Month: August 2010

Bye Bye Bai

by digby

I wish I knew what it was about Paul Ryan in person that makes so many DC insiders all gooey inside. (Maybe it’s those blue, blue eyes of his.) Today’s Matt Bai encomium is a perfect case in point. Evidently Ryan is so charismatic and intelligent that Bai doesn’t even feel the need to bother discussing Ryan’s actual beliefs or goals since what matters is his alleged gift for impressing Democrats with charisma and intelligence. (I suppose there might be some truth to that, sadly, but Bai seems to think that a reporter should settle for the same thing.) Ryan’s a nice looking guy and he doesn’t sound like James Inhofe, but really, all these paeans to his his sharp intelligence and excellent temperament must be a result of something you can only see in person because what he actually says and believes is as radical as it comes. Not to mention kind of … well … dumb.

For instance, how can anyone who Glenn Beck loves be considered reasonable. Just this alone should be enough to make anyone take a step back:

GLENN BECK: Nice to meet you, sir. Tell me, tell me your thoughts on progressivism.

PAUL RYAN: Right. What I have been trying to do, and if you read the entire Oklahoma speech or read my speech to Hillsdale College that they put in there on Primus Magazine, you can get them on my Facebook page, what I’ve been trying to do is indict the entire vision of progressivism because I see progressivism as the source, the intellectual source for the big government problems that are plaguing us today and so to me it’s really important to flush progressives out into the field of open debate.

GLENN: I love you.

PAUL RYAN: So people can actually see what this ideology means and where it’s going to lead us and how it attacks the American idea.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. I ‑‑ did you see my speech at CPAC?

PAUL RYAN: I’ve read it. I didn’t see it. I’ve read it, a transcript of it.

GLENN: And I think we’re saying the same thing. I call it ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: We are saying the same thing.

GLENN: It’s a cancer.

PAUL RYAN: Exactly. Look, I come from ‑‑ I’m calling you from Janesville, Wisconsin where I’m born and raised.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAUL RYAN: Where we raise our family, 35 miles from Madison. I grew up hearing about this stuff. This stuff came from these German intellectuals to Madison‑University of Wisconsin and sort of out there from the beginning of the last century. So this is something we are familiar with where I come from. It never sat right with me. And as I grew up, I learned more about the founders and reading the Austrians and others that this is really a cancer because it basically takes the notion that our rights come from God and nature and turns it on its head and says, no, no, no, no, no, they come from government, and we here in government are here to give you your rights and therefore ration, redistribute and regulate your rights. It’s a complete affront of the whole idea of this country and that is to me what we as conservatives, or classical liberals if you want to get technical.

GLENN: Thank you.

I reminds me of early arguments I had on Usenet with libertarians. After a while you realize that it’s like playing chess with a four year old. He gets a very intent look on his face and moves the pieces around the board with authority. But he isn’t really playing the game.

And look, it isn’t necessary to carefully parse his language or try to decipher his philosophy. There’s a perfectly adequate shorthand available that can tell you everything you need to know. First, He is still an Ayn Rand acolyte at the age of 40, which means that he is emotionally and intellectually stunted. Second, there’s this:

Ryan said his vote for the bailout was influenced by Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, a popular book among conservatives that argues that Nazism and other fascist movements were actually left wing in origin, and his belief that a second Depression would threaten capitalism—and rescue Obama’s presidency.

“I’m a limited-government, free-enterprise guy, but TARP… represented a moment where we had no good options and we were about to fall into a deflationary spiral,” he said. “I believe Obama would not only have won, but would have been able to sweep through a huge statist agenda very quickly because there would have been no support for the free-market system.”

This is the guy who supposedly understand liberalism as no other Republican politician.

But if that quote is true, he’s a liar, or he’s stupid. I’m fairly well convinced he’s both since only a card carrying moron would think that swill is believable. His argument, such as it is, is especially cheap and idiotic since it’s based on the idea that the government had to pump more than a trillion dollars into the financial system in order to prevent it from collapsing. That’s quite an endorsement of the Galtian principle.

Ryan is obviously this year’s Newtie, another rightwing “intellectual” who enthralled the media for years with his pop conservatism despite the fact that half of what he said was New Age claptrap and the other half was warmed over McCarthyism. Ryan’s the new Randian fashion so he’s cloaked in a different mantle, but it’s the same thing. There seems to be a hunger among the cognoscenti for a conservative they can relate to and apparently Ryan fits the bill at the moment.

Bai characterizes him as the Republican Obama — cool, cerebral and abstract. (I guess the chattering class is still enthralled by the idea of a college professor to lead us out of the darkness.) But Ryan is a radical right winger with a soft voice and a degree from Atlas Shrugged University who doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously as a man of ideas. He’s a slick propagandist who’s working for the usual wealthy interests, as his silly rationalizations about the TARP demonstrate. Why anyone thinks he’s an honest broker is beyond me.

But then, I never got why the Village was so intent on believing John McCain and Lindsay Graham were good faith negotiators either, when their histories are littered with perfidy and betrayal. I guess it’s just something those of us who aren’t privileged to be in their charismatic physical presences can’t see.

.

Deficit Politics Then and Now

by digby

Here’s is something you almost never see, an informative article about a contentious issue that doesn’t resort to he said/she said:

1. For almost two decades we’ve been told that when you’re looking for signs of what Wall Street wants Washington to do about the federal budget, the bond market is the place to watch. What’s the bond market saying today?

The bond market is being as unequivocal today as it was when Bob Rubin used what it was saying in 1993 to convince Bill Clinton that he had to push to reduce the deficit. The only difference is that, instead of demanding deficit reduction, the bond market today is exhibiting no worries about the deficit or federal borrowing at all In fact it’s indicating that Washington should do more to stimulate the economy.

Although there are also a number of technical reasons why the demand for federal debt is strong and interest rates have remained low, the bond market’s interest in Treasury securities has been high no matter what the maturity. This demonstrates that, contrary to what deficit hawks and demagogues have been insisting, there is little or no concern on Wall Street about the government’s borrowing, either short- or long-term.

2. Why are Congress and the White House ignoring the bond market now after feeling the need to follow it so closely before?

In 1993, the bond market was threatening higher interest rates if the deficit wasn’t reduced, something elected officials could ignore at their own political peril. By contrast, the only threat the bond market can make now is to lower interest rates further, and that isn’t as fearsome to politicians.

In addition, the bond market in 1993 had a former bond trader — Bob Rubin — as a high-level advisor to the president and, therefore, in a position to communicate and validate what it was saying to Washington.

Most important, however, what the bond market is saying today is different from what deficit hawks and GOP critics of the Obama White House want to hear. As a result, the echo chamber that amplified and repeated the bond market’s message almost two decades ago doesn’t exist today.

3. What makes 2010 so different from 1993 for the bond market when it comes to the deficit?

It’s simple: The economic situation today is the opposite of what existed at the start of the Clinton administration. In 1993, the bond market was worried about excess demand and soaring inflation, which would have eroded the value of bonds. Having the federal government spend less and tax more — that is, do things that would reduce the deficit — meant that the economy would cool rather than overheat, and therefore that the demand for goods, services, and workers would be reduced. This would keep inflation in check and allow federal bonds to maintain their value.

The big concern today is about deflation and slow growth rather than inflation and overheating. With unemployment high and capacity utilization low, the bond market not only isn’t worried about the excessive economic growth, it actually would welcome the additional activity that would be generated by higher spending and lower taxes.

There are three more questions and answers at the link addressing the politics of this. (The short answer is that regardless of the merits, deficits are used as a weapon by politicians on behalf of wealthy people who don’t want to have to pay even a minimally decent amount of taxes to support the country that has made them so wealthy in the first place.)

Even many smart people don’t understand the politics of deficits. And almost nobody seems to grasp that deficits automatically go down when everyone’s working. If you are really concerned about debt, then, you should be doing everything possible to put people back to work at good wages as soon as possible.

Oddly enough, the bond market actually does seem to get this. Go figure.

.

BP Cheated Out Of $10,000!

by tristero

Listening to the Beeb this morning, I learned, much to my utter shock and amazement, that not everyone applying for compensation in the wake of the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico caused by BP and pals is entirely honest. Hard to believe, but out of the $300,000,000 BP’s paid out so far, one slimeball went so far as to claim $10,000 in damages which he didn’t deserve.

This is an outrage. Do you have any idea how much BP can do with that $10,000? Look, MMS or no MMS, mid-level bureaucrats at the Department of Energy still have to be entertained properly and 10 grand goes a very long way towards the purchase of second-class hookers and mediocre coke.

All I can say is thank God for the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media for focusing not on what BP did but instead on what is being done to them. It’s much more important that we know that this helpless company is being cheated out of thousands of dollars than that we understand the full extent of the multiple billions of dollars worth of damage inflicted by BP and friends on the world. I’m not kidding, people. Let me explain:

BP and the others were surely neglectful, but were they criminally neglectful? Some say yes, some no, but the jury, figuratively speaking, is still out on that. On the other hand, there is no question that genuinely criminal fraud is being committed against BP. People are stealing from them – they are losing money – and that is clearly against the law. After all, it is written in stone that thou shalt not steal but where in the Bible does it say, “Thou shalt not coat thy neighbors’ pelicans with oil from the sea?”

When looked at this way, the BBC’s interest becomes entirely understandable, indeed laudable. After all, which is more important to report, mere neglect or indisputably criminal activity? The answer is obvious, dear friends.

The mainstream media: You can count on them. Yes! The mainstream media will report a story with courageous courageousness wherever it leads – even if it means portraying a ruthless corporate polluter as the hapless victim of penny ante thievery.

UPDATE: The article at the Beeb doesn’t mention no 10 g ripoff; it was in the report I heard, tho.

Heir Head

by digby

It looks like Sarah Palin has some competition for most arrogant dimwit in the Republican party. And he comes from very noble, dimwit stock:

Meanwhile, back on planet earth:

“Since the beginning (DirtyScottsdale.com) three years ago, I have gotten the same question from the DIRTY ARMY from all over the world: ‘Who is Brock from the Dirty Celeb Brock’s Chick?'” he wrote, referring to a recurring feature on the site. “I have kept it a secret until right now… the mystery man is Ben Quayle aka Brock Landers, the son of Vice President Dan Quayle. If you are a DIRTY ARMY Republican, vote for Ben Quayle because he was one of the original creators of DirtyScottsdale.com which evolved into TheDirty.com.”

That came after the braintrust tried to pass offtwo unrelated kids his two nieces as his own.

So often the successive generations in political dynasties are pale imitations of the original patriarch. In Quayle’s case that would make him so dim he’s nearly in a state of suspended animation. If that creepy ad is any indication, that’s pretty much the case.

.

Common Ground

by digby

New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion

I thought the panel gave a very well balanced view didn’t you? See? Common ground can be found even on the most contentious issues.

h/t to LGM

.

The Man Called Petraeus Rides Again

by digby

Dday:

The military has put together a game plan, set up their strategy and deployed their troops into the field. They are ready to storm with full-spectrum pressure to achieve their objective. I’m not talking about winning the war in Afghanistan, whatever that means these days. I’m talking about winning the war on the end of the war in Afghanistan.

And who do you think is leading the charge to extend the war? You guess it, The Man Called Petraeus:

With the administration unable yet to point to much tangible evidence of progress, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who assumed command in Afghanistan last month from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, is taking several steps to emphasize hopeful signs on the ground that, he will argue, would make a rapid withdrawal unwise.

Now who could have ever predicted that the military would want more time? Or that naming Petraeus would make that approval inevitable? (We all remember what happens when you disagree with TMCP, don’t we?)

Replacing McCrystal with Petraeus was a brilliant political move by Obama if he wanted a way out of his timetable. Petraeus is the General Jesus (as opposed to Jesus’ General) and there will be no withdrawal until he’s good and ready to do it. No one would dare cross him. I suspect the Obama administration understood that very well.

.
.

Welcome To The Recovery

by digby

The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Thirty thousand people showed up to receive Section 8 housing applications in East Point Wednesday, suffering through hours in the hot sun, angry flare-ups in the crowd and lots of frustration and confusion for a chance to receive a government-subsidized apartment.

The massive event sometimes descended into a chaotic mob scene filled with anger and impatience. Some 62 people needed medical attention and 20 of them were transported to a hospital, authorities said. A baby went into a seizure in the heat and was stabilized at a hospital. People were removed on stretchers and when a throng of people who had been waiting hours in a line were told to move to another line, people started pushing, shoving and cursing, witnesses said.

Still, officials of East Point declared the day a success. Nobody was arrested and nobody was seriously injured, they said. It was an assessment roundly challenged by many of the people who had to go through it.

This was just to receive the paperwork. They have to go back and go through the same thing to submit it on Friday.

Many of these were African Americans. Seeing as the black male unemployment rate is nearly 20% you can see why they would be in need.

.

Your Daily Grayson

by digby

Oh my Goodness. It looks like Alan Grayson has ruffled the Politico’s feathers:

Dear Friend,

The media follows the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

With that in mind, let’s ask a question. What do Boeing, AT&T, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, CTIA, McDonald’s, and Goldman Sachs have in common?

They are all advertisers in Friday’s issue of the Politico, the insider political magazine that controls much of the dialogue in Washington, DC. And that’s just one day’s issue. In fact, for the last year, the back page of the Politico has been occupied by a full-page Goldman Sachs advertisement. That’s a direct revenue flow of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs to the magazine most politicians in DC rely on for political gossip.

Interestingly enough, here are the last six headlines from the Politico on me.

Dems accused of tea party tampering
GOP foe sues Grayson over DVD
Kelly: Grayson may want troops to die
Who’s not on the DCCC list
The Age of Rage
No repeat blockbuster for Grayson

Every single headline is meant to damage me, to gin up pseudo-scandals or keep them going. We recognize this. It’s what the media did to Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to Al Gore, to Michael Moore, and really, to anyone who is either a Democrat or puts forward the concept that America should be run for the benefit of the people and not the corporations.

On August 23, we’re going to show them what people power can do — my campaign is launching a moneybomb, and I need you to be a part of it.

Please contribute $25 or more now for the moneybomb.

Truth,

Alan Grayson

They aren’t pleased.

I don’t know if Politico is working on behalf of its advertisers, but it certainly works on behalf of the Village, which lives on corporate largess and always loathes anyone who comes in and “trashes the place.”

Update: Grayson was just on MSNBC and ripped into Robert Gibbs for being a lousy spokesman, failing to properly convey the accomplishments of the Democratic congress and then blaming the left for the failure. He has a point. Gibbs has never been my favorite administration spokesman. I always prefer Axelrod, who conveys a sense of idealism and purpose, while Gibbs has always seemed a little bit too glib and clever for these times.

From the sound of Gibbs’s comments this morning, I’m fairly sure he wasn’t speaking out of school yesterday. They’re working the refs. I would guess they see some evidence of creeping Maddowism among the Village cognoscenti and the big liberal donors. I would also guess that it’s going to have some effect, at least in the short term. Certainly people like Ruth Marcus will be well rewarded for drawing the proper lines.

.

It’s Always Something

by digby

I’m beginning to miss George W. Bush. No, not because I think he was better than Obama, but because he was able to keep his lunatic fringe somewhat in line when it came to Muslim bashing.

Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.

[…]

Because of this subversive ideology, Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment

There you go. That makes me yearn for the day when they were only saying that people with a different skin color than “ours” want to govern themselves too.

Turns out that a big majority of Americans agree with them, at least as it pertains to the Manhattan cultural center. I wouldn’t be surprised if they could muster a majority to say that Islam shouldn’t be allowed in America before long. This country is just itching to have a fight.

Half of Americans think we should repeal the 14th amendment too, although once they find out that it’s open to reinterpretation, then I suppose they’ll be fine with keeping it just as long as we don’t let the pregnant animals “swim across the river” and “drop” their young on our pristine shores.

So we have 60+ percent of Americans thinking that it’s a good idea to ban a Muslim center near ground Zero and nearly half thinking we should deny babies born in the US an automatic right to citizensship. It would seem that our exceptionalism isn’t all that exceptional. These are the same policies that have gotten “old Europe” into trouble — not to mention civilizations going all the way to the beginning of civilizations — so we’re following a well worn path. But it’s a shame. America is fucked up for a million reasons, but the idea that citizenship had nothing to do with your parentage was always one of the nicer ideals, however erratically it was practiced.

Normally I would think we could ride out this latest wave of nativism and racism, but there are two factors that make it more dangerous than usual. The first, of course, is the economy which looks like it’s not going to recover smartly thus giving this impulse more oxygen than it might otherwise have. The second is that the right wing demagogues have an entire industry now devoted to creating and nurturing these wedge issues for political and financial gain. The culture warriors have just shifted their strategy away from “family values” to their other stand-by, “stop the boogeyman.” It’s all part of the same throwback tapestry, but different times require difference emphasis. We’re officially in the “the foreigners and blacks are ruining everything” portion of the show.

.

Beat Boehner Day 2

by digby

Big Ed says that this is the best ad of the season. And Joan Walsh agrees that the Democrats should fund it nationally. Check it out:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Blue America and our partners at Americans for America are on our own with this. The DCCC had no intention of helping Justin Coussoule run a campaign against John Boehner and as far as I can tell no intention of taking any message national. So, if we want to keep this ad on the air we’re going to have to pay for it ourselves.

If you’d like to contribute to the effort you can click here. I can tell you one thing — Boehner hates it and the local press loves it. That’s win-win in my book.

.