Month: September 2008

Heartland Values

by digby

This is awful:

Parents are abandoning teenagers at Nebraska hospitals, in a case of a well intentioned law inspiring unintended results. Over the last two weeks, moms or dads have dropped off seven teens at hospitals in the Cornhusker state, indicating they didn’t want to care for them any more. “They were tired of their parenting role,” according to Todd Landry of Nebraska’s Department of Human and Human Services, quoted in USA Today. Under a newly implemented law, Nebraska is the only state in the nation to allow parents to leave children of any age at hospitals and request they be taken care of, USA Today notes. So-called “safe haven laws” in other states were designed to protect babies and infants from parental abandonment. The most eye-popping case in Nebraska occurred Wednesday, when a 34-year-old father deposited nine children ages 1 to 17 at Creighton University Medical Center — and then walked away.

I don’t imagine there’s anything unusual about nebraska that precipitated this odd response. It could probably happen anywhere that made a law like this. But you can’t help but be struck by the numbers.

What is going on in this country? Sometimes I feel like this is the leading edge of an era that could make Dickensian England look fair and compassionate by comparison.

.

Schmears

Dear God, I love these guys:

In the midst of re-creating the controversial New Yorker cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama for the cover photo that graces this week’s print edition of Entertainment Weekly, Jon Stewart stops briefly to pose a taste question. As he stands by the catering table in ”secret Muslim” garb, he ponders, ”Would it be weird to be dressed like this and have a bagel, salmon, and a schmear?” Pseudo-blowhard Stephen Colbert has his own worries. Striking his best Michelle-as-Black-Panther pose, he glances at the original cartoon and realizes that he’s ”hippier” than the potential First Lady. Gesturing at his own waist, he moans, ”I could drop a baby like a peasant.”

[…]

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Do you think anything will change if the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress?

JON STEWART: Look at what they promised when they took over Congress. I’ve never heard such hardcore rhetoric. ”The era of the blank check is over! And we will send a sternly worded memorandum — nonbinding — to somebody at the White House. Not necessarily the inner executive circle, we certainly don’t want to offend, but…” And then they got in and were like, ”Really, you want to eavesdrop? Okay, we’ll let this one go. But this is the last blank check! Unless you want another. But let me say this: The next one will not be blank, because we’ll just write in the memo line. Can we write in memo? Would you be bothered by that?”

STEPHEN COLBERT: One of the things I love about my character is I can make vast declarations and it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong. I love being wrong. So my character can tell you exactly what’s going to happen: The Democrats are going to change everything. We’re going to have gay parents marrying their own gay babies. Obama’s gonna be sworn in on a gay baby. The oath is gonna end ”So help me, gay baby.”

STEWART: Then they’ll head right over to the abortion mixer. There’ll be a dance, and then there’ll be a little tent set up outside, just in case anybody wants an RU-486.

I’ve honestly been wondering lately how I ever got along without them. They are truly instrumental in keeping me sane.

.

Diva Dudes

by digby

Last night as I was watching the debate I had the nagging feeling that Mccain reminded me of something, but I couldn’t my finger on who it was. Then it came to me:

He too, was a loose cannon who appealed to people because he spouted macho bromides about “getting under the hood and fixin it.” (He was also obsessed with the POW story, although he and McCain were on opposite sides and hated each other.)

That election was also a freak show, featuring an irascible Diva and a lot of strange tabloid nonsense. Perot kicked off hisrun on Larry King and then abruptly dropped out without an adequate explanation. He started up again in October, explaining that his earlier aborted campaign was due to a secret plan by George Bush to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. And he had Admiral Stockdale as his running mate.

There seems to be a disturbing trend developing in which Americans flirt with electing serious nuts for president. (That’s when they aren’t electing serious fools.)

.

Obama: Calm, Sane, Rational, Intelligent, Focused, and Tough

by tristero

One of the most striking aspects of Obama’s approach to politics and problem definition is his sane, reasonable focus. His is the very oppositie of the paranoid style of American politics that characterizes the right wing world view. Obama doesn’t blow up issues out of proportion, claiming an “existential threat” where none exists. Instead the focus remains on the problem at hand, contained, comprehensible, and therefore amenable to rational attempts at problem solving.

In the debate last night, over and over Obama’s impressive power to concentrate intensively on the issue at hand and remain focused was on display. For example, during the discussion on Russia, Obama displayed a clear grasp of the situation. The Russian invasion of Georgia was unacceptable and our relationship with Russia had to be re-evaluated in that light. All the “fledgling democracies” in NATO- Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic – must have our support and solidarity. Regarding Georgia and Ukraine, they must have the right to join NATO if they meet the requirements. Of paramount importance in the relationship with Russia going forward is the issue of loose nukes which, Obama mentioned, he had taken up directly in the Senate.

This is not only an accurate picture of reality that avoids unnecessary complications.* It is an analysis that organizes the issues in relationship to America’s self-interest and security – our major interest with Russia right now is, Obama says, keeping those loose nukes out of terrorist hands. It may be arguable that that should be the main focus, perhaps energy should be, but Obama’s approach is carefully thought out, sensible, and invites further discussion and focus.

The views of Obama’s opponent were, by contrast, alarmingly disorganized. Or rather, they were organized – badly and stupidly – in accord with textbook rightwing paranoia, narcissism, and manicheism. Russia is a KGB apparatchik, ie evil torturers, the associations to McCain’s own experience more than implied. Russia “controls” sources of energy. Both are fearful statements and neither are accurate. Russia is not the KGB redux – that is a gross oversimplification and a deliberate attempt to frighten by invoking the Cold War. Russia’s “control” of energy pipelines pulls the same stunt, using scary rhetoric to blow Russia’s energy concerns out of all proportion.

Then, paranoia – there really is no other word – thorougly floods McCain’s rhetoric: “And watch Ukraine. This whole thing has got a lot to do with Ukraine, Crimea, the base of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol.” No, it doesn’t. “The whole thing” doesn’t – that’s crazy talk. Those are separate issues and situations. The invasion of Georgia has got a lot to do with…Georgia. McCain’s style of reasoning – to use the word very loosely – is the kind that leads to the mistake that Iraq was behind 9/11.

McCain was consistent in his inconsistency, distracted by irrelevant personal details, utterly incoherent, and reacting by the seat of his pants. His foreign policy is infused with unreasoning, poorly articulated, and unnecessary fear. The world is indeed a dangerous place, Nevertheless, it is not dangerous in the way McCain think it is, but in other ways. That makes McCain’s paranoia exceedingly dangerous.

Throughout the debate, Obama kept focused, elucidating an essentially “realist” foreign policy informed by American self-interest and containment of problems. He was prudent and clearheaded. The world to Obama is a complex and often aggressive place. But it can be managed by thinking carefully about the problems, refusing to exaggerate threats, and maintaining focus.

Whatever else the debate did, and it’s very unclear to me who “won” or “lost,” it made it glaringly obvious that Barack Obama was the only person on that stage with the qualifications and intellectual gravitas to be president of the United States.

UPDATE: Very nice from Biden:

UPDATE: Sadly, Obama just lost a great voter. RIP, Paul Newman. You’re already deeply missed.
—-

* For example, yes, Georgia fired first, but Russia deliberately provoked the situation to have an excuse for invasion. The hot-headed and erratic Saakashvili foolishly took the bait. The simple version, quite appropriate for the context of Obama’s remarks, is Russia invaded.

The Spin

by dday

I think the media are talking themselves into this being a draw which is a win for Obama. Even though nearly half of the debate was on economic issues, the focus was supposed to be foreign policy, which was supposed to be some kind of strong suit for McCain. So there’s that kind of bias.

McCain obviously seemed contemptuous and would not look at Obama. There’s a likability factor that might loom large here. Expect the SNL parody tomorrow night, which for the bobbleheads does tend to set opinions, to focus on that.

On the other front, there’s this “I agree with my opponent on this point, but…” maneuver from Obama. Jamison Foser has a pretty good post about how saying “I agree with my opponent, but…” is a completely normal political construction. The winger correspondents are going to want to go wild with this (and expect a commercial with all of that in there) and I think the dumber pundits will agree, but it’s already being rebutted among some of the talking heads I’m seeing. We’ll see. Throughout the 2000 debates, the big focus was on Gore’s sighs. McCain sneered, chuckled, and was really pretty belligerent and angry and offended to be on the same stage as Obama throughout. The media has a choice to make whether to focus on that, or focus on this “I agree with John” business.

The polls seem to favor Obama, and I think the pundits are deciding to go with that since they didn’t have a clear picture.

…A possible X factor post-debate is the fact that Kissinger, indeed, did back direct talks with Iran “without conditions.” But the McCain campaign, sensing this, walked out a press release from Kissinger saying that he agreed with McCain, albeit on the narrow point of what level of staff should meet, which wasn’t the question.

.

Reflexive Recoil

by digby

It’s very hard for me to gauge this debate because to me John McCain is quite obviously a crazy, intemperate, nasty old bastard. He was sarcastic, contemptuous and patronizing. I really, really loathe him. But then, I loathe Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck too, who are also domineering, macho pricks. (On the other hand Barack said “I agree with John” about 832 times, so perhaps I’m misjudging him.)

The early consensus seems to be that they both did well but that McCain exceeded expectations so he won. Who could ever have predicted that?

Did I mention that I really, really loathe that creepy, fascistic jackass John McCain? Ugh.

Update: Whew. The early polling suggests that people think Obama won by pretty large margins. I thought so. But I don’t trust myself on these things ever since George W. Bush won two elections and people compared him to Winston Churchill with a straight face. I’m relieved to see that I haven’t completely lost my judgment.

The Frank Luntz and Stanley Greenberg focus groups went overwhelmingly for Obama. And a CBS poll of undecideds went for Obama 40%-22%.Update: The CNN polls goes to Barack, 51%-38%.

.

Mad Men

by dday

I’m watching this maniac Chris Matthews and his courtiers trying to analyze this upcoming debate, and the consensus seems to be that the winner will be whoever has that “zinger” moment (it’s really come to who has the best stand-up writers), and Obama has to act like a regular guy instead of giving these complicated answers that reflect the complex nature of the world. Because he can’t be seen as too good or too smart, which would be seen as “elite” and “cool”. You know, like Chris Matthews.

I’m not sure I disagree totally with this analysis, but it does reinforce my belief that 1) America has the stupidest system for choosing a President as any in the industrialized world, so mind-bogglingly inane that picking a name from the phone book would be more rigorous; and 2) these so-called pundits should be forced to gag themselves inside the 30-day election window for the good of the country.

Post Traumatic Patriotism Disorder

by digby

Tonight we are going to hear at least something about foreign policy. And John McCain is going to preen and prance and take credit for the great and glorious victory in Iraq. And I, for one, would cheer if Obama replied, “Taking pride in the fact that people are still dying in a war that never should have happened in the first place is the strangest definition of patriotism I’ve ever heard.”

And then he should hand him a copy of this article.

.

Shrill But True

Krugman:

… the failure to get a deal reflects the betrayals of the Bush years. Democrats weren’t going to trust Henry Paulson, because behind him they see the ghost of Colin Powell (and Paulson’s “all your bailout are belong to me” proposal, aside from being bad economics, showed an incredible tone-deafness.)

And after the way the Bushies and their allies double-crossed the Democrats again and again in the aftermath of 9/11 — demand national unity, then accuse you of being soft on terrorists anyway — there’s no way Pelosi and Reed will do the responsible but unpopular thing unless the Republicans agree to share ownership.

So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.

I don’t actually know that the responsible thing is the unpopular thing, but if it is, John Mccain and the Republican Party need to be super-glued to the Democratic majority as they all go sailing over the cliff together. No way, no how, no punk’d. How many times are they supposed to put their heads in the lion’s mouth?

For another view, here’s Thomas Frank in the WSJ, suggesting that if McCain want’s to understand ‘what went wrong” all he has to do is call upon the people staffing the Straighttalk Express: they were among those responsible, including the candidate himself

Here’s just one example:

Mr. McCain could call Kevin Hassett, one of his senior economic advisers, who declared back in March in the Bangkok Post that the blame for the current crisis could be laid at the feet of “out-of-control government regulation,” mainly in the form of municipal smart-growth initiatives. (That’s right: The man whispering in the candidate’s ear seemed to once believe that not-in-my-backyard suburbanites caused the worst financial collapse since 1929.)

Hey, that’s nothing to what most right wingers are saying these days: it’s all about the black and the Mexicans. I wrote about that earlier, Glennzilla finds even more evidence:

National Review’s Mark Krikorian notes that (1) Washington Mutual became the largest bank to fail in American history yesterday and (2) its last press release touted the fact that it was named one of America’s most diverse employers, having been “honored specifically for its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees, reach out to Hispanic consumers and support Hispanic communities and organizations”; for being “named [one of] the top 60 companies for Hispanics”; for “attaining equal rights for GLBT employees and consumers”; for having “earned points for competitive diversity policies and programs, including the recently established Latino, African American and GLBT employee network groups”; and for being “named one of 25 Noteworthy Companies by Diversity Inc magazine and one of the Top 50 Corporations for Supplier Diversity by Hispanic Enterprise magazine.”

While juxtaposing these two facts — (1) WaMu has a racially and ethnically diverse workforce and (2) WaMu collapsed yesterday — the National Review writer headlined his post: “Cause and Effect?” He apparently believes that the reason Washington Mutual failed may be because it employed and was too accommodating to large numbers of Hispanics, African-Americans and gays.

When you’re on the ropes, blame the blacks, browns and homos. What else have they got?

Meanwhile, a few Democratic senators have put forth a new plan that sounds at least a little bit more responsible. This item sounds like common sense to me:

Second, the funds requested by the Treasury Department should be released in installments. A ‘tranched’ approach would permit the Congress to properly fulfill its oversight role and to monitor the implementation of a new regulatory structure.

Now, that may not accomplish what Paulson and Bernanke think that the big whopping 700 billion dollar confetti drop on Wall Street will accomplish, namely a “slap in the face” but that may actually be a good thing. The markets may be hysterical but they aren’t likely to be calmed down by the Treasury Secretary throwing around piles of money for sheer effect.

Update: Someone should send this to Sarah Palin so she can put it on her crib sheet.

.

Pre-Emptive Throw-Over

by dday

Digby mentioned Roy Blunt’s comments, but he also said something else.

REP. ROY BLUNT: Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing.

Republicans certainly want to reconstitute their party, but I don’t think they want to do it with John McCain at the helm. We’re starting to see rumblings from conservatives feeling uneasy about Sarah Palin and even calling for her to be dropped from the ticket. In many ways they’d be thrilled with McCain voting the other way on this. Republicans are BETTER in the opposition, and it would be a cleaner way for them to reconstitute themselves.

.