM favorite, is back in business. The former Justice Department official, whose nomination to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was thwarted when Democrats objected to his long record of support for restrictions on voting rights, has been hired as a “consultant and temporary full-time employee” at the ostensibly bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) the agency confirmed to TPMmuckraker […]

Among Spakovsky’s duties will be overseeing the USCCR’s report on the Justice Department’s monitoring of the 2008 presidential elections, a source inside the USCCR told TPMmuckraker.

Spakovsky’s hiring is at the request of Commissioner Todd Gaziano, who works for the conservative Heritage Foundation on FEC issues and has defended Spakovsky in the press before. According to a federal government source, Gaziano has recommended Spakovsky at the government’s highest payscale — which would work out to about $124,010 annually if Spakovsky was to stay for an entire year.

Looks like we’re in good hands.

.

Sparring Partner?

by digby

For some reason this sounds like it’s Hillary to me:

In an interview in Chester, Va., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said he’s made up his mind, but he would not say whether he’s informed that person yet. “I won’t comment on anything else until I introduce our running mate to the world,” he said. “That’s all you’re going to get out of me.”

Obama said it was a difficult decision. “We had some great choices.”

Obama said he wanted somebody who is “prepared to be president” and who will be “a partner with me in strengthening this economy for the middle class and working families.”

He said he was looking for not just a partner but a sparring partner. “I want somebody who’s independent, somebody who can push against my preconceived notions and challenge me so we have got a robust debate in the White House.”

I wrote before that the Obama campaign has a flair for the theatrical and picking Clinton, after all the sturm and drang of the primaries and all this suspense of the last few weeks, is definitely a dramatic choice.

But who the hell knows? For all I know Tim Kaine is a real scrapper behind closed doors. But his hitting those themes about the middle class and working families (and being “challenged”) just sounded like Clinton to me when I rad it. Could just as easily be Biden.

Amato makes the case tonight for Clinton on the merits.

.

2012 Campaign Begins

by dday

The Man Called Petraeus puts out his first dogwhistle:

Gen. David Petraeus is used to controversy surrounding the war in Iraq, but his publicized thoughts on an Army chaplain’s book for Soldiers put him squarely in the middle of the ongoing conflict over religious proselytizing in the U.S. military.

The book is “Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel,” by Army Chaplain (Lt. Col.) William McCoy, and according to Petraeus’ published endorsement of the work, “it should be in every rucksack for those times when soldiers need spiritual energy.”

But the endorsement – which has spurred a demand by a watchdog group for Petraeus’ dismissal and court martial on the grounds of establishing a religious requirement on troops – was a personal view never intended for publication, the book’s author now says.

“In the process of securing … comments for recommending the book I believe there was a basic misunderstanding on my part that the comments were publishable,” McCoy said in an Aug. 19 email to Military.com. “This was my mistake.”

This endorsement has been on the book for close to a year. Petraeus must have been starting to worry that nobody would find out about it!

Can’t you hear the theocon right, musing, “I knew that Gen. Petraeus was a good Christian man! If only he were our guy instead of this McCain fellow. I’ll bet Petraeus wouldn’t consider one a’ them baby killers for his Vice President…”

McCain’s doing his best to keep the fundies in the tent this time around, but in their heart, they want the guy who writes blurbs on the “Jesus in the foxhole” book.

UPDATE: Wow, this might happen earlier than I thought:

People close to the campaign also floated a wild-card choice, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq. They said it was not beyond the realm of possibility that Mr. McCain would ask him to join the ticket, although General Petraeus has no experience in elective government and has said repeatedly that he is not interested in the vice presidency.

One adviser characterized General Petraeus, who presided over a recent reduction of violence in Iraq, as more of a wish-list candidate for Mr. McCain, who, like the general, long supported sending additional troops to quell the insurgency.

Not likely to happen, but it would be the ultimate “You can’t criticize me, I’m Charles Foster Kane!” ticket.

.

Things To Do In Denver When You’re Dem

by digby

For those of you who are going to be in Denver, I thought I extend an invitation to see ‘lil ole me chatting with some much more impressive luminaries on the topic of “Who’s Driving Whom? The Blogosphere vs. Mainstream Media” On Monday at 11 AM with Arianna Huffington, Jonathan Alter and Chris Cilizza.

If you would like to come, you can RSVP here. (Click on “learn more”) The Seachange program looks really interesting all week, so be sure to check out all the events.

I’ll also be lurking about various Campaign For America’s Future events. More on that later.

Mostly I’ll be stalking Stephen Colbert. You’re on notice Mister!

.

Wall Street Rat

by digby

….fuckers.

This one is too good to pass up — be sure you read the punch line after the excerpt via Reuters:

California’s attorney general is reviewing a request by former employees of IndyMac Bancorp Inc to investigate whether a New York senator triggered the bank’s collapse by releasing confidential information.

At issue is a much-publicized letter that Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, sent in June to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) questioning the company’s ability to survive.

The FDIC took control of IndyMac on July 11 after depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion over 11 days. It was the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history. At the time, OTS Director John Reich blamed Schumer’s letter for causing the run on the bank.

In a letter to Attorney General Jerry Brown last week, 51 former IndyMac workers wrote: “From the day (Schumer’s) letter was made public on June 26 until the closure of the bank, a run on the bank took place and the failure became inevitable.”

Who is behind this “groundswell” of (former) IndyMac workers? It turns out that the employee letter was distributed to the media by CRC Public Relations — yes, the group whose clients include the National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee.

And, CRC was the PR firm behind the company that published a book questioning 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s Vietnam service on a swift boat. Yes, those despicable, embarrassing festering boils on the Americans body politics: Liars, cheats & traitors all.

They never quit.

h/t to atrios