Month: January 2011

Veto-proof Bipartisanship

by digby

So, David Axelrod had a blogger roundtable yesterday and he addressed what Obama really meant in his spech about Social Security. It looks like we’re going to play a game of semantics:

Q Bill Scher with Campaign for America’s Future. As you know, Campaign was pretty pleased with what the President said — the President had to say about Social Security last night, although noting that the door is still open with some changes to the program.
I was curious, what is the polling telling the White House and telling you as his political advisor how best to approach Social Security? Our polling is showing there’s been a lot of opposition to raising the retirement age, for example. But is your polling telling you anything similar or different in how that will inform the President going forward?

MR. AXELROD: Well, I think all of that is pretty consistent. What informed his thinking on this is that what is true is that in the long term there are issues on the horizon relative to Social Security, as you know, because you’re obviously a student of research. Among younger Americans, there’s a profound suspicion that Social Security isn’t even going to be there. And among older Americans, there’s a great deal of anxiety about tampering with it.

And our goal is to make sure that the program is strong and secure. The President laid out his principles last night, and we’re willing to have a discussion, but those principles are going to inform the discussion.

Q Speaking of those principles — I’m Chris Bowers with Daily Kos.

MR. AXELROD: How you doing?

Q I’m doing good. President Obama came out in opposition to benefit cuts and also to privatization. Would he still be willing to talk about those as part of a bipartisan solution, or is he more inclined to veto any bipartisan deal that includes either benefit cuts or privatization?

MR. AXELROD: Well, first of all, I think that — as I said, I think his interest is in seeing the program strengthened, and there are certain things that are not just non-starters for him but I think many, many members of Congress, and that includes privatization, which Congressman Ryan has opposed, for example.

But I don’t think — I mean, this is a delicate time because I don’t think you want to start pre-negotiating or pre-discussing issues to the point where people say, well, there’s no point in even sitting down and talking about this stuff. So I’m not going to, here, start parsing the President’s words and so on.

I will say this. I don’t think — there’s not going to be a bipartisan agreement for him to veto. I think if there’s a bipartisan agreement that it’s going to be hammered out around the principles that he articulated last night or it’s probably not going to move forward. Just the nature of the issue.

So we’ll see what ensues from here.

I would appear the bipartisanship is what is sought on this. And I would guess that bipartisanship isn’t going to be hard to come by. This is from last week:

The White House and a bipartisan group of senators are focusing on restructuring the tax code and entitlement programs such as Social Security, which could have more dramatic impacts on the deficit in the long run but would do little in the short term. White House officials say Republican calls for $100 billion in spending cuts this year would choke off the economic recovery while doing little in the long run to tame the deficit.

“The American people say, don’t touch Social Security, don’t touch Medicare, don’t cut defense. That’s 84% of the federal budget,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.). who is retiring when his term ends in 2012, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “If you can’t touch 84% of the federal budget…you’re down to 16% of the budget at a time we’re borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend.”

Conrad doesn’t seem to be worrying about “strengthening” social security in that conversation. But I have no doubt that is how they plan to sell it. After all, people are already signing on to the idea that because social security will have a slight shortfall in 2040 or so, we need to cut the program right now. It’s one of those Orwellian “war is peace” things: strength through weakness.

If I hadn’t seen the administration negotiations of the past two years on such things as tax cuts and stimulus and health care, I might be more sanguine about this one and give the benefit of the doubt about what they mean by principles. But that would be foolish at this point.

Here’s more:

[T]he seeds of cautious optimism rest in the Senate, where Conrad is expected to lead the charge along with three others who voted in favor of the Bowles-Simpson proposals: liberal Dick Durbin of Illinois (also the Democratic whip) and conservatives Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Crapo of Idaho.

Conrad has already said he would only support a long-term extension of the nation’s debt ceiling — set to expire March 31 — if accompanied by a package similar to the $4 trillion in spending cuts the commission proposed.

Signs of a thaw in the political deadlock over the debt were evident in the public reception to the Bowles-Simpson recommendations. Outrage was surprisingly muted over some of the panel’s supposedly suicidal proposals — like raising the retirement age and limiting the mortgage deduction. In other words, this time voters apparently meant it when they told pollsters that the government’s massive borrowing was one of their greatest worries.

Other signs of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill include a proposal by Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee and Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri to bring spending down to a historical average of 20.6% of GDP over the next ten years. The plan includes a trigger that gives the House and Senate 45 days to offset any increase in spending.

On the House side, Republican Budget Chair Paul Ryan voted against the debt commission proposals. Nevertheless, he has partnered with former Clinton budget director (and fellow debt commission member) Alice Rivlin on a Medicare savings plan.

Under that plan, seniors who turn 65 in 2021 or later would not enroll in existing Medicare but instead would receive vouchers to purchase healthcare in the private market — an effort to inject price competition into the system.

The Ryan-Rivlin plan is certain to draw plenty of incoming fire. But the partnering of these two brilliant minds — one a free-market Republican “young gun,” the other a Clinton era veteran and critic of Reaganomics — on a such a revolutionary reform shows how much the political ground has shifted.

Meanwhile, a tenuous bipartisan consensus is emerging over Social Security reform — plans that include some mix of means testing for the wealthy, raising the retirement age, bumping the payroll tax and limiting cost of living adjustments. That’s a big leap from just five years ago, when George W. Bush’s attempt at Social Security reform left him bruised and battered.

As far as I can tell from Axelrod’s conversation with the bloggers and everything we’ve seen and heard from the political establishment, the only real “principle” here is bipartisanship. Obama gets high marks from the Villagers and Democrats when he forges a bipartisan deal with the Republicans — no matter what the deal is. That he was praised and rewarded for cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans in a time of deficit fever tells you how far the American people have fallen down the rabbit hole. Don’t think he doesn’t get that.

The debt ceiling is pure kabuki. If the president allows them to use it, whatever “compromises” he makes will be because he wants to. The Republicans have already acknowledged that they must raise it. Here are the two real hostages that the bipartisan budget slashers have taken:

If the new Congress doesn’t act, debate over how to control the federal debt will be one issue at the forefront of the 2012 presidential campaign. That may be fine, but MacGuineas worries that pushing action into 2013 means flirting with the possibility of an event that triggers a debt crisis. Even then, she says, “It’s not clear the markets don’t lose patience with us before 2013.”

The “markets”, of course, which care deeply about cutting social security even though it doesn’t contribute to the deficit, and care nothing for health care costs, which are strangling the nation. Markets aren’t very bright, apparently. But still, let’s this could all cause a huge crisis and then where would we be?

But the big, important hostage is the election, isn’t it? They are threatening that this is going to be the huge issue unless Obama does exactly what they want. Of course, it will be a big issue anyway, and Obama will be accused of hurting seniors anyway, but Democrats and Villagers will be thrilled because he worked in a bipartisan fashion so maybe it will all work out for him. Sadly, I don’t think it will work out as well for Democrats who follow him. They will be subject to ads like this all over the country:

Who is the “60 Plus Association”?

On its Web site, the 60-Plus Association describes itself as a “non-partisan seniors advocacy group with a free enterprise, less government, less taxes approach.” They list their main issues as the “death tax” (estate tax), energy, health care and Social Security. 60 Plus is registered as a 501(c)(4) non-profit with the Internal Revenue Service…

A February, 2003 report in the AARP Bulletin called 60 Plus a front group for the pharmaceutical industry. The author, Bill Hogan, wrote that 60 Plus, along with Senior Coalition and United Seniors Association, “claim to speak for millions of older Americans, although as recently as 2001 none of the three listed any revenue from membership dues on their tax returns.” The article added: “virtually all of their largest contributions in recent years have come from the same source — the nation’s pharmaceutical industry.”

In the wake of Citizens United, a thousand “60 Plus Associations” will be formed, with much more shadowy provenance than this.

Now here’s the really fun part. Even though I’ve heard that Obama plans to “make the Republicans own” social security reform right along with him, there will be no ads like this against Republicans. That’s because the president will have boisterously declared “Mission Accomplished” and even Democrats who voted against it (few as they will probably be since politically dangerous “bipartisan” legislation is passed with a huge number of Dems and a handful of Republicans) won’t want to taint him with this bad message. And we know who these shadowy corporate front groups are really working for, don’t we?

This race for the money is going to be a huge problem for Dems, and when you cut through the crap, that’s what this is. No matter how thoroughly they sell out (or how much they truly believe) they are always going to be at a disadvantage as long as they have groups like unions and racial minorities and do-gooders in their coalition. Corporate America would much rather work with the compliant Republicans who truly buy into their agenda and only hedge their bets with Dems in order to have leverage when the Republicans inevitably screw up. They are always the bridesmaids, never the bride.

.

If It’s Broke, Don’t Bother Fixing It

by digby

I mentioned that Piers Morgan brought this up the other night before the SOTU and nobody seemed to know what he was talking about. It seems the Cameron government did everything the confidence fairies and bond vigilantes demanded and it wasn’t enough to restore confidence and lift “uncertainty.” So mere Austerity will not suffice — perhaps a re-opening of the poor house? Re-instituting indentured servitude?

Britain’s gross domestic product took a surprising turn lower in the fourth quarter, the Office of National Statistics said Tuesday.

Economists had predicted a 0.5 percent rise in Britain’s economic output October through December. Instead, the ONS said the GDP dropped 0.5 percent.

The ONS also revised the third quarter gross domestic figure from a gain of 0.8 percent to a gain of 0.7 percent.

The ONS said reversals were widespread. Construction grew greater than 2 percent in the third quarter and fell greater than 2 percent in the fourth quarter. Business at hotels and restaurants fell from 0.8 percent growth in the third quarter to a decline of 0.5 percent. Growth in transportation, storage and communication grew 2 percent in the third quarter and fell 0.8 percent in the fourth. Business services and finance, flat in the third quarter, dropped 0.7 percent in the fourth quarter and in the public sector 0.6 percent growth in the third quarter flipped around to a decline of 0.2 percent

Meanwhile, Dday reports:

In a sometimes contentious call, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission representatives Phil Angelides and Brooksley Born acknowledged that we might still be in a financial crisis, and that their report should not be seen as the last word on an event that still has the capacity to significantly damage the global economy.

Brooksley Born, who as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under Bill Clinton urged more regulation of the derivatives markets, responded to a question from FDL News on whether we’ve seen the end of the financial crisis. “I do think we are still in somewhat of an economic crisis,” she said. “We may well be in a financial crisis, we don’t know that yet. We don’t know how solvent a number of institutions are.”

The good news is that the global elite are all in one place as we speak, noses to the grindstone, hammering out the solutions at the World Economic Forum:

The point about Davos is that it makes everyone feel wildly insecure.

Billionaires and heads of state alike are all convinced that they have been given the worst hotel rooms, put on the least interesting panels and excluded from the most important events/most interesting private dinners.

The genius of World Economic Founder Klaus Schwab is that he has been able to persuade hundreds of accomplished businessmen to pay thousands of dollars to attend an event which is largely based on mass humiliation and paranoia.

Oh sorry, I forgot. It’s all about them. And they are all very insecure and vulnerable:

“Being a CEO can be a lonely existence in terms of trusting ears and advice, so they come to Davos to meet and talk one-on-one,” he says. Davos had become a “self-help” group, where CEOs trade information and feel solidarity in a hostile world. “It’s a bit like Weight Watchers,” he quips. “A place where CEOs can get support.”

That’s not to say they aren’t concerned about the outer world:

But what is striking is that this veneer of micro-level optimism goes hand in hand with a gnawing insecurity about the macro picture. This is partly because CEOs are uneasily aware that hostility towards elites is rising. And while much of this has been focused on bankers, continued high levels of unemployment have prompted wider concerns about a bigger backlash in the west.

Just a guess, but somehow I doubt they’re considering actually doing something about that unemployment. Whining about being unappreciated and figuring out ways to punish the parasites is more their style. I wouldn’t look for any solutions from this crowd.

.

Doonesbury

by digby

So right:

click on image for bigger strip

.

Peaking

by digby

Howard Fineman just said that the President didn’t defend his economic policies last night because he wants to move forward not backwards. (Good news for the Republicans who will happily take credit with theirs if things go well.)

Bob Shrum says the country is optimistic and inspired and that talk of economic malaise and angry resentment and such are “the politics of 2010.”

Chris Matthews says that Obama is very much like Vince Lombardi.

At this point, I think Obama ought to be worried that Morning in America has arrived two years too early and that it will be dark again by the time he faces re-election.

.

Whining (into) the Future

by digby

Oh fergawdsakes:

What is the point of Davos? That is the question many of the 2,500 official delegates to this year’s World Economic Forum might ask as they flock to the Swiss ski resort. Not to mention the rest of the world asking the same question.Never before in human history have so many competing conferences existed that purport to convene the world’s thinkers: the Aspen gathering, the Clinton Global Initiative, the International Monetary Fund meetings, and others, clutter the calendar.Yet this year a record 1,400 CEOs and other senior business executives will attend the event. Never mind the so-called “age of austerity”, Davos and its canapés continue to pull the crowds. Why? John Studzinski, a long-time Davos devotee and investment banking leader, has one theory. “Being a CEO can be a lonely existence in terms of trusting ears and advice, so they come to Davos to meet and talk one-on-one,” he says. Davos had become a “self-help” group, where CEOs trade information and feel solidarity in a hostile world. “It’s a bit like Weight Watchers,” he quips. “A place where CEOs can get support.”Like many jokes, this carries a large grain of truth – particularly this year. At Davos some of the business surveys released will show that the world’s CEOs feel pretty cheerful about the outlook for their own companies. Profits are rising, the US economy is growing and emerging markets are expanding at a startling pace.But what is striking is that this veneer of micro-level optimism goes hand in hand with a gnawing insecurity about the macro picture. This is partly because CEOs are uneasily aware that hostility towards elites is rising. And while much of this has been focused on bankers, continued high levels of unemployment have prompted wider concerns about a bigger backlash in the west.

I sure hope that these poor CEOs can find the support they need from one another to withstand the unfair attacks they are getting from the parasites. They are so isolated in their gated communities, flying around in their personal jets and being escorted to their VIP tables that they end up feeling lonely. Nobody understand the troubles they’ve seen. Sure, the millions in salary, bonuses and golden parachutes are nice. But they can’t make up for the fact that hardly anyone can understand what it’s like to walk in their Berlutti’s.Plus, they’re sacred that the plebes are going to cause trouble:

A recent survey of Davos participants revealed that “social inequality” is the issue delegates most want to debate.

Perhaps they should be scared:

Americans have grown less trusting of business in the past year, bucking a global trend of rising confidence in companies, governments and other institutions, according to data to be presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Just 46 per cent of Americans last year said they trusted business, down eight points from 2009, according to research by Edelman, a communications consultancy, which will be presented on Wednesday. Global trust in business was up two points to 56 per cent, by contrast.The US decline has been driven by a backlash against bankers and their bonuses, with the number of Americans who trust US banks dropping to a low of 25 per cent, down from 33 per cent a year ago and 71 per cent before the financial crisis.

I’m guessing that Americans just don’t like whiners — especially those who have already “won the future.”

Oh, and by the way, they’re also a little bit worried about the fact that they don’t have a fucking clue about anything, but that’s nothing compared to their worries about their personal popularity:

[A]nother reason for the unease is the sheer speed at which power is shifting across the world amid technological change and the growing influence of emerging markets. That, in turn, is creating conflicts in areas ranging from food resources to currencies.

“The level of instability goes up as rebalancing gathers pace,” says Dennis Nally, chairman of PwC. Worse still, CEOs – like everyone else – find it increasingly hard to work out where the new risks lie. For while the global systems are now more tightly interconnected than ever (in the sense that shocks can be quickly transmitted), these systems are also more fragmented (in that few people understand what is happening in other specialist areas.) The world thus feels like an increasingly murky, complex and unpredictable place, where shocks keep emerging in areas ranging from credit markets to oil technology to Tunisia.

I’m guessing everyone would be a lot better off if they spent a little bit more time worrying about that and a lot less time worrying about why the parasites aren’t worshiping at their feet. But then, I’m guessing that most of them aren’t real John Galts at all, but rather good “networkers” and gladhanders and strivers. American corporations are full of them.

.

Tea Makers Marks

by digby

If they weren’t so nasty most of the time I’d start to feel sorry for the Tea Party. They are getting taken for such a ride by hucksters, snake oil salesmen and billionaire puppeteers that it’s getting sort of pathetic.

You might think I’m talking about Michelle Bachman last night. But no. It’s this:

The story rocketed around New York City when streets went uncleared after the Dec. 26 blizzard: Sanitation workers, angry about job reductions, had deliberately staged a work slowdown…

And it occurred because one man, Councilman Daniel J. Halloran, Republican of Queens, said five city workers had come to his office during the storm and told him they had been explicitly ordered to take part in a slowdown to embarrass Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. But the more that investigators look into Mr. Halloran’s story, the more mystifying it becomes. Mr. Halloran said he had been visited by two supervisors in the Transportation Department and three workers in the Sanitation Department. But the two transportation supervisors did not back up his story in interviews with investigators, according to two people briefed on the inquiries. And Mr. Halloran has steadfastly refused to reveal the names of the sanitation workers. Mr. Halloran expects to testify this week before a federal grand jury looking into the question of a slowdown, according to a person familiar with his intentions, and it is not clear whether prosecutors will try to compel him, under oath, to divulge the workers’ names. Meanwhile, investigators had hoped that extensive publicity would bring out others with knowledge of the purported plot. That has not happened, according to the people briefed on the investigations, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigations are continuing. This leaves prosecutors with no proof that anything occurred.

Guess what?

He campaigned as a conservative Republican with the support of Tea Party organizers, advocating personal responsibility and limited government. As a councilman, he has taken on the usual local causes, like pushing to keep a community pool open, but he has also pursued issues with a more personal dimension.

Read on to find out all about his bizarre fixations, personal vendettas, money problems, lies and schemes. He’s obviously some sort of political nut/con man.

I’m sure there are plenty of sincere Tea Partiers out there who are getting fleeced all the time by these types. And while it’s tempting to say they deserve it, it still isn’t right. They are just trying to exercise their democratic right to organize and they are being manipulated and conned by a bunch of billionaire media moguls and small time hustlers. I guess that’s part of the bargain too, but it’s distasteful to see it happening anyway.

Still, conservatives were all too willing to believe that union workers — their own neighbors — were deliberately endangering the safety of the people, so I’m not going to waste any more breath worrying about them. Maybe if they has just a little bit more empathy and common sense, guys like this wouldn’t be able to take them to the cleaners — along with the rest of their city. Look how much this stupid lie is costing the taxpayers.

.

Researching Consequences

by digby

This doesn ‘t prove anything one way or the other about Jared Loughner’s mental health, but it does suggest that he was undertaking a political act:

In the weeks and days before the shooting rampage in Tucson, suspect Jared Lee Loughner surfed the Internet on his computer in what investigators believe was an effort to prepare for his alleged assassination attempt, law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation said. Loughner pulled up several Web sites about lethal injections and solitary confinement in prison, said the sources, who asked to be anonymous because the investigation is ongoing. He also viewed Internet sites about political assassins, according to an analysis of Loughner’s computer that was completed by investigators last week, the sources said.

Whether or not he is determined to have been legally sane, this does seem to indicate that it was not an accident that Giffords is a congresswoman. Whether or not it mattered that Giffords was a Democratic congresswoman is still unknown. But I think the fact that he knew he was contemplating a political assassination argues in favor of the idea that the violent rhetorical anti-government atmosphere may have contributed to his decision. In any case, this information indicates that the trial will have to address that so this issue won’t be going away.

.

Winning the future, brought to you by GE

by digby

Here’s an interesting interpretation of Winning the Future:

After two years of federal spending to boost the economy, the ground has shifted decisively in Washington: On Tuesday night, the most pressing question was not whether to spend more to create jobs but whether to cut spending, deeply and now. For the first time in his annual address to the American people, President Obama did not hail a newly passed “recovery act” or call for a “new jobs bill.” Instead, he called for a five-year freeze in domestic spending, except for “investments” in education, infrastructure and research. Republicans went much further, calling for an immediate and unprecedented reduction in non-defense programs that could take more than $100 billion out of the economy over the next few months. Both sides are casting their proposals as the best course for deepening the economic recovery and improving U.S. competitiveness abroad. But with the unemployment rate still hovering at 9.4 percent, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are offering a clear strategy to create jobs in the short run, economists said, and that is the most critical challenge in the minds of voters heading into the 2012 presidential election. The one initiative likely to have immediate impact is the GOP’s plan for sharp spending cuts, and some economists fear that could push the economy in the wrong direction. Hours before Obama spoke Tuesday, the House approved a resolution calling for domestic spending to be cut to 2008 levels for the rest of the fiscal year, and Republicans are discussing reductions of at least $60 billion. Cuts of that size would trim domestic programs to their lowest level as a share of the economy in more than 30 years, according to an analysis by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, endangering as many as 600,000 jobs. “Government spending restraint is vital to addressing our long-term fiscal problems. It just shouldn’t start in 2011,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, who has advised both Republicans and Democrats on economic issues. Zandi said cuts of the magnitude Republicans are discussing probably would not invite a new recession. But they could push unemployment back into double digits, he said, “taking a very significant risk with this fragile economy.”

So? What’s wrong with double digit employment? We almost have that now and nobody seems to give a damn. It certainly wasn’t a big topic last night from either the president, the Republicans or the Teabaggers. This is the new normal. We only worry about GDP now and Mark Zandi isn’t worried about that, thank goodness, so carry on with the freezing and cutting. It’s all good.

I’m not sure how high unemployment has to rise before people feel it’s a big problem again, but at this point I’d have to guess that it would take another five percent. Which means that we are now a country that thinks it’s perfectly fine to have tens of millions of people out of work — while at the same time we are busily slashing spending at the local, state and federal level. Talk about a winning future!

In this instance, the conservatives (and I include the likes of Kent Conrad in that designation) are far more honest than the “centrists” about what this all adds up to. They don’t pretend to care about the unemployed or the students or the people who have lost their futures in this downturn. They are right up front about what this is about — confidence fairies:

Conservative economists are less inclined to predict that immediate spending cuts would harm the economy. But they don’t see them as an effective economic tonic, either. At a time when the national debt has surpassed $14 trillion, business leaders and bond market investors are looking to Obama and other policymakers for certainty about tax policy, entitlement spending and the nation’s long-term budget outlook, said Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Business.

“The right way to do a pro-jobs agenda would be to limit policy uncertainty. We need to put the country on a long-term sustainable path,” said Hubbard, who served as chief economist in George W. Bush’s White House. “Businesses fear investing if we can’t get this stuff right. You don’t have to start cutting now. But absent presidential leadership, it’s really hard to see how it gets done.”

The view that the U.S. economy would benefit from adoption of a comprehensive deficit reduction plan is broadly shared by policymakers and budget analysts. “Most economists say if you put in place a credible plan that only took effect once the economy had strengthened, just adopting a plan itself would have positive benefits for the economy right now,” said Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).

I happen to have the man who can explain why this is total, complete, utter bullshit right here:

That was six and a half months ago, when unemployment was the same as it is now. (Krugman’s response to the speech is here.)

From what I can tell this is working for the President. I would guess that the country is sick of bad news and just wants more than anything to believe that the President can end all this and that we can get back to the way things were. But psychologically we are starting to adjust to this new normal and that new normal is not good for the middle and working class of this country. (The poor are so screwed they don’t even merit discussion.) In fact, it’s devastating and it’s all happening to benefit the ever more powerful top two percent.

Of course, it’s the top two percent who have the money to fund elections, so there is a logic to all of this. This is Oligarchy and for those who say that it can’t work in a democracy, I think we are seeing just how wrong that is.

Update: It occurs to me that deficit reduction has now joined Tax Cuts for the cure-all for what ails the economy. After all, Kent Conrad has been agitated about deficits when they are small, when they are large, when the economy is booming and when it’s in recession. No matter what the situation, the proper response is always to cut government spending, preferably “entitlements.” (Being a Democrat he’ll sometimes give a vague wave toward raising taxes, but it’s never a deal breaker.)

.

The Most Dangerous Creature Alive

by digby

I don’t know if Chris Cillizza knew how this sounded when he wrote it, but it certainly speaks volumes to me:

In the days leading up to last night’s State of the Union address, cable television was abuzz about Members of Congress of opposing parties sitting together to show of unity in the wake of the attempted assassination of Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The idea was widely credited to Third Way, a centrist Democratic group, and Colorado Sen. Mark Udall (D) who became its chief proponent on Capitol Hill. But, the idea of cross party-seating — not just for the State of the Union speech but always – — has been around since the mid-1990s in the context of political campaign as Democrats running in Republican-leaning states have used it to paint themselves as independent problem-solvers.

Someone said to me last night, “you liberals are kind of like exotic birds, almost extinct. You live in your refuges and people only see fleeting glimpses of you in the distance. But in the popular imagination you are the most dangerous creatures alive.”

By the way, just a little reminder here of what the Republicans in Frank Luntz’s focus group last night think of all that Third Way kumbaaya:

Luntz then broached Obama’s bipartisanship call, with voters who identified themselves as Republicans indicating they didn’t buy into it. Most said they had heard the cooperation request before.

“So the question is, What is it about this appeal to bipartisanship that those of you on the Republican side don’t like?” Luntz asked the group.

“When he first got into office he was going to be the president to change everything, come across the aisle. It never happened,” one man said.

.

Random Thoughts On SOTU

by digby

Short take: not my favorite speech, although I’m fairly sure it will be well received by the public. These things usually are.

But I think it sounded oddly discordant, as if the economic crisis is a best forgotten nightmare even though we still have 9.5% official unemployment and a housing sector in deep distress. It’s not as if GDP is growing at some jaw dropping pace. So, to my ears it was oddly out of touch. “Winning the future” would be a lot more inspiring if we were all sure we were going to survive the present.

I’m glad that he said he didn’t want “fixing” Social Security to come at the expense of the vulnerable or by restricting benefits, but like the AARP I think danger lurks in the fact that he spoke about it in the context of deficit reduction. Best to be vigilant on this one.

And public investment is great but it doesn’t create net jobs if other spending is slashed. I guess they are just going on the sheer belief that Morning in America is definitely around the corner. It’s quite a risk.

There was lots of good individual stuff in the speech, but overall, as I said, it just seemed off key to me. But then I’m almost never impressed by these speeches, so I’m not a good gauge. The early poll returns have 90% of the people liking it, so what do I know?

As for Paul Ryan, well he seemed callow on the screen and sounded reedy, so he isn’t going to be setting any hearts on fire. However, I’m always impressed by the fact that Republicans so often pepper their speeches heavily with “what we believe.” They reinforce their principles every chance they get. I’m not sure Democrats can even articulate theirs. In the case of Obama, it’s “I believe in whatever works” which doesn’t give people much to hang on to.

Bachman? Hilarious. I wonder if Palin is going to make fun of her odd use of the teleprompter.
But more hilarious than that was the response of the CNN gasbags, who said she reinforced Ryan’s Reaganesque message, but (according to David Gergen) with more facts and figures.

The Republicans in Frank Luntz’s focus groups all hated it when Obama talked about bipartisanship and the Democrats all loved it. The Republicans think Obama is a phony because he never really tries it. The Dems all loved him for trying. This is a fundamental tribal difference. (I turned it off to watch Bachman and when I came back they were all shouting at each other about something.)

Meanwhile, gasbags everywhere were very concerned that Obama didn’t concentrate more on deficit reduction and the obvious necessity to destroy Social Security and Medicare as soon as humanly possible. They seem to be on something of a crusade.

Howard Fineman, however, got a major thrill up his leg.

Update: Howie posted an excellent response tonight from Blue America’s first 2012 endorsee, progressive Nicholas Ruiz, that you might find interesting in contrast.

.