Jingo Tells
by digby
There have been a lot of creepy ads already this season. But this one takes the cake:
This isn’t an official ad of the Paul campaign and they have vigorously condemned it. Nobody seems to know who made it, but suffice to say whoever it is is a jingoistic jerk.
The whole thing gives me the creeps.
.
The great uniter
by digby
This is the man the Villagers extol as a man who brought the country together:
Update: And here’s the Great Communicator as president. The man everyone remembers as being able to talk to ordinary Americans like no other, before or since:
Pretty impressive huh?
h/t to GS
.
The disempowerment of Michelle Obama
by David Atkins
The recently released excerpts from Jodi Kantor’s upcoming book on the Obamas is at once a fascinating and depressing read.
In Kantor’s telling, Michelle Obama has been a consistent and vocal critic of the drifting, cautious, risk-averse approach of the White House, leading to frequent conflict with Gibbs, Emanuel and other advisers:
Michelle Obama was privately fuming, not only at the president’s team, but also at her husband.
In the days after the Democrats lost Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat in January 2010, Barack Obama was even-keeled as usual in meetings, refusing to dwell on the failure or lash out at his staff. The first lady, however, could not fathom how the White House had allowed the crucial seat, needed to help pass the president’s health care legislation and the rest of his agenda, to slip away, several current and former aides said.
To her, the loss was more evidence of what she had been saying for a long time: Mr. Obama’s advisers were too insular and not strategic enough. She cherished the idea of her husband as a transformational figure, but thanks in part to the health care deals the administration had cut, many voters were beginning to view him as an ordinary politician.
The first lady never confronted the advisers directly — that was not her way — but they found out about her displeasure from the president. “She feels as if our rudder isn’t set right,” Mr. Obama confided, according to aides.
Rahm Emanuel, then chief of staff, repeated the first lady’s criticisms to colleagues with indignation, according to three of them. Mr. Emanuel, in a brief interview, denied that he had grown frustrated with Mrs. Obama, but other advisers described a grim situation: a president whose agenda had hit the rocks, a first lady who disapproved of the turn the White House had taken, and a chief of staff who chafed against her influence….
Like many of the president’s supporters, Mrs. Obama was anxious about the gap between her vision of her husband’s presidency and the reality of what he could deliver. Her strains with the advisers were part of a continuing debate over what sort of president Mr. Obama should be, with Mrs. Obama reinforcing his instincts for ambitious but unpopular initiatives like the overhaul of health care and immigration laws, casting herself as a foil to aides more intent on preserving Congressional seats and poll numbers.
Yes, except the part where those exceedingly cautious poll watchers got everything they wanted, and ended up leading Congressional Democrats to an historic defeat in 2010. If her husband had listened to his Michelle more, things might have taken a different trajectory.
But as things stand, she appears to have been neutered, left to be a cheerleader for austerity and whatever else the “wise” poobahs decide must be done to win the mythical “centrist” voter:
“To me, she seems more content than I’ve seen her throughout this process since he’s been running for president, which is a very good thing,” Mr. Axelrod said.
The worse things got for her husband in 2011, the more she rallied to his side, buoying him personally and politically. In August, after the debt ceiling negotiations in Washington reached their painful conclusion, Mrs. Obama gave a party for his 50th birthday, warning guests not to leave early and delivering a stemwinder of a toast in praise of her husband.
As the sun faded, the 150 guests — friends, celebrities, officials — sat on the South Lawn, listening to the first lady describe her version of Barack Obama: a tireless, upright leader who rose above Washington games, killed the world’s most wanted terrorist and still managed to coach his daughter Sasha’s basketball team. The president, looking embarrassed, tried to cut her off, several guests said, but she told him he had to sit and listen.
She also thanked him for putting up with how hard she had been on him. At that line, a few of the advisers glanced at each other in recognition.
Oh good. Now that Michelle is toeing the Axelrod line, everything is just peachy, because the last thing this Administration needs is progressive self-critique.
When push comes to shove, it may well be the biggest thing wrong with the Obama Administration is that the wrong Obama is in charge.
.
“Put the load right on me”
by digby
Mavis Staples, Nick Lowe and Wilco rehearse “The Weight.”
The first time I heard that song was at the third “Day On The Green” concert with Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young and The Band. It was pretty great. And I saw Nick Lowe many, many times a long time ago. We’re all old now, but it’s true what they say about age being a state of mind because I feel the same way hearing that song as I did then. And Mavis Staples still sings like a naughty angel — at 73. So there.
.
Proving once again that conservatives aren’t funny
by digby
Some things are better left to the professionals:
.
Mortifications for the 99%
by digby
It looks like Santorum doesn’t want to be president after all. He wants to be Flagellant in Chief:
Risking the wrath of older voters, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is calling for immediate cuts to Social Security benefits and says the country can’t wait to phase in reductions as most of his rivals have advocated.
“We can’t wait 10 years,” even though “everybody wants to,” Santorum told a crowd while campaigning in New Hampshire Friday, breaking with opponents who say immediate cuts would be too big a shock to current and soon-to-be retirees.
[…]
He made a similar pitch last week in Fort Dodge, Iowa, when he was getting little attention in the GOP race — and before he came from the back of the pack to nearly win the Iowa caucuses.At that event, Santorum said: “the Democratic National Committee is going to say, ‘Ah,… he’s for changing benefits now.’ Yes, I am. Yes, I am.”
“We need to change benefits for everybody now,” Santorum said at the time. “Is everybody going to take a little bit of a hit? No, but a lot of people will.”
[…]In a brief interview Friday as he plowed his way through a crowd after the Keene event, he was asked if the nation should make the changes now.
“I think we should, yeah,” Santorum said. “Obviously we’re going to have to go through a debate next year and figure out ways in which to make the revenues meet the expenditures.”
He tells voters he would rule out higher taxes or more deficit spending to help the Social Security program. That leaves benefit cuts as the only way to match revenues and costs, he notes.
Right. The fact that social security isn’t contributing to the deficit is irrelevant and it would be against God’s will and the Constitution to raise taxes on the gluttonous 1% and ask them to pay more to pay the actual deficit. It has been decreed that the old the sick and the young who cannot work must pay for the sins of the Masters of the Universe.
It’s rumored that Santorum is associated, if not a member, of this group. It’s all about making people punish themselves.
Update: great piece by Sarah Posner on the problems the religious right is having coalescing around an alternative:
I were the betting sort, I’d wager that no concrete endorsement will come out of this, and there will be regrets afterwards. Those regrets were assuaged in 2008 with the selection of Sarah Palin. If Romney ends up being the nominee, which he in all likelihood will, the pressure will be on to come up with a similarly thrilling (for the religious right) running mate.
I think they’ll want a Southerner too so I’d bet on Perry.
.
Profiles in courage, pro-labor edition
by David Atkins
I know it’s become popular to trash elected Democrats, but what Indiana Democrats are doing is a profile in political courage:
Thirty-seven Indiana Democrats are on their third day of denying Republicans the 67-member quorum necessary to proceed with union-busting “right to work” legislation in the Indiana House of Representatives. The Democrats continue to not show up to the chamber despite now facing fines of $1,000 a day.
Why do Democrats continue to hold out, despite facing very real financial threats to themselves and their families, and despite Republicans holding a 60-40 majority in the House of Representatives? Because Democrats and unions are within striking distance of stopping the bill.
A source close to the process has told Daily Kos that Indiana Democrats are “very close to having the votes to defeat the bill on the floor.” A total of 51 votes is needed to defeat the bill, and while Democrats are united in opposition, Republicans are divided.
This information is based on an anonymous source, so obviously take it with a grain of salt. Still, there is an intuitive logic backing it up. With multiple members of the Democratic caucus actually facing the possibility of losing their homes over this, at this point they would not be staying out of the chamber if the fight was hopeless.
The single biggest difference between social democracies abroad and our democracy is the relative weakness in of labor unions in America. The decline of middle-class wages vis-a-vis productivity and rise in the incomes of the 1% tracks closely with the decline of American labor.
Determination to stand with the interests of labor is a big part of what it will take to bring America back toward a more progressive, fairer and more stable economy. Democrats in Indiana are showing that determination, as Dems opposing the odious Scott Walker have done and are still doing in Wisconsin.
.
From the “how do you like me now?” files
by digby
So, you’ve probably heard that there was a little “glitch” in the vote count in Iowa, right?:
Caucus night was chaotic in many places, with hundreds of voters, candidates showing up and the throngs of media who followed. The world’s eyes were on Iowa. But in the quiet town of Moulton, Appanoose County, a caucus of 53 people may just blow up the results.
Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn’t.
“When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I’ve got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa,” True said. “Not Mitt Romney.”
Well hell. But is this really a surprise? After all, ever since 2000, when the Supreme Court declared that it would do “irreparable harm” to George W. Bush if Al Gore ever even temporarily took the lead in the vote count, we’ve known that the winner in a close race must always be the Republican who is declared the winner by the media, regardless of the actual vote count. I’m guessing that GOP politicians never dreamed that little gambit would be used on themselves. Guess who’s feeling the hurt now?
“This is politics,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared Dec. 21, dismissing calls for him to condemn ads attacking former House Speaker Newt Gingrich that were run by an independent group supporting Romney’s candidacy.
The ads were part of an unprecedented $3.3 million negative campaign of television spots and direct mail by Restore Our Future, an independent expenditure-only committee or super PAC, which blunted Gingrich’s rise and may very well be the main ingredient in an Iowa victory for Romney next Tuesday.
Never before have the Iowa caucuses seen such a campaign by any group other than a candidate committee. And with days to go before Iowans cast their votes, the new political landscape is coming into sharper focus.
Fully aware of the bazooka he had in his back pocket, Romney on Friday jetted off to New Hampshire to campaign for the primary election there, casually planning a return to the Hawkeye State on Saturday afternoon. Calm and assured that his campaign would keep on going past Iowa, he put an op-ed in the State newspaper in South Carolina and spent the morning taking shots at President Barack Obama in a variety of interviews. Opponents were left grappling for third place in Tuesday night’s vote.
I’m sure they’ll all be passionately defending the God given Constitutional right of anonymous billionaires to destroy Democrats in a few months. But for right now the Republicans are reaping what they’ve sowed. I hope they like the idea of groveling to the wealthy elite for the privilege of being the single anointed GOP candidate in the future because that’s how the presidential candidates will be chosen going forward. It’s not that it’s ever been completely open, but the huge gusher of money in this year’s primary to clear the field for Mittens shows that there’s probably no chance of an underdog ever again actually winning the thing. They’ll just destroy whoever stands in their way with ads and if the people get uppity and vote for the wrong person anyway they’ll take care of it the Florida Way.
.
Orwell Santorum
by digby
I hadn’t bothered to watch Santorum’s allegedly brilliant Iowa speech until I saw Rick Perlstein’s post about it. Oh dear God:
Rick Santorum got high marks for his near-victory speech in Iowa. In the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne called it “by far the best speech Tuesday night.” Santorum’s address impressed me, too, but for a different reason: his astonishing endorsement of feudalism, wrapped up in a soaring tribute to something he called “freedom.” A sharper illustration of the bad faith of at the heart of conservative rhetoric I never have seen in all my life.
He began by doing what conservative presidential candidates always do in this season of economic privation: talked about his family’s one-time economic privation. It wasn’t off the cuff. “As you know,” he said, “I do not speak from notes, but there’s a couple of things I want to say that are a little more emotional, so I’m going to read them as I wrote them.” And what were the words he so carefully wrote to read at this, his moment of triumph? That his grandfather came to the United States from Italy in 1925: “because Mussolini had been in power now three years, and he had figured out that fascism was something that would crush his spirit and freedom and give his children something less than he wanted for them.” He came because—why else?—he loved freedom.
(Brief digression: he says his grandpa came in 1925. Someone should look into this. The racist Immigration Act of 1924 had the previous year made it very, very difficult for anyone from such a dirty, disgusting, non-Anglo Saxon place like Italy to emigrate to the U.S. Maybe Santorum got the date wrong. In any event, the very fact of the 1924 law is another disturbance marring the official Republican cult of America-Is-And-Always-Has-Been-Perfect that I will be discussing below. End of digression.)
So, from the unfreedom of Mussolini, he marched into the rosy-fingered dawn of American freedom—which Santorum described thusly:
“He left to the coal fields of Southern Pennsylvania. He worked in the mine at a company town, got paid with coupons, he used to call them.”
Let us dwell on that. Grandpa Santorum lived in a company town where he was paid in “scrip” in lieu of cash. That means what his grandson calls “freedom” was, well and truly, something more like slavery.read on …
Those really were the good old days, weren’t they? Perlstein aptly posted the Youtube of Johnny Cash singing “16 tons”, something I’m sure Santorum has heard, but evidently thought was a celebration of the American way of life.
I might also point out that Rick Santorum has to be the most macabre Presidential candidate ever. Who talks about dead bodies in their acceptance speech? But then Santorum has kind of an obsession with them.
Read the whole Perlstein treatment. I think Santorum represented the GOP’s basic belief system quite well. What’s shocking is how everyone seemed to celebrate it.
.
Good news for some American families
by digby
The jobs numbers are good, but there also good reason to contain the jubiliation for the time being, at least according to Jared Bernstein, who’s not a hostile emo-prog the last I heard.
But this is genuinely very welcome news worth celebrating:
Obama to ease path to green card: This will get comparatively little attention in today’s crush of news. But it’s still a very big deal:
Obama administration officials announced on Friday that they will propose a fix to a notorious snag in immigration law that will spare hundreds of thousands of American citizens from prolonged separations from immigrant spouses and children.
It’s hard to believe that we’ve had this Kafkaesque system in place for so long in the first place, but it’s good news that they’re dealing with it:
The change that immigration officials are offering would benefit United States citizens who are married to or have children who are illegal immigrants. It would correct a bureaucratic Catch-22 that those Americans now confront when their spouses or children apply to become legal permanent residents.
Although the tweak that officials of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services are proposing appears small, immigration lawyers and advocates for immigrants say it will make a great difference for countless Americans. Thousands will no longer be separated from loved ones, they said, and the change could encourage Americans to come forward to apply to bring illegal immigrant family members into the legal system.
Illegal immigrants who are married to or are children of American citizens are generally allowed under the law to become legal residents with a visa known as a green card. But the law requires most immigrants who are here illegally to return to their home countries in order to receive their legal visas.
The catch is that once the immigrants leave the United States, they are automatically barred from returning to this country for at least three years, and often for a decade, even if they are fully eligible to become legal residents…
Now, Citizenship and Immigration Services proposes to allow the immigrants to obtain a provisional waiver in the United States, before they leave for their countries to pick up their visas. Having the waiver in hand will allow them to depart knowing that they will almost certainly be able to return, officials said. The agency is also seeking to sharply streamline the process to cut down the wait times for visas to a few weeks at most.
I know someone who went through this and it was unbelievably difficult and painful. It took her husband nearly six years to wade through the process. It was awful. I’m sure people will still fall through the cracks, but eliminating Catch-22s like this will help a lot of American families.