Month: January 2016

We just disagree

by digby

Harold Meyerson on Obama’s somewhat fatuous comments last night about his regrets about not bringing people together:

“It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency,” Obama said, “that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide….”

I doubt it.

Neither Lincoln nor FDR was able to bridge the gaps that their own policies created. Their triumphs, rather, were to prevail over their opponents. Simply by winning the 1860 election, months before he took the presidential oath, Lincoln prompted South Carolina and six other Southern states to secede. His first inaugural address concluded with a plea to the South not to commence a civil war. He appealed to the “better angels of our nature.” The South responded by bombarding Fort Sumter. So much for Lincoln’s ability to bring the nation together through his powers of persuasion. He was surely the greatest and most profound orator ever to serve as president, but while Frederick Douglass acclaimed his second inaugural address as “a sacred effort,” John Wilkes Booth heard the speech and resolved to kill Lincoln then and there.

From 1933 through 1937, Roosevelt was able to persuade Congress to enact the most far-reaching social legislation the nation had ever known. He did not accomplish this by convincing mainstream Republicans to back these measures. (There were liberal Republicans in those days who did support them, but they were the exception.) Social Security, the National Labor Relations Act, Glass Steagall, and a host of other structural reforms were enacted, and the Works Progress Administration funded, because an electorate that had moved left in response to the Great Depression sent to Washington the most lopsidedly Democratic congresses in the nation’s history. Republicans reviled Roosevelt, calling him “that man” rather than even mentioning his name. His political appeal crossed the partisan aisle only when he donned the mantle of wartime president—and then, only sometimes.

Sorry, but the game of politics doesn’t end in a tie with everyone getting a trophy. It’s nice when there can be compromises where everyone can feel they won but that’s a rare thing.  Mostly, one side wins and the other side loses.

Why does the right wing hate America so much?

by digby

I wrote about the right’s reaction to Obama’s last SOTU for salon this morning:

It was kind of sad last night watching the last Obama State of the union address and noting the difference between the progressive euphoria that accompanied his speeches in the early days and the rather blasé response this one evoked. He’s still a wonderful speaker and the speech was filled with the kind of sentiment that has always melted the hearts of Democrats everywhere. But they’ve been there and done that and the lame duck blues are upon them.

It was, as always , interesting to watch the response of the Republicans however,  both in the audience and online. Needless to say, they were not impressed. The elected representatives in the hall managed to hold themselves back from screaming “you lie!” or blatantly rolling their eyes, but they managed to convey their disgust nonetheless. The online right didn’t hold back.

For instance, when President Obama said the US was still the most powerful nation in the world, commenters at Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s Facebook page let fly. This pithy comment is representative:

“Has he been in another world for the last 7 years? America has declined every day under his failed weak ideological disjointed illogical politically motivated attempt at leadership.”

Pollster Frank Luntz shared his bipartisan focus group’s reaction on twitter:

“The United States is still the strongest nation on Earth.”

Republicans in my focus group literally LOL’ed. #SOTU pic.twitter.com/3hPvc6GjHM

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) January 13, 2016

It wasn’t long ago that Republicans would have considered such a reaction to be fighting words. Recall Jimmy Carter’s so-called “malaise speech” which made conservative heads explode for decades.For many years anyone who even whispered that America was less than perfect in any way was called a member of the “blame America first crowd.” During the Bush administration anyone who questioned the administration was asked, “why do you hate America so much?”

Times have certainly changed. Today the campaign book of the GOP’s presidential front-runner is called “Crippled America”. It is an article of faith that our military is so degraded we cannot possibly defend ourselves. They assume that everyone around the world once loved us and now loathes everything we stand for and the patriotic right which once lived by the mantra “love it or leave it” now blithely maintains that the United States is no longer the best country in the world. Who would have ever thought that was possible?

As is so often the case, the reality is very different from Republican perceptions. According to a recent Pew Poll on global attitudes about America, nearly 70% of the world’s nations approve of the US and president Obama and support his policies against ISIS. Half think of the US as the world’s greatest economic power. What they don’t care for are GOP policies like torture. (We happen to be one of the few developed countries in the world in which a majority of the people support the practice.)

Read on. You’ll especially enjoy what the right wing talkers had to say about Nikki Haley. (Hint: Ann Coulter suggested that Trump should deport her.)

.

The benefit of diplomatic channels

by digby

Last night the right wing was in full screech over the detention of American sailors by Iran. It was quite clear they were very excited and stimulated and hoping the incident would result in the shooting war they so dearly desire. (And barring that, at least provide another opportunity to whine and snivel about how Obama has made the US into a weak and powerless nation.)

They were thwarted. Iran released the sailors without incident. And it’s due to the diplomatic channels that have been created over the nuclear deal:

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who has maintained open lines with Kerry and U.S. officials, made no mention of an apology in a tweet he sent after the sailors were released.

“Happy to see dialog and respect, not threats and impetuousness, swiftly resolved the #sailors episode. Let’s learn from this latest example,” Zarif wrote.

The only thing the right wingers have left is a rumor that the US “apologized” for straying into Iranian waters which they are convinced is tantamount to waving the white flag of surrender. Kerry’s office says he didn’t, but it’s possible that the commander of the American ship did. But whatever.

These right wingers are sounding more and more like gangsters every day and I wonder what they’re teaching their children. Considering their reaction to events like this I have to assume they’re saying their kids have a right to do anything they want and if for some reason they break any rules they have no obligation to say their sorry and should probably hit whomever it is who’s calling them to account for it. And to think they used to be called “the grown-ups.”

.

The news notices the news

by Gaius Publius

It’s really hard to pick turning points until after the game, but this might just be one. Watch the video at the top (direct link here if the embed fails). Then note — the news is not the polling data. After all, Howie covered it here and I added on here. The news is that the news is covering it.

This piece isn’t about the poll. It’s about the media. If the media ever discovers that…

• Sanders essentially doubles Clinton’s lead against important Republican candidates, and
• Sanders wins against them when she narrowly loses, and 
• Sanders has nearly double her support among independents

… it could be a long ride home for the Clinton campaign. About that last point, here’s PPP recently on the New Hampshire race (pdf; my emphasis):

Things remain extremely close on the Democratic side, with Hillary Clinton at 47% to 44% for Bernie Sanders, and 3% for Martin O’Malley. There’s an incredible divide between the Democrats and independents planning to vote in the primary- Clinton leads Sanders 55/36 with Democrats, but Sanders almost completely cancels that out with a 59/29 advantage among non-Democrats planning to vote in the primary.

These results among independents are not at all uncommon. And frankly, if African Americans notice in large numbers that Clinton’s history with “black lives (and prison sentences)” issues is very mixed at best, her campaign could be in real trouble as early as Super Tuesday, or even earlier, in South Carolina. As Mark Halperin notes in the video above (my emphasis):

She [Clinton] has a new ad saying she’s the one who can stop the Republicans from winning. That flies in the face of the latest poll data from NBC…

and:

[Sanders] sees what’s going on and he’s confident of winning. Don’t count her out, but if we wake up the night of New Hampshire and he’s won them both, it’s a totally different world.

Of course that’s true; Halerin is right. I’m shocked, though pleased, that he’s saying it … out loud with the on-air light still lit. Stay tuned; the race is getting more than interesting.

This news is making news

Again, my point isn’t about the candidates. What’s been true about them has been true for a while, though noticed only in the side lanes and frontage roads that run next to the mainstream media highway. Remember this from one of those side lanes?

The real electability story’s been out there for a while. The news is that the bigger news is telling it. I find that fascinating, even intriguing, perhaps telling. Notice that even the banner under the Morning Joe Halperin interview underscores the point: “Sanders says he’s Democrats’ most electable candidate.” A week or so ago, that was a secret, and neither Sanders nor the media were saying it with any force. Will other “bigger news” shows follow suit? Will MSNBC? Will Meet the Press and all its clones and cousins?

If so, if “big news” makes this a thing, it could mark a turning point. After all, validation does drive votes, and we’re less than a month away from Iowa and New Hampshire (full schedule here). If Sanders wins both state contests, to quote Mr. Halperin, “It’s a totally different world.”

Why the news is making news like this is almost more intriguing. But that’s a subject for a different day, since it will take some thought. Wheels within wheels? (For a peek, scroll down to the Update here.)

Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you’d like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you’d like to “phone-bank for Bernie,” go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.

POTUS calls for fixing our broken politics
by Tom Sullivan

“Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction,” President Obama said last night in his final Sate of the Union Address. He used much of the speech to try to defuse the distrust in basic institutions that is eating at the country’s foundations, and to push back against demagoguery.

I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead – they call us.

He appealed to better angels rather than inner demons and took a shot at tribal divisiveness and our broken politics:

A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.

And on our rigged system, Obama urged, “We’ve got to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around,” he said. Something to warm a field organizer’s heart.

But our focus on this annual pageant and our quadrennial presidential election may miss where the real action is. “The civil rights movement taught the left the lesson that one could win in ‘one fell swoop’ by going for national level changes,” according to Frank Baumgartner, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina. Thomas Edsall looks this morning at how while Democrats have convinced themselves that Washington is where change comes from, Republicans have shifted their focus. They’ve gone 50 state strategy:

Away from the national level, the commitment of conservative donors to support a power shift in state government illustrates the determination of the right to eliminate regulatory and legal constraints on markets where their money has proven most productive.

Attempts to control the White House have become far more risky with the rise of a strong Democratic presidential coalition. In 2012, conservative groups put $700 million in a bid to win the presidency, two and a half times as much as liberal groups, but Obama still won decisively.

In a sense, they took a cue from Howard Dean, focused on the states and built local infrastructure. Edsall gives some credit to the left’s efforts to fight back. Still,

While the presidential race captures our attention – and as the left has withdrawn from low-level combat — conservatives have overseen the drawing of legislative and congressional districts that will keep Republicans in power over the next decade. In this way, through the most effective gerrymandering of legislative and congressional districts in the nation’s history, the right has institutionalized a dangerous power vacuum on the left.

Our next Democratic president won’t fix that. We have to.

Wackobird protest

by digby

Fergawdsakes

Reserving an empty seat in lieu of inviting an actual guest seems all the rage for this year’s State of the Union address, which President Barack Obama will deliver before Congress Tuesday evening.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) announced Tuesday he was dedicating a seat in the House gallery to “the lives of more than 55 million aborted babies,” in protest against what he called the “most pro-abortion president ever.”

“President Obama’s first official act, immediately upon his inauguration was to sign an executive order to accelerate abortions world-wide,” King said in a statement, referring to Obama reversing a policy that banned the U.S. from funding international family-planning providers that provided abortions or abortion counseling. “The first tears we have seen him shed in seven years were for the victims of the tragic Sandy Hook School shooting. As far as we know, Obama has never shed a single tear for even one of the more than 9 million babies aborted under his watch.”

Recall that King is the guy who carries a little acorn in his pocket to remind himself how they successfully destroyed the ACORN organization. He has promised to carry some other tiny talisman around with him when he succeeds in defunding Planned Parenthood. He hasn’t said what it would be.

.

Trump’s enemies list is long

by digby

Tavis Smiley and Donald Trump got into it over the last few days with each calling the other a racist. Smiley went on CNN last night and made what I thought was a very good point:

“I’m on your program tonight because I made a comment about Donald Trump yesterday on a morning show. And within a matter of hours, Donald Trump had tweeted about me… So if that story broke over the weekend about this white supremacist — again, he can’t be responsible for who is supporting him. But how can he get around to calling me a racist and a hater in less than 24 hours, but since the weekend he hasn’t gotten around to condemning a white supremacist for supporting his campaign.”

If you haven’t heard about the white supremacists running robocalls for Trump,I wrote about it earlier but the story has been filled out since then:

William Daniel Johnson has a vision for America. The Los Angeles-based lawyer thinks that the United States will see the creation of a white ethno-state within his lifetime.

“I think Trump’s candidacy is helping move us in that direction,” Johnson said in a Monday phone interview with TPM. “Whether he is elected or not, his candidacy is a big factor in helping destroy this middle-of-the-road Republican mindset.”

Johnson is the chairman of the American Freedom Party, a white nationalist political party, and the founder of a super PAC that plans to blanket early voting states with robocalls encouraging voters to turn out for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. As TPM reported Saturday, voters in Iowa got their first taste of the automated recordings—which heaped praise on Trump’s anti-immigrant views—from the American National Super PAC this weekend. It branded Trump its “Great White Hope” in a press release for the robocall campaign.

The super PAC, founded in November 2015, was known as the American National Trump Super PAC until the Federal Election Commission informed Johnson that a PAC unaffiliated with a particular candidate cannot bear that candidate’s name… 

In the first batch of robocalls, Johnson identified himself only as a “farmer and white nationalist.” But that description sells short his work as one of the country’s most active white supremacists.

According to a 2008 article in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a Los Angeles daily focused on law and the courts, Johnson made waves as a young attorney after he was revealed to be the author behind a pseuodonymously published book that advocated repealing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “Amendment to the Constitution,” published in 1985 under the pen name James O. Pace, laid out Johnson’s proposal that “No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race…Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States.”
[…]
Trump’s platform, which includes forcibly deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. and temporarily banning all Muslims from entering the country, gave the AFP a mainstream candidate that shared many of its concerns.

“We agree with a lot of the things he says,” Johnson said. “Not everything he says, and we’re not Republicans, but we agree with him primarily because of his anti-immigration stances.”

See, he really can appeal across party lines.

You can read more about Johnson here. It is telling that Trump has had nothing to say about this but will take to twitter in a New York minute to condemn those with whom he has a beef, no matter how minor. Apparently, he has no problem with this guy.

Update: He’s got Pat Buchanan’s vote.

It’s kind of funny.  Just as lefty Democrats are forever deluding themselves that blue collar whites will vote with them because they need health care too,  righty Republicans are now convincing themselves that blacks and Hispanics will vote for them because they need jobs too.

Neither side seems to recognize that human beings are motivated in their beliefs and their actions by a lot more than economics. Marx has quite a legacy.

Whither the public option?

by digby

Brian Beutler asks a very good question:

Why aren’t Hillary and Bernie pushing the public option? Paul Waldman breaks down the convoluted fight Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are currently waging over single payer insurance. The short version is that from what we know of Sanders’ earlier preferences, he’d like to consolidate federally subsidized insurance and create a Canadian-style single payer system, administered at the state level.

Clinton says Sanders’s plan would not only be too expensive (contestable), but would empower conservative states to erode their citizens’ health coverage (also contestable). This is to say nothing of the political feasibility question, which she has not yet broached

After all, as he points out the public option has some very important things going for it:

1. It can be administered by the feds.

2. It would reduce federal and individual health expenditures.

3. It can serve as a default plan for the uninsured.

4. It’s an ideal vehicle for migrating toward a single-payer system over time, while mitigating disruption.

He also points out that liberals abandoned the idea once Obamacare became law and finds that odd. I don’t, sadly. The public option was an idea championed by the progressive left during the health care fight. And unlike conservatives, when liberals lose a fight like that they walk away instead of doubling down. They accept the defeat as final.

But progressives persist in calling for single payer because that’s really a value, not just a policy. They want a universal, national health care plan that is administered by the government, because they believe health care is a right not a privilege. With the ACA in place, I think this argument becomes even more abstract, even as it becomes more real.

The public option was the progressive position in the health care battle because progressives wanted to make that value into something tangible in that process. There was a moment when the value and the policy might have merged. Once that fell apart, the natural response was to go back to trying to make the argument for single payer as an argument about values rather than a specific policy. (It’s unlikely more than a very few believe it’s actually possible any time soon.)

If Democrats were more like Republicans they would have turned the words “Public Option” into a mantra and kept at it the way the conservatives did about “death taxes” and “tort reform” — in other words, make the policy itself into the value. But they tend not to do that for whatever reasons. I think this one may have been a missed opportunity. It’s possible that the Republicans will win and will overturn Obamacare thus opening the door somewhere down the road for Dems to enact a new system. But that’s nothing anyone should hope for.  So, improving Obamacare should at least be on the menu and the Public Option remains the best policy anyone’s devised for making sure that everyone can afford insurance and perhaps lay the ground work for an expansion to a single payer system in the future.

.

Donald Trump is the greatest troll who ever lived

by digby

They just don’t come any trollier.  His “Bill Clinton is Bill Cosby” Instagram ad was masterful.  But this is so subtle and perfect in so many ways:

Now that he has raised questions about Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) Canadian birth and American citizenship, Donald Trump has started playing Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” before campaign rallies, according to reports in The Weekly Standard and the Texas Tribune.

I honestly think Roger Stone has a lot more to do with his campaign than anyone’s letting on. They are a perfect pair.

The last SOTU

by digby

I

In Salon today I wrote a little bit about our high hopes back in 2009 when president Obama gave his first State of the Union address and how it was based upon some naive assumptions about the Republicans.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

There are at least three keys to understanding Obama’s approach to (and avoidance of) ideology. There is, first, his simple joy in testing himself against those who disagree with him. Someone who knows the president-elect well says that he likes talking with philosophical adversaries more than with allies.

[…]

But Obama’s anti-ideological turn is also a functional one for a progressive, at least for now. Since Ronald Reagan, ideology has been the terrain of the right. Many of the programs that conservatives have pushed have been based more on faith in their worldview than on empirical tests. How else could conservatives claim that cutting taxes would actually increase government revenue, or that trickle-down economic approaches were working when the evidence of middle-class incomes said otherwise?

Read on …