Month: November 2014

Lies we tell ourselves
by Tom Sullivan

America has lost faith with itself.

Grazing on the Net this morning, one story after another pops up where a common thread is the lies we tell ourselves and the ugly truths about ourselves we struggle to hide.

Paul Krugman:

According to conservative dogma, which denounces any regulation of the sacred pursuit of profit, the financial crisis of 2008 — brought on by runaway financial institutions — shouldn’t have been possible. But Republicans chose not to rethink their views even slightly. They invented an imaginary history in which the government was somehow responsible for the irresponsibility of private lenders, while fighting any and all policies that might limit the damage.

Matt Taibbi (on securities fraud at Chase and collusion between the company and the Justice Department to cover it up):

When [Alayne] Fleischmann and her team reviewed random samples of the loans, they found that around 40 percent of them were based on overstated incomes – an astronomically high defect rate for any pool of mortgages; Chase’s normal tolerance for error was five percent. One mortgage in particular that sticks out in Fleischmann’s mind involved a manicurist who claimed to have an annual income of $117,000. Fleischmann figured that even working seven days a week, this woman would have needed to work 488 days a year to make that much. “And that’s with no overhead,” Fleischmann says. “It wasn’t possible.”

But when she and others raised objections to the toxic loans, something odd started happening. The number-crunchers who had been complaining about the loans suddenly began changing their reports. The process she describes is strikingly similar to the way police obtain false confessions: The interrogator verbally abuses the target until he starts producing the desired answers. “What happened,” Fleischmann says, “is the head diligence manager started yelling at his team, berating them, making them do reports over and over, keeping them late at night.” Then the loans started clearing …

“That’s the thing I’m worried about,” she says. “That they make the whole thing disappear. If they do that, the truth will never come out.”

The Guardian, wondering if a Republican-controlled Senate will even release its long-delayed torture report:

Torture is so endemic to the prosecutions undertaken by the US military commissions that the military designed and built a special courtroom just to limit any outside access to unredacted testimony given at the commission: court and legal observers are relegated to “censorship chambers” attached to the courtroom, where they can only view the proceedings behind soundproof glass with a 40-second audio delay.

And just to make certain that no one will hear if the defendants or their lawyers mention torture outright, the military judge and commission’s security officer have a button to unilaterally cut that audio feed when they believe discussion might veer into dangerous territory. When the government can silence the truth about its own crimes in a single click, it’s the very negation of justice.

Frank Schaeffer on the midterm elections:

The Republican Party base is white evangelicals. So it’s no wonder that GOP lies about the country, the economy and the president worked. The folks who base their lives on religious mythology have spent lifetimes being trained to believe lies. On Tuesday they won. Lies won.

I opened an April op-ed on the propagation of the “voter fraud” fiction with this quote from retiring Wisconsin State Senator Dale Schultz, the sole Senate Republican to oppose early voting limits:

“It’s just sad when a political party has so lost faith in its ideas that it’s pouring all of its energy into election mechanics. I am not willing to defend them anymore.”

It’s getting sadder when I’m quoting the Bible in a blog post two days in a row.

God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, KJV

Where’s Samuel L. Jackson when we really need him, my brothers, to save us from the tyranny of evil men?

Post mortem round-up

by digby

Here’s an interesting fact about the alleged historic nature of this year’s election:

If Republicans take the Senate this week, neither side will have held it for more than eight consecutive years since 1980, a period of volatility unlike anything since the late 19th century.

Huh.  I’d guess that says something about something.

I’m sick to death of electoral post mortems at this point so I’ll just give you some links of things I’ve read over the past day or so to follow and draw your own conclusions.

Brownstein
Paul Starr
Grim and Terkel
Kutner
Kludt
Linkins and Carter
Hurlburt
Sirota
Costa

I’ve read a ton of stuff by right wingers celebrating their new thousand year reich but nothing that’s worth passing on. They’re enjoying their victory and that’s ok. But it’s boring.

.

.

Chart ‘O the Day

by digby

Democracy baby!

.

The obstructionists best friends


by digby

Eric Boehlert makes a good point in this piece about how gridlock has worked for the Republicans: the assumption among the press and other political observers that it’s President Obama’s fault. He begins with a retrospective of how this strategy emerged early in the Obama presidency and how it was covered.  Then he writes:

On paper, the GOP’s desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn’t commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?

Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don’t cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it’s the president’s fault. 

And that press judgment hasn’t budged since 2009. 

If you think I’m exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama’s first term, just go back to the White House’s January 23, 2009 press conference. That’s when NBC’s Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party’s stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it. 

Todd’s weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama’s stimulus package, then it was Obama’s fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure. 

Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn’t like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn’t support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory. 

“Republicans find their voice,” cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, “[I]t was clear that [Obama’s] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address.” Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn’t ushered in a “post-partisan era.” 

Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.

I think it was inevitable in the beginning that the press, and perhaps the public, would see the president as a failure in this regard because of the way the 2008 campaign was sold.  There was an implicit promise that this president would “transcend” the usual impediments due to his personal gifts for … transcending the usual impediments. And the White House has to take a little bit of responsibility for hyping that claim long after it was useful once in office.

However, there’s no excuse for it lingering beyond the moment when not one Republican would sign on to a very market friendly health care plan that was crafted for their pleasure.  That should have wised up the entire press corps that this was not business as usual and the president’s gifts notwithstanding, the GOP had decided on a full blown strategy of obstruction unlike anything we’ve seen in decades.

The Villagers continue to dream of Tip ‘n Ronnie and assume that it’s purely a matter of presidential political skill and “reaching out” like that affable fella Ronald Reagan did to make it happen. But the truth is that Reagan had a Democratic congress chock full of Southern conservatives who were happy to vote with him while President Obama was dealing with a revanchist fringe of right wing extremists as his opposition.  (Also too, he’s not quite as “relatable” as good old Ronnie if you know what I mean …) And frankly, that was obvious before the election of 2008 when anyone could have seen that a party that was willing to impeach a president over sex , take the presidency through dubious means in a state run by the GOP candidate’s brother and then act as if they had a mandate was not a party one could count on for bipartisan comity. I don’t know why anyone ever thought otherwise.

Boehlert is right though.  The press is living in an alternate universe where all it takes is the right guy to “bring everyone together.”  I think Richard Cohen, the Washington Post House liberal columnist probably expressed Villager sentiment the best back in 2000:

“Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush.”

.

Katha Pollit lost us the election

by digby

…. with her pro-choice book that made everybody mad.  Oh and all those other dumb feminists too.  They need to stifle it:

Far more significant for the Democrats this year was their persistent difficulty avoiding the extremes of either seeming ashamed of themselves or pushing an agenda only a progressive activist could love.

The most memorable example of the first was Alison Lundergan Grimes, who notoriously refused to admit that she — the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky — voted for the head of her own party when he stood for re-election just two years ago. This was foolish not only because it made her look like the most transparently dishonest politician around, but also because it conveyed the message that there’s something dishonorable about being a loyal and committed Democrat.

At the other extreme, we find a range of losing Democratic candidates — from Wendy Davis in Texas to Mark Udall in Colorado — who put the defense of abortion rights at the center of their campaigns, as a way of mobilizing women.

Now I fully understand why the GOP has trouble attracting female voters, and I’m all for Democrats doing whatever they can to exploit their strengths on women’s issues. But despite what Katha Pollitt and other abortion absolutists may like to believe, these efforts cannot just come down to championing a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy on demand. Americans (of both genders) are deeply divided about abortion, with relatively few people supporting that right without serious moral reservations.

Democrats can fume about this fact. They can speculate about its origins in sexism and religious convictions they don’t share. They can wish it were otherwise and work to persuade voters to change their minds about it. But that’s at best a long-term strategy. And for the time being, leading with abortion — in Texas of all places! — is bound to be a losing strategy.

And so is the president of the United States speaking carelessly, just days before the election, about how choosing to be a stay-at-home mom is “not a choice we want Americans to make.” Sure, it wasn’t an intentional dig against moms who stay home with the kids; he was talking about families, and especially mothers, being forced to quit their jobs for want of affordable child care. But the wording was sloppy — seemingly tailor-made to provoke irascible social conservative voters — and the timing was atrocious.

I believe I correctly forecasted that the wimmin folk would be held liable for being such icks about all that ladyparts stuff.  Nobody who counts (white men and old people) give a damn about any of that and it just makes Real Americans mad and we can’t have that.

The good news is that the Religion Industrial Complex is likely hiring so if you have some experience exhorting Democrats to get on the social conservative bandwagon I’d imagine there are some openings.
Anti- feminism has always been a job creator.

.

It’s Hillman Time

by digby

The greatest honor of my writing life was winning the Hillman Prize last year. It was a thrilling acknowledgement of my work and a wonderful experience all around.

Nominations for next year are open and I hope that all of you will give some thought to nominating good writers in the various categories. (Obviously, they are an open minded jury or they wouldn’t have considered me so be creative in your thinking.) And if you’ve done some writing you’re proud of this year, nominate yourself! What have you got to lose?

Click here for the instructions.

.

The most racist news story of the year?

by digby

You have to see this to believe it:

My favorite part of that is where they admit that the fellow has no gang affiliation. I do like the new “gang” uniform of fluffy white hat and scarf with a red t-shirt and clipboard though. Very menacing.

Shaun King at Daily Kos calls that the most racist story of the year and that may be right:

Does the Minneapolis ABC affiliate KSTP not have a filter in which something that smells this bad gets flagged for poor journalism? 

Sadly, only racism allows such an ugly story and stereotype to be advanced about a young man who was clearly not flashing a gang sign with the mayor of Minneapolis. He deserves a public apology and heads should roll at this station for even allowing it to ever make it to the air. 

Furthermore, some real investigative journalism needs to uncover just why the police were willing to get behind such a phony story. Something smells off in a major way. Could it be because the mayor is behind the police wearing body cameras and the police faked this story hours before the pilot program was due to launch? Or could it be that she called out police corruption and vowed to clean it up last month? 

Since KSTP ran this awful story, the hashtag #pointergate has gone viral with hundreds of photos of regular people and celebrities all over the world pointing at people in photos.

Like this:

In case you were wondering what dastardly things this mayor has done that might make the police angry enough to pull this stunt, it is probably this statement from the mayor:

Running the city well for everyone means making sure that every resident of Minneapolis feels safe and is safe, in every neighborhood. Hundreds of police officers serve respectfully and collaboratively every day to keep people safe and make neighborhoods across our city stronger. But not all do: some officers abuse the trust that is afforded to them, and take advantage of their roles to do harm rather than prevent it. Minneapolis has, and has had, officers like that. These officers do not represent a majority of the department, but their behavior disrupts community trust for all officers in the community. When left unchecked, their behavior fosters a culture inside the department that gives a shove downward to police and community relationships. When that culture exists, good cops face even more hurdles to fostering a positive culture and bad cops have even more room to maneuver, and the downward spiral continues. This is why it is so important to check bad behavior and end it, once and for all.

Every leader must acknowledge that this history and this culture in Minneapolis have made the goal of true community safety a challenge to reach. We must also acknowledge the pain and anger in community about it. If part of our community does not feel safe calling the police, if people do not report a crime or come forward as witnesses because they do not feel safe in relationship with the police, then nowhere in our city, and none of us, is safe.

This is why over many years, including eight years on the City Council, I have worked to improve police accountability and police–community relations. I have fought to strengthen civilian review of police misconduct and to create accountability measures for police chiefs that include racial equity, the incidence of misconduct, and effective discipline. While on the City Council, I voted against the reappointment of former Chief Dolan, based on issues of community relationships and management. I called publicly for early intervention systems for cops, and for the legal and contractual authority to impose stronger sanctions on officers who engage in misconduct. And as mayor, I have proposed to invest several million dollars next year and beyond to improve accountability and trust. My budget puts our money where my and our city’s values are.

Below is the vision and platform for police accountability that has guided my work over time, and guides me as mayor. It reflects my values, my history, and my determination to eliminate racial disparities, to transform the parts of police culture that perpetuate disparities, and to continue to build a department that looks like our city and is responsive to and respectful of all our cultures and communities.

I’ve seen cruder examples of payback from police for crossing their blue line than this “news” story but not in several decades. And naturally, they revert to the most racist tropes they can find. This one’s a doozy.

.

Lil’ Luke and the Crown Jewel

by digby

My piece in Salon this morning is about the Village press coverage of the election, specifically Luke Russert on election night and why they got the story completely wrong:

They’ve sent Luke Russert into the field. Yes, you read that right. Rather than just exploiting his very special gift for repeating the conventional wisdom he hears in the halls of the Capitol building, he’s now reporting out in the real world. A couple of weeks ago they seasoned him by having him do a stand-up in front of an airport terminal to report on Ebola. And then they told him to pack up his “sage of Capitol Hill” act and head out to Iowa.

Being a reporter of great depth and insight, upon landing in Des Moines, he managed to immediately glom on to a prevailing story line, which he repeated over and over again. As Talking Points Memo pointed out in this piece, Russert blew into Iowa and serendipitously discovered that the likely winner of the race he’d been assigned to cover in the last two days of the election was also destined to be the newest Kingmaker of the Republican Party, the fantastically exciting new GOP politician named Joni Ernst. Once he discovered how “charismatic” Ernst was it was obvious there was absolutely no need to discuss the issues in the race or the more general state of politics in the state. Ernst was “riding the momentum” of her charisma to victory and we really didn’t need to know anything else about it.

In fact, he skipped right over the race itself and moved on to declare her the GOP’s “kingmaker” because she’s from Iowa and all the candidates will have to come there to kiss her ring. No, he didn’t offer any explanation as to why being Iowa’s freshman senator made her so powerful to potential presidential candidates; it was apparently assumed that we would all instinctively understand it.

Read on for bonus Chris Hayes analysis that throws a bucket of cold water on the heads of all those who think this election changed anything.

.

How’s about a tepid, heaping helping of moderate?
by Tom Sullivan

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:15-16

Sometimes the left just needs to get over itself and quote some King James Bible. Comedian John Fugelsang, for instance, wields scripture with the adroitness of Mackie Messer.

These particular lines from Revelation have hung around like an earworm since Tuesday. After polls closed, the woman ranked the “most moderate” senator, Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, narrowly lost her bid for reelection to North Carolina’s immoderate, Republican Speaker of the House, “Tholl Road Thom” Tillis. Democrats across the country who tried distancing themselves from the president and Obamacare lost as well.

Gary Younge assesses the midterm results in the Guardian:

According to a CNN exit poll, 8 in 10 Americans disapprove of how Congress has been handling its job, while almost 6 in 10 are displeased with President Obama. A full 44% have a positive view of Democrats; 40% have a positive view of Republicans. Americans have just elected the party they like the least to run the government body they least trust.

Why? Because while they might support the kinds of progressive policies several states passed on Tuesday, voters find many Democrats as infuriating as Eliza Doolittle found the mawkish Freddy Eynsford-Hill— all talk and no show. As others have said before, Americans love a fighter. Even one they disagree with. Hagan had a huge, Obama-style field operation, but what she was selling voters (probably on expensive advice) was a tepid, heaping helping of moderate. It cost her volunteers, voters, and the election. It cost the country much more. And she wasn’t the only Democrat voters spued.

When Republicans accuse a Democrat of being like Neville Chamberlain, they are evoking an entire constellation of Eynsford-Hill-ish weakness. On the right, weakness is a moral failing and a mortal sin. The only reason Republicans tolerate the weepy John Boehner is the powerful position he holds. No matter how wrong, a Republican politician rarely apologizes or backs down. He knows if he shows weakness one of the other alpha-dog wannabees is ready to tear out his throat and replace him. Democrats (the president included) seem to believe if they play nice, maybe they won’t get eaten. Good luck with that.

Probably like many of you, I found myself again this cycle yelling, “Stand for something!” at Democratic candidates trying to go along to get along. Try motivating voters with that. Or with being lukewarm when opponents fight unashamedly for more crazy. Voters choose those bold enough to stand for something, anything. And in the absence of vision, even for tearing up the government they’re elected to run.

So now a GOP Senate welcomes the T-Party Bloc Panthers. Burn, Beltway, Burn.

Historic

by digby

How @TIME covers midterm elections. Can you guess which one the Democrats won? pic.twitter.com/py7E0UDaE5
— Greg Saunders (@waltisfrozen) November 6, 2014

And the Democrats’ win truly was historic featuring as it did the impending election of the first woman Speaker. But whatevs. (I guess evoking breasts with that diagram was good enough.)

You really cannot make this stuff  up:  the Democrats win a sweeping landslide to take over the House in 2006 and Joe Klein pens a piece called “The center is the place to be.”

*Year corrected to 2006 … ooops.