Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Schlock Artists

by digby

Julia has more on the inaugural cost nonsense that seems to be sweeping the media today. But this really takes the cake:

Bush’s inaugural donors were mostly individuals, lobbyists and companies with a vested interest in high oil prices, deregulation,** and the mortgage bubble. The Obama team isn’t taking money from lobbyists or companies, has lowered the top donation from Bush’s $250k to $50k, and (we find tucked into the bottom of a Politico story about “big donors”) all but 5,632 of the 200,000 donations they’ve received were less than $200, for an average donation of $34. Which, I guess, is why two days before the inauguration right pundit pushback has been reduced to this:

Even President Bush — who presumably counts himself among that group — said last week that Obama’s inauguration is “a moment of hope and pride.” That’s not exactly how Michelle Malkin describes it. “Jan. 20 has turned into a schlock inauguration, (where) every last moocher has come to cash in on Obama,” says the conservative blogger and pundit. “There are some of us who want to bang our heads against the wall.”

Lest we forget, this is what Ms. Malkin considers a tasteful inauguration.

I think I blacked out the Bush inaugurations because I did not recall Bush’s “tasteful” inauguration.

Dear God:

Diners attending any of three candlelight inaugural dinners will be treated to a menu best described as “donor’s delight,” a compilation of dishes intended to honor major Bush campaign fundraisers. The chef’s challenge: 4 courses and 12 brand names, representing millions in donations By Deanna Swift WASHINGTON, DC—Just call him the “Iron Chef” of the White House. Executive Chef Walter S. Scheib III is facing a major culinary challenge: how to create an inaugural menu that pays tribute to the brand names of a dozen top Bush campaign and GOP donors. From Coca Cola to Krispy Kreme doughnuts and Pilgrim’s Pride turkeys, Scheib’s dishes must satisfy the most powerful appetite on Capitol Hill these days: the taste for money. “I’ve never had to create dishes that include soda, doughnuts and canned fruit before,” says Scheib, who received his training at the Culinary Institute of America, and cooked at the Capitol Hilton in Washington and the Boca Raton Club before accepting the honor of “top toque” in the White House kitchens. But he says he’s not worried. “I’ve already changed the way I cook and have given up all French recipes. This should be a snap,” says Scheib, referring to the White House’s ban on béchamel and beurre blanc after France refused to support the administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq. But preparing a meal that includes not one, but two varieties of doughnuts can test the mettle of any chef, Scheib concedes. Krispy Kreme Inc. gave more than $90,000 to the Republicans in 2004, while Dunkin Donuts has been a long-time GOP supporter. Scheib’s solution: use the Krispy Kremes as the basis for Snowballs in Hot Fudge, a sauce made from Nestlé Nesquick, the product of another major donor, Nestlé CEO and Bush ‘pioneer’ Joe Weller. Dunkin Donuts old-fashioned cake doughnuts, meanwhile, will become part of a sweet and savory stuffing for an old-time turkey dinner. The birds: Pilgrim’s Pride Whole Butter Basted Turkeys. Pilgrim CEO Lonnie Pilgrim was a Bush pioneer in 2004, pledging to bring in more than $100,000 in contributions to the Bush/Cheney campaign. Figuring out how to incorporate Coca-Cola into the meal was an altogether different matter, says Scheib. “It’s a refreshing cola beverage, there’s no doubt about it. But how do you cook with it? I had no idea.” In the end, Scheib used the Coca-Cola as the basis for a brine, thus killing two birds, so-to-speak, with one stone. The Pilgrim’s Pride Whole Butter Basted Turkeys benefit from their overnight soda bath, while Bush ‘ranger’ Barclay T. Resler, Vice President of Government Relations for Coca-Cola, gets some much deserved credit for rounding up more than $200,000 in campaign contributions

And to think I’ve been teasing average small time capitalists for selling Obama kitsch.
.

Sacrifice

by digby

MSNBC commentator: … The subtext of all of this [call to service] is “hey Americans, you’re gonna have to do your part too. There may be some sacrifices involved for you too.” Do you think he’s going to use his political capital to make those arguments and will it go beyond rhetoric?

Andrea Mitchell: It does go beyond rhetoric. He needs to engage the American people in this joint venture. That’s part of the call. That’s part of what he needs to accomplish in his spech and in the days following the speech. He needs to make people feel that this is their venture as well and that people are going to need to be more patient and have to contribute and that there will have to be some sacrifice.

And certainly, if he is serious about what he told the Washington Post last week, that he wants to take on entitlement reform, there will be greater sacrifice required from a nation already suffering from economic crisis — to ask people to take a look at their health care and their other entitlements and realize that for the long term health and vitality of the country we’re going to have to give up something that we already enjoy.

Right. Old and sick people are going to have to give up something they “enjoy.” That’s assuming they “enjoy” being able to eat and go to a doctor. Of course, Andrea Mitchell won’t have to give up what she “enjoys.” She’s a multi-millionaire.

It’s hard for me to believe that we are going to have this conversation while the government is giving hundreds of billions of dollars to bankers who see it as a handout to be used to enrich their stockholders and themselves. And I am as stunned as I always am that we are going to have this conversation while the government insists that the United States must spend more on its military than all the other countries in the world combined.

But I really can’t believe that we are having this conversation when social security is well funded for decades and yet the current problems are staring us right in the face. I can only assume that Obama must feel that he has to solve every problem anyone can possibly conceive of in the future as well as the problems of the present and I’m sorry, that is the very definition of hubris. Social security is not an issue he needs to put on his already very full plate and I can’t imagine why anyone thinks it is, unless they want to barter it away for cooperation on something else, which is unacceptable.

I would guess that they are worried about being called tax and spend liberals, so this is why they are talking up “fiscal responsibility” as some sort of hedge. With the gasbags blathering on all day about how he’s being “given” a trillion dollars to “play with” I can see why they would be nervous. But the way to combat that is not to put “entitlements” on the table, but to reassure people that these problems are solvable and that they are putting programs in place to solve them. The proof is in the pudding on this one. The opposition is only interested in sharing bipartisan success, not failure.

It’s possible that they want to position health care reform as entitlement reform, but I do not think it will work. The forces that want to destroy the safety net are influential and well funded and they are selling entitlement “reform” in just the way that Andrea Mitchell describes — as something the American people must give up in order to set the country on the right course. They will not sit still while someone tries to sell it as anything other than necessary cuts in benefits or complete elimination of the programs. That’s the whole point.

.

Forked Tongue

by digby

Here’s a lovely little story about your political and media elites, in which they all gather together at a party at Christopher Hitchens’ house to tongue kiss and talk torture:

Inside, Hitchens opined on whether the Obama administration should answers calls from the left to prosecute Bush administration officials for illegal interrogation of prisoners: “As long as it’s agreed that these steps were taken in response to public demand,” he began, only to be interrupted by Andrew Sullivan, who greeted him with a hug and a kiss. “I want tongue. Give me tongue,” Hitchens implored, to no avail. “No, I’m not giving you tongue,” Sullivan replied, feigning astonishment. “Let the record show: Sullivan wouldn’t give tongue,” Hitchens replied. (“He’s gayer than I am!” Sullivan later told us.)

Continuing his discourse on torture policy, Hitchens then claimed that the Bush administration’s commitment to harsh interrogation techniques, which he considers torture, derived from a desire among Americans for a more “ruthless” government. “It has to be admitted by every American that in the majority after the 9/11 Commission, people wanted an administration that was much more ruthless than the one they’d had on September the 10th,” he said.

“I know something for a sure thing,” Hitchens continued. “The demand for torture and other methods I would describe as illegal, the demand to go outside the Geneva conventions — all this came from below. What everyone wants to say is this came from a small clique around the vice-president. It’s not educational. It doesn’t enlighten anyone to behave as if that were true. This is our society wanting and demanding harsh measures.” Therefore, he went on, the demand for prosecution or other measures against Bush administration officials would likewise have to come from below, via the grassroots. “Otherwise it’s just vengeful, I suppose, and partisan.”

Hitchens is mildly insane of course. But he’s a villager through and through, as are most of the attendees at this fabulous bash. And I suspect that he’s actually speaking for most of them when he says that the torture was “demanded” by the people. From the perspective of the village that’s quite true: the mechanism for this demand was that villagers like Jonathan Alter and Thomas Friedman — who believe they are perfectly in tune with salt of the earth Real Americans — were screaming at the top of their lungs for the leadership to “get crazy” and torture suspects (who turned out to be completely innocent.) In the minds of our political establishment they represent “the grassroots.”

And considering how eagerly these Real Americans are embracing the idea that not only must Obama not prosecute anyone for torture, he really needs to keep torturing, I suspect that we won’t be seeing any calls for accountability from “the ground up.”

There are a bunch of irrelevant rubes who asked Obama to appoint a special prosecutor. But they aren’t invited to post-partisan soirées at Christopher Hitchens’ house, so nobody noticed.

.

Inaugural Speeches

by digby

Yesterday, I posted a Youtube of JFk’s famous “ask not what you can do for your country” inaugural speech. Here’s FDRs famous “nothing to fear but fear itself” inaugural address from 1933.

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.

Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States—a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.

It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.

You can hear the audio at the link.

Update: link changed

The Concert

by digby

My favorite highlight from the concert — Pete Seeger singing the subversive, politically incorrect lyrics to “This Land Is Your Land” that nobody ever sings …

“As I was walkin’ – I saw a sign there
And that sign said – no tress passin’
But on the other side …. it didn’t say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

In the squares of the city – In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office – I see my people
And some are grumblin’ and some are wonderin’
If this land’s still made for you and me.”

Heh. He’s still got it.

This was good too:

I also liked Garth Brooks leading the choir — and the crowd — with “Shout!” (It had to make some Republicans feel really strange to see that mega country star crossing over to the dark side.) I would have liked to see the Dixie Chicks up there too, but I suppose the people who sang “I’m Not Ready To Make Nice” aren’t exactly the perfect messengers for this theme of reconciliation. But I’ll always appreciate them for standing up and fighting back when it was hard to do it.

And, at the risk of being sentimental again ( I know how some of you hate that) I have to say once more just how much affection I feel for the Obama family and how verklempt I get at the thought of them being in the White House. I’ve been embarrassed and ashamed of a lot of things this country’s done, especially in recent years. But the fact that in my lifetime we have gone from the horrors on the Edmund Pettus Bridge to inaugurating a black president gives me … well … hope.

.

More Big Lies

by digby

I think this is getting some traction and it needs to be stopped.

Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let’s party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama’s inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

“President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake,” the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. “During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified.”

The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.

That was the AP , by the way, not Newsmax.

Boehlert dispatches this thoroughly:

The Internet and cable news were filled with chatter about the jaw-dropping (and unsubstantiated) number suddenly attached to Obama’s swearing-in. But the sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don’t do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work. It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.[…]

Here’s why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush’s 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration’s security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here’s The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama’s inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What’s happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security. In other words, it’s the unsubstantiated Obama cost of $160 million (inauguration + security) compared with the Bush cost of 42 million (inauguration, excluding security). Those are two completely different calculations being compared side-by-side, by Fox & Friends, among others, to support the phony claim that Obama’s inauguration is $100 million more expensive than Bush’s. That’s why the right-wing site Newsmax.com confidently reported that Obama’s swearing-in would cost “nearly four times what George Bush’s inauguration cost four years ago.”

I’ve been hearing kvetching about the “enormous cost of the inauguration while people are suffering” in some non-political corners the last couple of days. It’s not going to rain on the celebration, but it could be one of those things that’s regurgitated down the road as the wingnuts try to revive their “big spending liberals” meme. And it’s nothing more than a right wing hit job.

.

The Big Speech

by digby

As we prepare for the big speech on Tuesday, I thought it would be fun to watch some previous inaugural speeches, just to have something to compare it to. Most of them are much better than that shockingly bad one of Bush’s in 2004. Some are great pieces of oratory that last through the ages.

Here’s one for us baby boomers, most of whom were too young to have known what was happening at the time, but who grew up with it as the defining inauguration address of our time:

.

What’s The Real Reason?

by digby

Can someone smarter than I tell me how the smart financial types are explaining this to one another when the stupid rubes aren’t listening? Are they just high fiving each other over what a bunch of marks the idiot taxpayers are or do they have a more sophisticated rationale for why the government should be passing our money to banks so they can hoard it?

I guess I find it amazing that these bankers so blithely admit that they are taking money they don’t need and are using it for things that won’t help the economy. Is this some sort of psychological game that I’m too simpleminded to understand or are they living in an alternate universe where they don’t even have to try to explain why it’s ok to take huge sums of money from the treasury without any responsibility to use it to help the economy?

Perhaps a Randian could explain how this is supposed to work because I really, really don’t get it.

Again, I’m reminded of the run-up to the war. You know the reasons they are giving are complete nonsense, and the reason that seems obvious is so outrageous that you keep thinking there’s something you’re missing. But you aren’t. It’s exactly what it seems to be — powerful interests are just taking what they want because the opportunity is there. And they aren’t even trying to hide it.

It’s Big Lie Disaster Capitalism happening right before our eyes and considering just how successful they’ve been at doing it during the last eight years you have to admit that they’d be stupid not to keep right on doing it. We’re the stupid ones.

.

Reverence For Celebrity

by digby

I just saw Obama hug Bishop Robinson at the Lincoln Memorial and it did my heart good. (Unfortunately it was right after he hugged Bono so none of the gasbags — that I heard — mentioned it.)

I so wish they’d asked Robinson to give the invocation at the inauguration and had Rick Warren do today’s event with a bunch of celebrities. He fits into that category far better than Father Robinson.

Update: Apparently HBO didn’t show the Bishop’s invocation at all. I didn’t it on the cable news shows either, but I might have missed it.

Calm

by digby

Everyone agrees that Obama is calm, which is a good thing. I like calm leadership too. I think everyone does. Bush’s bizarre press conferences after 9/11 certainly didn’t make me feel reassured, although the press managed to convince everyone that our shaky, befuddled president was a great leader.

However, I would caution aqgainst anyone thinking that being “calm” is meaningful in terms of anything but temperament. Although the political establishment and the media like to conflate such personality characteristics with “character” and a propensity toward their favored moderation, it really doesn’t have anything to do with the success of a presidency. I have always been struck by how incredibly calm Dick Cheney is. And he’s a psychopath.

Like I said, I like calm and I particularly like Obama’s calm cool. But it doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.

.