Month: September 2011

Jobs, jobs, jobs

by digby

The speech was long on proposals that are unlikely to pass and full of policies that are far too weighted to tax cuts to be entirely useful in the short run. We’ve been cutting taxes for years now and the rich just save it while everyone else pays down their debt. But the GOP don’t want no stinking stimulus of any kind, so the best we can hope for is small bore and maybe some of this will sneak through, who knows?

But I liked some of President Obama’s rhetoric tonight. It’s campaign stuff really, and if he keeps it up there might even be a real debate between the two parties — rhetorically at least:

But what we can’t do – what I won’t do – is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe that’s a race we can win.

In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America.

Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and envy of the world.

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future – a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.

Ask yourselves – where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways and our bridges; our dams and our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the GI Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance?

How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip? What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?

No single individual built America on their own. We built it together. We have been, and always will be, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; a nation with responsibilities to ourselves and with responsibilities to one another. Members of Congress, it is time for us to meet our responsibilities.

That’s the liberal legacy. It’s nice to hear it once in a while. And maybe if the people hear it, they might just like it too.

So, why in the world …

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next ten years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I’m asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan – a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.

This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts; by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid; and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. What’s more, the spending cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right away.

Now, I realize there are some in my party who don’t think we should make any changes at all to Medicare and Medicaid, and I understand their concerns. But here’s the truth. Millions of Americans rely on Medicare in their retirement. And millions more will do so in the future. They pay for this benefit during their working years. They earn it. But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. And if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it.

Well if the rumors are true that they are going to propose raising the eligibility age for Medicare, it’s not going to be there for people who are 65 when they need it, is it? I don’t know if that’s what they’ve finally decided, but that’s what has people up in arms about this proposal. Now, hopefully that horrible idea will not see the light of day. But it’s been leaked and considering the past behavior of the administration and the Democrats in congress, it’s not wise to just “trust” that it’s not going to happen. (And the idea that it will serve as some sort of an “example” to the Republicans to force their billionaire base to fork over some tip money is ludicrous.)

Moreover, on what planet is it a good idea to take away the best argument the Democrats have in 2012 by proposing this? Candidates all over the country are being told to run on Medicare and hang the Ryan plan around the neck of every dumb Republicans who voted for it. I guess that’s not going to be operative going forward.

It’s bad politics and it’s bad policy and for the life of me I cannot figure out why they would insist on doing it unless they truly believe the policy of raising the Medicare age is worth sacrificing a huge campaign advantage (much less the lives of many people.) I can only speculate about why that would be.

So the speech is a mixed bag. Hearing a recitation of the liberal legacy is welcome and I hope he does more of it. Since the Republicans aren’t likely to pass anything anyway, it would have been nice to have an argument for direct government stimulus, but since the president has been making the case for belt tightening for the last several months, I guess they figure it would be too confusing. But committing to more deficit reduction, singling out Medicare and Medicaid, was an unnecessary step backwards.

And guess what?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling says the plan makes “already-arduous challenge of finding bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction nearly impossible”

Okey dokey.

Look, there are some signs that the GOP is not going to do their debt ceiling death dance on this one. As Markos points out here, they need some pork too. I say it’s doubtful they’ll agree to anything and the most likely scenario is no jobs plan and a failed Super Committee (which wouldn’t be that bad.) And maybe, around the edges, there might be a little bit of stimulus.

But we do have a little bit of liberal rhetoric, at least, which contrary to popular opinion, I think is useful in a democracy. It’s just kind of nice for the citizens to hear what the philosophy of the Democratic party is supposed to be once in a while. Maybe they’ll decide they’d like some more of that — and who knows where it might lead?

Update: Oh boy — another bipartisan “reform” gets the thumbs up:

@EricCantor: Reforming unemployment insurance, similar to Georgia Works, is area of commonality. We should get to work on it right away

Here’s what Georgia Works is:

The basics

Georgians receiving unemployment benefits are matched with employers who are seeking employees and who agree to provide up to eight weeks of training. The employers do not pay the workers, who work no more than 24 hours a week; instead workers continue to receive their unemployment checks and a $240 weekly stipend to help cover transportation, child care and other expenses.

Advantages

Employers get up to eight weeks to assess the job candidate, at no cost. If the company decides to hire the candidate, it has avoided the cost of training that worker.

Job seekers get a chance to assess the company and to show what they can do. Whether or not they are hired, they get training and experience that may benefit them down the line.

Disadvantages

The amount and quality of training workers receive is dependent on participating companies. Companies get free labor at the taxpayers’ expense. Workers receive very little pay for their time and effort.

Gosh, that sounds great. For the employer. (I assume the “employee” is required to do whatever they want or lose his or her benefits, right?) No wonder Eric Cantor loves it.

I hadn’t heard that this was supposed to be a “reform” of the whole unemployment system. Yikes.

.

A Youtube’s worth a thousand words

by digby

.

Moving the Window
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

Mitt Romney is charging hard after Rick Perry for Perry’s hardline stance that Social Security is an unsustainable ponzi scheme (unlike, say, endless wars unpaid-for wars):

“PERRY DOES NOT BELIEVE SOCIAL SECURITY SHOULD EXIST,” read the headline of Romney’s press release.

Romney adviser Stuart Stevens emails:

He has lost. No federal candidate has ever won on the Perry program to kill Social Security. Never has. never will.

As I said before, I really do believe that this sort of thing will doom Rick Perry and that Rommney will take the nomination.

If I’m wrong, it will be confirmation that the GOP base has gone over the deep end, and that we are in an existential fight for our country that “bipartisanship” and “compromise” are hopeless to fix. A world, in fact, where those pushing bipartisan compromise are as destructive as any Republican, and where Churchills are needed more than Chamberlains.

But even if I’m right and Romney takes the nod, Perry’s campaign will have succeeded in making the complete destruction of social security a legitimate arguing point in the national discourse. Should Obama win in 2012, the Republican debate will start from the notion that Perry’s view is an acceptable point worth debating, with more and more of the field nodding in agreement with him.

This is a big part of how conservatives win the day: by pushing from the extreme edges, sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly, but always and ever pushing. That is how the “sane” GOP candidate can come out with a radically corporatist economic plan that would change America forever while poking China directly in the eye, and it scarcely raises an eyebrow.

I have yet to see any moderate compromise-friendly Democrat effectively deny that conservative push the envelope successfully in this way. They simply argue that the GOP ultimately discredits itself with the America voter by doing this.

The last 30 years should persuade any honest student of politics that particularly in our binary political system, there is no consequence for extremism. The GOP will move farther and farther to the right while Democrats vainly strive for whatever “the middle” happens to be at the moment, even as “the middle” shifts farther and farther to the right. And the GOP will pay no permanent electoral price for doing this, even though they may lose an election here or there in the short term.

Democrats may cheer this little battle between Perry and Romney. But ultimately, it’s great for the conservatives who want to kill Social Security, and just the next step in the Overton Window-pushing electoral process that they’ll need to get there. And that’s true no matter which of the two extremists gets the GOP nod.

.

Sneak previews

by digby

So, I’ve seen the talking points of the President’s speech, which Greg Sargent lays out here:

The American Jobs Act is:
— based on bi-partisan ideas;
— it is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share; and
— it will have an impact on job and economic growth NOW — just as soon as Congress acts.
— Every day, people in this country are working hard to meet their responsibilities. The question now is whether Washington will meet theirs.
— The time for obstruction and gridlock is over. Congress needs to put country ahead of politics.
— The American people know that the economic crisis and the deep recession weren’t created overnight and won’t be solved overnight. The economic security of the American middle class has been under attack for decades.
— That’s why President Obama believes we need to do more than just recover from this economic crisis.
— The President is rebuilding the economy the American way — based on balance, fairness and the same set of rules for everyone from Wall Street to Main Street where hard work and responsibility pay and gaming the system is penalized.
— It’s an American economy that’s built to last and creates the jobs of the future, by forcing Washington to live within its means so we can invest in small business entrepreneurs, education, and making things the world buys, not outsourcing, loopholes and reckless financial deals that put middle class security at risk.

Ok then. And Mitch McConnell has already responded:

“Later on today, both Houses of Congress will welcome President Obama to the Capitol to speak about a very serious crisis that we face as a nation. Namely, an economic climate that is making it impossible for millions of Americans to find the work that they need to support themselves and their families.

“Now, in a two-party system like ours, it shouldn’t be surprising that there would be two very different points of view about how to solve this particular crisis. What is surprising is the President’s apparent determination to apply the same government-driven policies that have already been tried and failed. The definition of insanity, as Albert Einstein once famously put it, is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Frankly, I can’t think of a better description of anyone who thinks the solution to this problem is another Stimulus. The first Stimulus didn’t do it. Why would another one?

“This is one question that the White House and a number of Democrats clearly don’t want to answer. That’s why some of them are out there coaching people not to use the word Stimulus when describing the President’s plan. Others are accusing anybody who criticizes it of being unpatriotic or playing politics. Well, as I’ve said, there’s a much simpler reason to oppose the President’s economic policies that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics: they don’t work. Yet, by all accounts, the President’s so-called jobs plan is to try those very same policies again, and then accuse anyone who doesn’t support them this time around of being political or overly partisan, of not doing what’s needed in this moment of crisis.

“This isn’t a jobs plan. It’s a re-election plan. That’s why Republicans will continue to press for policies that empower job creators, not Washington.

“According to The Wall Street Journal, nearly a third of the unemployed have been out of work for more than a year. The average length of unemployment is now greater than 40 weeks, higher than it was even during the Great Depression. As we know, the longer you’re out of a job the harder it is to find one. That means for millions of Americans, this crisis is getting harder every day. It’s getting worse and worse.

“And we also know this: the economic policies this President has tried have not alleviated the problem.

“In many ways, in fact, they’ve made things worse. Gas prices are up. The national debt is up. Health insurance premiums are up. Homes values in most places continue to fall. And two and a half years after the President’s signature jobs bill was signed into law, 1.7 million fewer Americans have jobs.

“So, I’d say that Americans have 1.7 million reasons to oppose another Stimulus. And that’s why many of us have been calling on the President to propose something different tonight. Not because of politics. But because the kind of policies he’s proposed have failed. The problem here isn’t politics. The problem is policy.

“It’s time the President start thinking less about how to describe his policies differently and more time thinking about devising new policies. And he might start by working with Congress, instead of writing in secret, without any consultation with Republicans, a plan that the White House is calling bipartisan.

“With 14 million Americans out of work, job creation should be a no-politics zone. And Republicans stand ready to act on policies that get the private sector moving again.

“What we won’t do, however, is allow the President to put us deeper in debt to finance a collection of short-term fixes or shots-in-the-arm that might move the needle today but which deny America’s job creators the things they really need to solve this crisis: predictability, stability, fewer government burdens and less red tape. Because while this crisis may have persisted for far too long and caused far too much hardship, one thing we do have right now is the benefit of hindsight. We know what doesn’t work.

“So tonight, the President should take a different approach. He should acknowledge the failures of an economic agenda that centers on government spending and debt, and work across the aisle on a plan that puts people and businesses at the forefront of job creation.

“If the American people are going to have control over their own destiny, they need to have more control of their economy. That means shifting the center of gravity away from Washington and toward those who really create jobs. It means putting an end to the regulatory overreach that’s holding job creators back.

“It means being as bold about liberating job creators as the administration’s been about shackling them.

“It means reforming an outdated tax code and getting out of the business of picking winners and losers.

“It means lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate, which is currently the second-highest in the world.

“And it means leveling the playing field with our competitors overseas by approving free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that have been languishing on the President’s desk for years

“Contrary to the President’s claims, this economic approach isn’t aimed at pleasing any one party or constituency. It’s aimed at giving back to the American people the tools they need to do the work that Washington has not been able to do on its own, despite its best efforts over the past few years.

“The President is free to blame his political adversaries, his predecessor, or even natural disasters for America’s economic challenges. Tonight, he may blame any future such challenges on those who choose not to rubber-stamp his latest proposals. But it should be noted that this is precisely what Democratic majorities did during the President’s first two years in office. And look where that got us.

“But here’s the bottom line: By the President’s own standards his jobs agenda has been a failure. And we can’t afford to make the same mistake twice.

“Now after the President’s speech tonight calling for more stimulus spending, the Senate will vote on his request for an additional $500 billion increase in the debt ceiling. So Senators will have an opportunity to vote for or against this type of approach right away.”

There you have it.

It’s very tempting to just forget about the speech and go out for dinner. But I’ll watch it in the remote hope that the President uses the opportunity to tell the American people what’s really happened and explains his differences with Mitch as forcefully as old Mitch explained his.

This is a campaign speech, whether we like it or not. They are not going to pass anything real, that’s quite clear. So this is a rhetorical exercise and one that should be used to educate the American people about the difference between radical, right wing nihilism and liberalism. At this point I’d just like to keep liberalism alive so that it can fight another day.

I’d be a lot more hopeful about what we’re going to get if the very first item in the talking points didn’t stress that the plan was “bipartisan.” If that’s the theme then we’re screwed.

.

Help Wanted: Old Master

by digby

I’m watching CNN right now as Ali Velshi and Richard Quest discuss art as an investment. They tell me that it’s not good for the polloi because it’s hard to get in cheaply as living artists are making new art and diluting the value. It’s an investment for the wealthy who are jittery and “uncertain” about the economy and want to own things that have intrinsic value. Oh well.

But in the course of the discussion I learned that these extremely valuable producers and job creators have been very busy:

Sotheby’s today announced results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2010. 2010 brought the best financial results for Sotheby’s in its 267-year history, apart from 2007. Consolidated Sales* were $2.0 billion in the fourth quarter and $4.8 billion in the year, an increase of 57% and 74%, respectively.

If only the government would take its jackboots from the throats of these hardworking entrepreneurs, just think of how much more of this value would be created in our economy.

Instead, the parasites move in, as usual, seeing an opportunity to mooch an unearned share:

Although the recent strike of 45,000 Verizon workers has dominated labor news the last few weeks, at least two other contentious local union fights are now underway in New York, at Central Park’s iconic Boathouse Restaurant and the elite auction house Sotheby’s.

The 43 locked-out art handlers at Sotheby’s, all members of Teamsters Local 814, sent their message loud and clear – negotiate now – to management at a rally on August 26, where their ranks were swelled by hundreds of Teamster women in town from across the country for the annual Teamster Women’s Conference.

Jason Ide, the local’s president and himself a former art handler for the company, painted a picture of a greedy corporation that has refused to bargain fairly with its workers, instead locking them out of work on August 1, in the midst of contract negotiations.
“This company sells art and antiques to some of the richest people in America. This company made $690 million in gross profits last year,” Ide said angrily to the assembled workers, who chanted “Teamster power!” and “No contract! No work, no peace!” “And when we went to the bargaining table, they said that’s for us, not for you.”

Among its demands, Sotheby’s, which just had its most profitable year ever in its 267 years of business and whose CEO, Bill Ruprecht, is paid approximately $60,000 a day, wants the art handlers to give up their 401K plan and work a reduced 36-hour week, effectively a 10 percent wage cut. The company also wants to cap workers’ overtime, eliminate certain titles that pay more, and, in initial bargaining, wanted workers to give up their right to sue over charges of discrimination.

These 45 greedy looters need to understand that capitalism is about rewarding creativity and bringing value to the economy. Wealthy patrons paying hundreds of millions of dollars to each other for products that were made centuries ago by people who are no longer living is a perfect example of how this works. How anyone can believe that taxing these collectors and destroying their incentive to “produce” won’t crash our economy is mystifying. And why anyone could think these workers are even remotely entitled to a piece of their hard earned profits(those auctions are very tiring)is bizarre.

After all, dead artists need jobs too.

.

Cause and effect: jobs and deficits

by digby

So the Super Committee (yes, it looks like that’s what it’s going to be called…) met for the first time today. They all agreed that the debt was crippling and must be dealt with immediately. But there were differences. Sort of:

Although Murray said she agreed that the “deep and long-term deficit and long-term debt” is placing an “overwhelming burden” on the nation and future generations, she and other Democrats spent more time talking about the desperate need for job creation, while Republicans led by Hensarling argued that reducing the deficit is a jobs-plan in and of itself.

I think it’s interesting that Hensarling said that outright, but it is, of course, the underlying message Washington been flogging for the past two years. Indeed the entire subtext of the deficit debate is that it’s the cause of unemployment, not the result. And it’s completely reasonable for people who are busy with their lives and only peripherally paying attention to the details to assume that as well. After all, why in the world would the President and both parties be obsessed with it if it wasn’t the most acute problem we face and the reason why so many people are out of work? One would have to believe that our leaders are extremely incompetent or slightly unhinged to be worrying so much about debt if it wasn’t the reason for our current problems, right?

It’s true that most politicians don’t come right out and say this. They jabber about the confidence fairy instead. But when it comes to austerity, this is what they really mean:

During the Q&A, one of the questioners wondered what Christie had learned in New Jersey that might be applied to the nation. His answer was direct: “This is not hard. We spend too much. We borrow too much. We tax too much. It is time to turn those three things around.”

“Now, pain will be inflicted when we change that,” he went on. “People are going to do with less. People who are used to having entitlement at a certain level will not have them at that level anymore. That’s the story.” Christie cited Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s “courageous” and “thoughtful plan” to “fix those systems” by replacing Medicare with a voucher program.

Hensarling was just saying what they all believe — that government spending is the problem. Even though it isn’t. And the Democrats dissent by saying that it’s all completely true but it might also be nice if we could extend Unemployment Insurance for a little while longer to keep people from being tossed into the streets — at least until after the election.

.

Becoming a hippie

by digby

Ok, the world has officially gone mad:

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

You’ve probably guessed who the singer songwriter of this stirring anti-war song is by now:

The host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and former Florida congressman, Scarborough is no John Mellencamp and he’s certainly not the Dixie Chicks — he’s a Republican, after all. Yet the host, also a songwriter and Beatles fan, told The Huffington Post that his new song, “Reason to Believe,” has a purpose that would have resonated with earlier critics of Vietnam.

“It’s critical that we remember the heroes of 9/11 and those who are still fighting in an endless war,” Scarborough said. “They need to come home. It’s time.”

The music video, released by Sony Records and put together by JAM, the production company of Scarborough and his MSNBC cohost, Mika Brzezinski, opens with a woman answering the phone in her house and getting word that someone — presumably her husband and the father of the young girl shown next to her — was killed in the twin towers.

“In the flash of an hour / Watching dreams fall from towers / All I once knew came tumbling down,” Scarborough sings. About halfway through the video, the focus shifts from the terrorist attacks to the march to war.

The catchy tune and Americana visuals can’t hide the searing lyrics as Scarborough laments the bloodshed of the last 10 years: “In an endless war / Tell me please how many more have to die / Before my sweet boy comes home.”

It’s tempting to make fun of this, but I’m going to restrain myself. As I watched the video I realized that we are seeing more conservative apostates than at any time I can remember. It’s not common. In my experience people get money, get success and social standing and they almost always go the other way.

Welcome to the reality based community Joe.

h/t to RP

Debate thoughts

by digby

Ok, I’ve seen enough of Rick Perry to know that he’s a uniquely vicious and ignorant piece of work who cannot be trusted with the executive branch. He went after Social Security, attacked science and defended his disgusting execution record, including the fact that he covered up the fact that at least one of his victims was an innocent man.

Here’s a handy in-depth analysis of his executions in order of their controversy. He’s a sick piece of work.

Romney and Huntsman are standard issue GOPers, the rest are total lunatics. And for some odd reason Newt Gingrich is trying to look like Justin Bieber.

ugh.

Update: And, by the way, the audience cheering for executions is one of the low points in the history of presidential debates.

.

Trouble in Sarahdice

by digby

As we prepare to watch the GOP freakshow at the Reagan library enjoy this fine whine from Erick Erickson:

On Fox News, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham had the best discussion on Sarah Palin I have seen. And Ann said something I have said. But I have not said it nearly as well as Ann did.

To paraphrase Ann, a lot of us fell in love with Sarah Palin because of her enemies and a lot of us have fallen out of love with Sarah Palin because of her fans.

For the past year, Palin fans have become an online fixture with more venom and insanity than the most rabid Ron Paul fan. They have not evangelized on behalf of Sarah Palin trying to lead people to Sarah Palin, they have freaked a lot of us out.

I am at the point of fearing that should Palin not get in the race we’re going to have a Hale Bopp moment with many of her most ardent supporters. These people have become too emotionally invested in one person to discuss that person rationally or even to address serious policy concerns.

For the longest time I wanted Sarah Palin to run.

At some point, I decided Sarah Palin could not defeat Barack Obama, but I’d rather go down fighting on Team Sarah than side with any of the guys who will just take us down the “big government conservative” path of creeping socialism.

Finally, I decided Sarah Palin was not going to run and I moved on. Ultimately, 2012 really is about beating Barack Obama, not what Sarah Palin will or will not do.

Unfortunately, as I found out and as others are starting to find out, moving on from Sarah Palin is like leaving Scientology.

To not bow at the throne of Sarah you get disowned. You get attacked. You have people drum up stories attacking your credibility. “Oh, Perry announced at his event, he must be bought and paid for,” etc. Ironically, some of the very people going after this site’s and my credibility — claiming we’re pressured to do things by higher ups at Eagle Publishing — are people who were on payrolls advocating for clients while refusing to disclose potential conflicts among other things. To add comedy to irony, it seems more and more apparent that some of those who attacked this site and me for holding editorial positions based on what our corporate parent dictates (a lie designed to undermine our lack of sufficiently pro Palin bona fides among other things) are themselves engaging in projection because it is they, not RedState nor me, who must tread carefully in who they attack because their livelihoods depend on it. It’s always the kooks who project their sins on others.

Logic, reason, and being nominally on the same side in a fight against Obama has no logic for people in the cult. In the past month RedState and I personally have been attacked for being in Romney’s camp, Perry’s camp, Bachmann’s camp, Herman Cain’s camp, and most laughably in Jon Huntsman’s camp — all by Palin fans who clearly are not paying attention.

For the past several months, I have posted a weekly horserace. Inevitably, should Palin not get mentioned the angry horde of cultists come out of the wood work offended that Sarah Palin did not get included. If I included her and dared suggest either she might not run or it might not be a sure thing, the attacks were even more unhinged.

There are many, many good people who support Sarah Palin and feel like they owe it to her to support her given what she has been through — from her shoddy treatment at the hands of Team McCain to an unrelenting press. But these people who have sat and continue to sit patiently and quietly waiting for Sarah Palin to finally make up her mind are starting to get frustrated. And some of them are getting aggravated by and drowned out by The Palin Fan Cult. The cult is full of people with little prominence outside a twitter stream, a few nominal soapboxes imagined to be bigger they they are, and possessing a lot of bile and little grace inside an echo chamber of indecision 2012 dementia. About the only thing this cult lacks are thetans.

Sarah Palin is a great person. She’s a great fighter. She draws in awesome attention and rallies a crowd. She has some terrific and loyal supporters I don’t want to lump in with the loud voices largely now disconnected from political reality. Ron Paul is the same way. But at some point, Sarah Palin has to take some responsibility for her supporters as Ron Paul must for his. Palin’s dragging out the tease on her decision has compounded the problem and we’ve reached a breaking point.

They created this monster. And now it’s turned on them.

I was talking to a friend the other day who said rather casually that she assumed Palin was going to run a sort of reality show Independent run. This makes me think she might — and she could cause some real headaches for the Republicans. She wouldn’t get Perot numbers, but she could make the difference in a close election.

And it would be sooooo much fun.

GOP debate drinking game: One sip every time they say tax cuts. One gulp every time they say Obamacare. One shot to your own head when Michele Bachman squeals “Let’s make Baraaack Obama a Onnnnne Terrrrm President!!!

.

Working Together
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)

James Fallows at the Atlantic reiterates what must be said about the upcoming jobs debate:

An objective observer must of course conclude that in fact there is no way “to put American back to work that both parties can agree to,” because not agreeing is, for today’s Republican leadership, a paramount goal.

It is admirable, even touching, that the President of all the people states his faith that “both parties can work together to solve our problems.” But can he actually “still believe” this? Based on what vote? By what Republican? On what bill? At what point during Obama’s time in office? It is hard to imagine that he has not noticed the real-world evidence. So if he has observed reality and knows that no matter what he proposes the GOP simply will not sign on, what’s the next move? And lot depends on whether and when the “Mr. Reasonable” strategy pays off.

Remember that this discussion comes in the context of the admission by a longtime Republican staffer that the GOP is intentionally trying to destroy the very notion that government even can work together:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters’ confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,” and that “government is no good,” further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses” and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.” This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s – a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn (“Government is the problem,” declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable “hard news” segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the “respectable” media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the “centrist cop-out.” “I joked long ago,” he says, “that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read ‘Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'”

The GOP position is clear: make sure that the government is as functionally inept as possible, even if it means failing to agree on which day of the week it is, when the President can give a speech, or what color the sky is. Forget about the ideological differences, which are very real and very stark. Even if there were no serious policy disputes between the parties, it would be up to the GOP to subterfuge and sabotage the ability of the government to function insofar as possible.

That’s obvious to everyone in Washington outside of the cocktail pundit class circuit. And it’s obvious to everyone in the activist community who is paying almost any attention to politics.

It’s hard to believe that President Obama actually thinks that the GOP will agree with anything he does. Which leaves intelligent analysts to speculate that he is attempting to score points with low-information “independents” who supposedly think highly of compromising any and all principles for the sake of compromise itself.

If that theory is correct, we’re left with only two options: 1) Obama is wrong, and the only option left for saving the country from an insane GOP is all-out hyperpartisan ideological warfare; or 2) Obama is right, in which case the “can’t we all just get along” whims of the lowest-information voters in swing states control our national future.

If the former, nearly the entire pundit class is dead wrong about everything and should be replaced for the sake of democracy. If the latter, the pundit class is functionally useless at doing their job to inform the public about crucial issues, and should be replaced for the sake of democracy.

.