Because America Has Suffered Enough...

To spare us the misery of watching Republican candidates all day today, Barack Obama gives a press conference. He's so considerate.



On Iran:

My policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them getting a nuclear weapon.

That's my track record. Now, what's said on the campaign trail? You know, those folks don't have a lot of responsibilities. They're not Commander in Chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I am reminded of the costs involved in war. I'm reminded of the decision that I have to make in terms of sending our young men and women into battle. And the impact it has on their lives, the impact it has on national security. The impact it has on our economy. This is not a game. There's nothing casual about it. And when I see some of these folks who have a lto of bluster and a lot of big talk. But when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat a lot of the things that we've been doing over the last three years.

It indicates to me that that’s more about politics than trying to solve a problem. Now one thing we have not done is we haven’t launched a war. If some of these folks think it’s time to launch a war then they should say so and explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.

Take that, warmongers!

On Rush Limbaugh and the Sandra Fluke Controversy:

I don’t know what’s in Rush Limbaugh’s heart, so I’m not going to comment on the sincerity of his apology. What I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don’t have any place in the public discourse. And the reason I called Ms. Flute is because I thought about Malia and Sasha and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about. Even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens. And I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her.

And that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves arguments and disagreements and debate. And we want you to be engaged. And there’s a way to do it that doesn’t involve you being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you’re a private citizen.

On whether Republicans are waging a "war on women":

Women are going to make up their own mind in this election about who is advancing the issues that they care most deeply about. One of the things I’ve learned being married to Michelle, is I don’t need to tell her what it is that she thinks is important. And there are millions of strong women around the country who are going to make their own determination about a whole range of issue.

It’s not going to be narrowly focused just on contraception. It’s not going to be driven by one statement by one radio announcer. It is going to be driven by their view of what’s most likely to make sure they can help support their families, make their mortgage payments, who’s got a plan to ensure that middle class families are secure over the long term, what’s most likely to result in their kids being able to get the education they need to compete.

And I believe that Democrats have a better story to tell to women about how we’re going to solidify the middle class and grow this economy, make sure everybody has a fair shot, everybody’s doing their fair share, and we got a fair set of rules of the road that everybody has to follow. 

On immigration reform:

Well, first of all just substantively, every American should want immigration reform. We’ve got a system that’s broken. We’ve got a system in which you have millions of families here in this country who are living in the shadows, worried about deportation. You’ve got American workers that are being undercut because those undocumented workers can be hired and the minimum wage laws may not be observed; overtime laws may not be observed.

You’ve got incredibly talented people who want to start businesses in this country or to work in this country. And we should want those folks here in the United States, but right now the legal immigration system is so tangled up that it becomes very difficult for them to put down roots here. So we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And it is not just a Hispanic issue. This is an issue for everybody. This is an American issue that we need to fix.

Now, when I came into office, I said, “I am going to push to get this done.” We didn’t get it done. And the reason we haven’t gotten it done is because what used to be a bipartisan agreement that we should fix this ended up becoming a partisan issue. I give a lot of credit to my predecessor, George Bush, and his political advisers who said, you know, “This should not be just something the Democrats support; the Republican Party is invested in this as well.”

Unfortunately, too often Republicans seemt o only be invested in exploiting immigration fears to fire up their base. That's why  polls today show that Latino voters are currently supporting President Obama by an astonishing margin of 70% compared to 13% (!) support for the GOP.

You know, it's refreshing amidst the Republican hullaballoo to take some time and watch a President who is smart, thoughtful, and humane.

Also, I love this:

Not a Hypothetical Question

During the last GOP debate, there was a chilling moment when Wolf Blitzer asked candidate Rob Paul whether a hypothetical man without health insurance should be allowed to die. Someone from the audience shouted "yeah" and the audience applauded. Paul stumbled and was unable to answer.

But when we talk about whether people without health insurance should live or die, whether we should let them die, that's not a hypothetical question. It's very real, and very painful and actually applies to people here and now. People like Steve:



Our current law says that if someone shows up at an emergency room in need of urgent care, it is illegal to turn them away - whether they can pay or not. But what if they need chomotherapy for cancer? Or what if their diabetic? What if they're HIV positive - and there are expensive but effective drugs that could keep them alive.

The GOP answer is that the person should take personal responsibility for their health. But that's precisely what the Affordable Care Act calls for - it insists that if you can afford health care, you must purchase it so that your medical casts won't be an undue burden on your fellow taxpayers if (when) you need it. It says to insurance companies that they must offer insurance policies to everyone - whether they have a pre-existing condition or not. And it says to those who can't otherwise afford coverage, that the rest of us will chip in a little bit in the form of health subsidies to give you the insurance you need so that you can get preventative care and early treatment that you need to stop your health from deterioriating so that the cost to us, the taxpayers, of saving your life is as low as possible.

But in the end it says: No. You should not be allowed to die. It says, America is a country where easily preventable deaths should not take place because we simply turned our back on the suffering. It says we're all better off if we know that health care is not a luxury for the wealthy. It says that because every single one of us is at risk of losing our job, our savings and our health, we want to take some measure to protect ourselves from the consequences if that happens.

That's reasonable, it compassionate, it's economically sound. That's the Democratic policy. It's my policy.

What's yours? Ask yourself "Would you let him die?"

Does Michele Bachmann Think Slavery Was A Good, Christian Thing?

Now that Michele Bachman has won the Iowa Straw Poll and is officially a credible candidate for the nomination of the Republican party, I sincerely hope that someone will follow up on on the outstanding reporting done in the New Yorker digging into her intellectual background. For instance, in view of this:

While looking over Bachmann’s State Senate campaign Web site, I stumbled upon a list of book recommendations. The third book on the list, which appeared just before the Declaration of Independence and George Washington’s Farewell Address, is a 1997 biography of Robert E. Lee by J. Steven Wilkins.

Wilkins is the leading proponent of the theory that the South was an orthodox Christian nation unjustly attacked by the godless North. This revisionist take on the Civil War, known as the “theological war” thesis, had little resonance outside a small group of Southern historians until the mid-twentieth century, when Rushdoony and others began to popularize it in evangelical circles. In the book, Wilkins condemns “the radical abolitionists of New England” and writes that “most southerners strove to treat their slaves with respect and provide them with a sufficiency of goods for a comfortable, though—by modern standards—spare existence.”

African slaves brought to America, he argues, were essentially lucky: “Africa, like any other pagan country, was permeated by the cruelty and barbarism typical of unbelieving cultures.” Echoing Eidsmoe, Wilkins also approvingly cites Lee’s insistence that abolition could not come until “the sanctifying effects of Christianity” had time “to work in the black race and fit its people for freedom.”

In his chapter on race relations in the antebellum South, Wilkins writes:
"Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith.
For several years, the book, which Bachmann’s campaign declined to discuss with me, was listed on her Web site, under the heading “Michele’s Must Read List.”

This is clearly appalling. But the point here is not to just read that and say, I'm shocked, SHOCKED. The point is that this is so outside of the mainstream, so beyond what most people think is a reasonable interpretation of slavery and the Civil War era, that it requires an explanation before Bachmann should be heard on any other issues. So here are the questions I would like someone in the media to ask Michele before they give her a platform to expound on any of her other vaguely deranged talking points.

1) Does she agree with Wilkins that slavery was a largely benign, Christian institution? If not, what about his historical theories does she find so appealing?

2) Does she think that africans sold into slavery were fortunate to find themselves in this situation, as it afforded them a chance to convert to Christianity?

3) Does she agree that abolition could not have been brought to the deep south sooner because the slaves themselves had not yet been prepared by Christianity for the demands of freedom?

4) If no to all of the above, how WOULD she describe the institution of slavery? Can she understand what in Wilkins views would be considered offensive by African Americans?

5) How influential was this person, and the other extremist philosophers cited in the article, to her own intellectual development? She has hinted that they were very important to her, can she explain in detail how?

Obama answered similar questions about his own religious influences. If Michele Bachmann wants to be a mainstream candidate, she needs to explain, defend, or refute her extreme influences. And the media needs to ask her.

(PS: On a side note, can I say how much it pleases me that some of the most informative research done for the New Yorker Article was simple old fashioned desk based research? The reporter read her website, then he looked up the references - how about that? We used to call that reporting.)

Anti-Social Behaviour...

Greetings from London, my blog friends. While I've been on an extended blog holiday I realise that many of you will have been following the news and will be as shocked as I am by the mindless destruction that has risen it's ugly head in our society.

I have heard many say that this behaviour should be put into context, that it reflects a sincere, if misguided, objection to the societal status quo in which they feel that their voice has not been heard.

I say bollocks to all that. The destruction that these people have sown has caused immeasurable harm to the people within their own communities - hard working people who deserve better. Can we excuse this by saying that there were cultural factors at work here? Well, certainly these men and women have been influenced by a pernicious and dangerous culture, one that has quietly insinuated itself into our world over the past decades, but which seems to have found it's culmination in this terrible summer.

I am referring, of course, to Congressional Republicans and their appalling willingness to take America and the global economy to the very brink of economic calamity. The damage they've done, which resulted directly in the Standard and Poors downgrading America's credit, will take years to recover from.

As the President said in his weekly address, "while there's nothing wrong with out country, there IS something wrong with our politics."



Oh, did you think I was talking about the London rioters? Well, their behaviour is equally repellant and inexcusable. Fortunately, London - this amazing city in which I am so proud to live - has immediately come together to put this problem right. We've seen spontaneous community cleanups organised within hours - we've seen floods of people coming together to help. And we've seen the entire community state its determination not to allow these thugs to pretend that the represent us.

We should take the same approach with the thugs who came so close to tearing down our global economy once and for all.

Not in my name.

Being the Media: A Cautionary Tale

As the 2012 Presidential election very slowly starts to ramp up, with the shape of the Republican field now starting to chrystalise (Pawlenty, Romney, Santorum - IN. Donald Trump - OUT.) the media is starting to make judgements about who they will choose to cover. Early media attention to a fledgling primary campaign is like gold, and a lot of the candidates have relatively low name recognition. So the decision the media takes about who to focus mainstream television coverage on in these early races can be very influential in setting the stage for the race.

So it's worth pointing out that while former Republican Governor Mitt Romney was announcing his candidacy for office, to respectable and appropriately fact-checked coverage, much of the media was spending their time doing this:

As they left the clambake she attended Thursday in New Hampshire, Palin’s two-SUV caravan traveled at 52 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone as it peeled away from the hosts’ neighborhood. Both cars blew through a stop sign about a mile later. They did 70 mph in a 55 mph zone on I-95 — and then, after they got off, without signaling, flew right past a flashing sign informing them they were going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone...

On Tuesday, the bus nearly hit a biker turning off of Pine Street in Philadelphia.
On Wednesday, after a police escort led the bus through a closed section of the Lincoln Tunnel, the bus ran at least two red lights racing up Sixth Avenue and through Columbus Circle in Midtown Manhattan. Before long, a cop pulled up, pointing out to the first reporter trailing the bus how many lights they were running. The reporter apologized — but begged to stick with the bus. The perplexed cop let him go. 

On Thursday, the story was much the same. Palin’s two SUVs — used for minor events and tight spaces — braved the tiny, winding streets of Boston’s North End. And when the bus joined them, the trailing car in the entourage ran two red lights after the bus barely made it through the yellow, as did the media caravan, leaving behind a traffic jam for the locals. 

The reporters who are speeding, tailgating, cutting off other cars, blasting through roundabouts and passing on the right in an effort to keep up, say they have no other choice since they never know what Palin’s up to or where she’s headed — and aides typically won’t tell them anything. Once they’re on the road, they’re filing urgent updates by phone and figuring out unorthodox bathroom breaks, like the reporter who pulled over to relieve himself on the side of the highway going from Gettysburg, Pa., to Philadelphia — drawing notice from both Palin aides and the rest of the trailing press.

The reporters say they, "have no other choice". I can think of at least one other choice they could make. Hypothetically, they could not cover Sarah Palin's family holiday. 


Bear in mind, unlike Romney, Sarah Palin is not a Presidential candidate at this point. She's a reality TV star, former half term governor and Fox News commentator. And she refuses to release details of her bus tour to reporters - that's fine. She's not making speeches to define policy on important issues, she's not meeting with party leaders, she's not even spending time talking to voters and constituents about the issues. She's just driving around, visiting tourist attractions and occassionally mangling American history. 



But the media just eats this stuff up like candy.

And you know, I think I understand why. Time for an embarrassing personal revelation.

Here are this blogs most visited posts of all time and the respective number of hits:

I've written 51 posts about Health Care reform policy, an issue very near and dear to my heart and the single most important legislative debate of the past 2 years. I've written about the Supreme Court, Gay rights, women's issues, and a lot about politics and polling in general. None of them could break into the top 10 by popularity.

In total, I've written 554 blog posts since my first post three years ago. And if you took everything ever written on this blog that ISN'T about Sarah Palin - that's 545 out of 554 posts that didn't even mention her name - and added them together, they equal collectively about a tenth of the total readership of my famous Sarah Palin Facebook page investigation. I'm not sorry I wrote that post, nor am I sorry it got a lot of attention - let me be clear about that.

But every day since then, literally hundreds of new visitors come to the blog to read that one post. It's probably the most read thing I have ever written, maybe the most read thing I will ever write. And I like being read - it's why I write. So even though I'd rather not be writing about the former Governor of Alaska, I'm dealing with this niggling temptation - I could draw people to my page with just a few disparaging references to her. It's comparatively easy. Then, I tell myself, I could weave in the things I really want to talk about - enthusiasm for the President and his policies, the case for voting Democrat. The case for voting AT ALL, especially as an American Abroad (don't forget, US citizens living overseas can vote from abroad in all federal elections - that means any election for Congress OR President).

The clicks could be mine. And I want them. I REALLY want them.

But at the end of the day, I'm just me. I don't have employees to pay, or investors to satisfy. I don't accept advertising on the blog, and I am lucky enough to be able to make a good living outside of my blogging-and-politics hobby. So the only pressures on my are internal - wanting to build a readership - and not instituational or financial.

Imagine what it's like for MSNBC. Or CNN. If they know that they can get viewers or clicks with an easy to acquire cutaway shot to Sarah Palin mangling a Paul Revere reference, and they equally know that they will have to work hard to build an audience for any coverage that investigates the reasons why, for example, the May unemployment figures took a discouraging downward turn, of course they're going to go with the Palin footage every time.

She knows this. The media knows this. And it doesn't matter what they think of each other - Palin can throw out all the "lamestream media" quips she wants, but she needs them and she knows it. Fortunately for her, though, she also knows that she'll always have them with her. Careening down the road, blowing through stop signs, and panting to stay in site of her magical mystery tour.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama's administration has been  orchestrating an almost miraculous recovery of the US Auto Industry - which after federal support at the crisis hour has now fully repaid the government investment, and is profitable for the first time since 2004.

The President Could Lose. But Can Any of these Republicans Win?

In 2012 it's not just Barack Obama who will be up for election, but the very notion that hard work, discipline, careful management and a refusal to condescend to the easy or superficial path can beat cynicism, glibness, unseriousness in matters of policy and the notion that politics is just reality TV for the elites.

These are serious times and our President is a serious man. Don't let his big smile, his deft way with a joke, and his willingness to go on Oprah fool you - Barack Obama is an unusual determined, evidence-based and serious minded President.

And since January 2009 he's been faced with the most spectacular barrage of misery inducing news - an economic crisis that he faced by pushing through a massive stimulus package and an innovative, forward-looking budget. (But more was needed, cry the critics.) The economy has begun a process of recovery, but it is far - so tragically far from where we need it to be. Especially in terms of job creation - which has seen record growth lately. (But not enough, I concede. Not enough.)

I'm not going to rehearse today the many institutional constraints and structural problems President Obama personally and the Democratic Party generally faced over the past two years. I'm not going to try  and excuse any perceived or real failures of the administration.

Today, I want you to think about the alternatives.

I'm under no illusions about this - President Obama faces a tough reelection fight in 2012. He will - rightly - be asked to defend his record and to make the case for why, where progress has been slow, he should be given the chance to keep trying.

His overall approval rating, while improved somewhat in the wake of the death of Osama Bin Laden, is not in the territory that most Presidents would hope for. And his signature achievement - comprehensive healthcare reform - is in a precarious position, having been passed but in a stage where the key provisions have not yet taken effect. Many Americans will be seeing their premiums continue to go up and may be wondering when they'll start to see the meaningful improvement that was promised. (Answer, starting from 2014. Two years into his second term... or someone else's first.)

So the President could lose. And, if he can't make a clear and compelling case for his record, he'll deserve to.

(One possible starting point for such a case to be made is this:

But... for the President to lose, a Republican would have to win.

And the Republican party has been startlingly slow to kick start their Presidential race. You may recal that at this time in 2007, there was already a hot election underway in the respective primary cycles for both parties, with Republican candidates including AZ Senator John McCain, former WI Governor and Cabinet Secretary Tommy Thompson, former VA Governor Jim Gilmore, KS Senator Sam Brownback, former MA Governor Mitt Romney, TX Representative Ron Paul, Former AS Governor Mike Huckabee, former NY Mayor Rudy Guiliani, CO Representative Tom Tancredo and CA Represenative Duncan Hunter. There were also a range of joke or outsider candidates, but let's leave them aside for now.

All of these people, by this point, had declared their candidacy. At the same point in 2011, here is the list of people who have formally declared that they will seek the Republican nomination in 2012:

1. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
2. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson
3. Political Consultant Fred Karger
4. Activist Andy Martin
5. Rent is Too Damn High Party founder Jimmy McMillan
6. Representative Ron Paul

The following people have formed an exploratory committee to consider running:

1. Georgia Businessman Herman Cain
2. Former AL Chief Justice Roy Moore (of "10 Commandments" fame)
3. Former MN Governor Tim Pawlenty
4. Former LA Governor Buddy Roemer
5. Former MA Governor Mitt Romney
6. Former Senator Rick Santorum

Sorting out the single-issue candidates, perennial candidates, and simply absurd candidates, the list of serious prospects on the Republican side of the aisle looks like this:

1. Tim Pawlenty
2. Mitt Romney
3. Newt Gingrich
4. Gary Johnson
5. Ron Paul
6. Rick Santorum

Until yesterday, it looked like former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee would be among this list, but he has since announced that he will not be seeking election this year. I feel I would be remiss as a blogger, though, if I didn't nevertheless give you the chance to enjoy his latest commercial project - aimed at teaching American History  to kids who have been indoctrinated cruelly with the dangerous liberal curriculum.

Seriously - watch this.



"Some of their morals are just GONE!" "Oh no, it's bad. Really bad."

OK, we're back.

So the invaluable Nate Silver has done a detailed analysis of the primary election prospects of a very wide range of prospective Republican candidates. In almost all of his analyses, the candidate who comes out as most likely to win the nomination is the former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Now, Mitt's a pretty decent guy as Republicans go. His signature achievement in Massachusetts was to pass a bipartisan health care law that mandates that all citizens in the Bay State should have converage. This program has proved so successuful that Massachusetts now has the lowest rates of uninsured citizens in the country - and it has maintained its position as the state that delivers some of the best health care in the country. And, frankly, as I have said before, it's a great place to live in a lot of other ways too.

But... well.. how shall I put this? If you want to vote for a candidate who believes in a pragmatic solution to our health care crisis, there's ANOTHER CANDIDATE on the ballot who has a lot of experience with the Presidency. I'm personally kind of loving how the President's team have been spending their energy conspicuously congratulating Mitt on his health care reform right left and center. And this ad produced by the Massachusetts DNC just cracks me up with it's not-so-secret evil plan.



Mitt is, ironically, going to have a hard time still convincing his party that they should enthusiastically support a candidate who himself enthusiastically supported the Heritage-Foundation-drafted, compromise health care proposal that later came to look dangerously like the one that the President and Congressional Democrats passed.

Or, as the Onion puts it, Mitt will have to say:

"My hope is that Republican voters will one day forgive me for making it easier for sick people—especially low-income sick people—to go to the hospital and see a doctor," Romney added. "It was wrong, and I'm sorry."

 So who else is there?

I'm still mulling this, trying to work out which of these people makes for the most  credible opponent. I'm struggling. What do you think, my blog amigos?

Oh Dear. Republican wrongness still threatening economic calamity...

So a few days ago, in my round up of the many vital things about which Republicans are wrong, I wrote, referring to their then-apparent decision to avoid threatening the US with debt default:

The one Republican achievement this week is their (apparent) willingness to reluctantly agree that they will NOT cause a financial calamity for no apparent reason.

May I take this opportunity to strike this unfounded praise?

Turns out the giant game of chicken Republicans were playing with their economy is back on:

In a speech before a Wall Street crowd on Monday, John Boehner laid out the three legs of the GOP's opening bid on the debt ceiling. They are:

1) "Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions."

2) "They should be actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future."

3) "With the exception of tax hikes -- which will destroy jobs -- everything is on the table. That includes honest conversations about how best to preserve Medicare."

With the exception of tax hikes. Which will destroy jobs. Everything is on the table.

Forgive me a moment, as my head is currently on fire.

OK. Have dowsed head in bucket of water.

I feel that this line of argument cries out for an analogy and I'm struggling to find one sufficiently vapid.

How about:

1) For curing a fatal disease: "With the exception of taking medication, which will kill unicorns, all options are on the table."
2) For making a baby: "With the exception of heterosexual sex, which will threaten kittens, all options are on the table."
3) For losing weight: "With the exception of eating less food, which will help terorists, all options are on the table."
4) For doing a web search: "With the exception of Google, which bitch-slaps infants, all options are on the table."

I'm not sure any of these fully convey the stupicity of the Boehnerism, though. Further suggestions welcome. Other than that, I just want to say what he said:

As a substantive matter, Boehner has no idea what he’s talking about. His entire schpiel is gibberish. Even a rudimentary understanding of recent events should make clear, even to someone with Boehner’s limited abilities, that his model doesn’t make sense. Reagan raised taxes and the economy grew. Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew. Bush slashed taxes and produced the worst job-creation record of any president in generations.

How does the Speaker even think this is possible?

Copious Republican Wrongness: I Try to Keep Track of it All

The Republican Party is so fundamentally wrong so often about so much stuff that is so important that's it's ironically easy to lose track of it all. And in recent days we've been bombarded with evidence of Republican wrongness at such a fast and furious clip that I realise I personally haven't been able to full absorb the depth and breadth of the wrong.
So let's make a quick list - based just on news stories from the past week:

1. Republicans - including John McCain back in 2008 - were wrong to insist that we should not pursue Osama Bin Laden into Pakistan if we had credible intelligence that he was there. Or rather, since one could argue that the policy might be right even if the outcome would be bad, let's say that whether this is right or wrong, Osama Bin Laden would still be threatening America today if the Republicans had won the last election.
2. Republicans - including, most notably, Dick Cheney - were wrong to suggest that Americans are less safe from terrorism under Obama than they were under Bush.
3. Republicans leaders were wrong to keep calling everything that Democrats proposed a "job killing" measure, when in fact the last three months has been the best 3 month period for job growth in 5 years. On the other hand, independent experts at Moody's have reproted that the GOP's proposed budget would result in the LOSS of over 700,000 American jobs. That's just wrong on so many levels.

4. Republicans - in particular Rep Paul Ryan - were wrong to suggest that they had a plan to cut the deficit. Ryan's so-called deficit reduction plan was based on heavy tax cuts for the wealthy plus heavy cuts to needed services for the poor (that's balanced! See! He's cutting taxes AND spending! Everything gets cut!). But even with these deep spending cuts, Ryan wasn't able to project any ability to balance the budget without his piece de resistance - a plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with vouchers to allow the elderly to buy private health care. This proposal has been strikingly unpopular with the public, and has now been abandoned by Republican leaders - though not before House Republicans voted for it. Without the elimination of Medicare, Ryan's plan does not balance the budget.
5. Republicans in Congress were wrong to make posturing noises to suggest that they would be willing - nay! eager! - to let America default on its debt. For bizarre procedural reasons, every time US borrowing goes above a certain point, Congress must vote to allow this debt ceiling to rise. Republicans, however, had been ranting about their unwillingness to do this unless Democrats were willing to let old people die accept the phase out of Medicare. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed and Republicans are willing to settle for deep cuts to non-entitlement spending programs instead. Gee, thanks. The implications, if the debt ceiling were not raised, would be that the US would default on its borrowing, doing severe damage to our position within the markets, which experts believe could trigger another financial crisis. White House Economic Advisor Austen Goolsbee put it this way, "If we get to the point where we damage the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”

So to sum up:

If Republicans were in charge this week, they would have left the world's most dangerous terrorist happy in his Pakistan mansion, lost 700,000 jobs instead of adding 250,000, eliminated Medicare, and cut taxes for the rich.

The one Republican achievement this week is their (apparent) willingness to reluctantly agree that they will NOT cause a financial calamity for no apparent reason.

Why does anyone vote for these guys?

START Treaty Now Looks Certain to Pass

Despite opposition from leading Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and John Kyl who appears to have negotiated in very bad faith with the White House on this, the START treaty now looks almost certain to get the two thirds majority vote it needs to pass in the Senate.

Republicans couldn't really come up with a good reason to vote no on the treaty - it is designed to control nuclear arms, and will among other things allow American inspectors back into Russian missile silos where for more than a year there has been no oversight. It places pretty much no constraints on US security decisions, and typically these types of arms treaties achieve near unanimous support in the Senate.

As should have been the case this time as well. Instead, Republicans decided that this would be another opportunity to deprive Obama of a victory, so they stalled and dithered and demanded and tried to amend and even at one point insinuated that they would pass it only if DADT was taken off the table.

And the result of this nonsense is that they have turned what was originally a straightforward vote into some big test of Obama's Presidential authority. And then the treaty passes anyway! With broad bipartisan support! Even as Republican leaders continue to have a hissy fit!

Seems to me that they took a great big non-issue and turned it into... yet another big win for the Democrats! Hurray Democrats!

The Week's Worst: Republicans Block Tax cut for All Americans Because Democrats Won't Let Them Cut Taxes for Millionaires Even More

So I took a little pause from the Week's Worst series last week in honour of the Thanksgiving spirit. But this week we're back looking at Terrible Things Republicans Do That Hurt the Country(TM) with a doozy of an example. This week, after the House passed a bill that would keep in place the Bush era tax cuts for every American, but would restore tax on incomes over $250,000 to the level they were under the Clinton Administration, Republicans in the Senate successfully "defeated" the Senate's attempt to do the same. That is, it was defeated with 53 people voting for it and 4X voting against. In other words, most Senators agreed that the this is the approach we should take, but by taking advantage of the filibuster, Republicans were once again able to ensure that they look out for the interests of the richest at the expense of... well, everyone else.

What fascinates me is that this is a wildly unpopular position Republicans have taken. 67% of Americans polled agree that it is time for these tax handouts for the wealthiest to end. Even 52% of REPUBLICANS agree that tax cuts on income over $250,000 should expire. It's just what makes sense - the wealthy have been the group of people least affected by the economic crisis, their incomes have been rising while everyone elses's has been stagnating, they certainly don't suffer from high unemployment, and they won't be deeply harmed by restoring them to Clinton-era tax rates under which, if you recall, they also did pretty darn well.

Billionaire Warren Buffet agrees, pointing out that,

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on,"

Indeed.

So why are Republicans so determined to offer this hand out to the people who need it most, at the same time they are trying to deny unemployment insurance to the people who need it a lot?

Well 2 reasons, I guess. 1) They really, really love millionaires. I mean, a lot. Way more than they like the rest of us. They just love them. That's why they're Republicans after all. Duh. But also 2) they calculate that any political failure for the Democrats and the President is good for them. And they may be right.

But I'm really hoping that the American people will see that a bunch of people who would fight tooth and nail to help the few who are least in need and will fight equally hard to avoid helping the many who are in need is not a party that's got the interests of the country at heart.

Get Angrier

Last night, the Republicans appear to have won over 60 seats in the US House of Representatives, taking back majority control of that body, while at the same time picking up at least 6 seats in the Senate. Democrats will retain a majority in the Senate and were relieved to hold onto some critical seats there that looked like they would be hard to hold - most notably, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held onto his seat in Nevada against all odds.

So... that was a pretty crappy night for us, really. No two ways about it. The defeat of (sorry Mom) batshit crazy non-Witch Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and baseball bat wielding loon Carl Paladino in New York by substantial double digits won't stop the so called Tea Party from tightening their stranglehold on the Republican party. They now own it. They've proved in this election cycle that they can take down in the primary any Republican who shows any hint of an interest in actually solving the nation's problems. Climate change doesn't exist, immigration should be punished (and screw the law abiding Latinos who get caught up their dragnet), the only acceptable way to even attempt to fix the economy is with more tax breaks for the rich. Welcome to the new rules.

Well I say screw that.

President Obama's going to make a speech pretty soon, and I'm sure that as usual his words will be wise, reasonable and right. But I wanted to post before he speaks to tell you that, from my point of view, election 2012 starts today.

I'm incredibly proud of the Democrats accomplishments of the past two year. Against resistance from every faction of the Republican party we've salvaged the economy, rescued the auto industry (which, amazingly, is now restored to full profitibility), delivered a stimulus package that economists agree is responsible for keeping or creating between 1.5 and 3.3 million jobs, and passed health care reform that will cover 95% of the population and will serve as our lasting legacy for generations to come.

It was the most successful Congress of the past hundred years, and seems to have started to but it wasn't enough - not nearly enough to solve the deep and lasting damage that has been done to the economy by 8 years of Republican mismanagement. And people angry. I don't blame them

The problem is that people have lashed out, in their anger, at the only people they could knowck down - the overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress. We were in their sites, so they took us down.

I think the voters weren't nearly angry enough. I know I wasn't.

Republicans now say they want to spend the next two years obstructing, blocking, investigating and holding hearings on the Democrats. For instance,

The GOP plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged "scientific fraud" behind global warming, a sleeper issue in this election that motivated the base quite a bit.

Now that they have the reigns of power in the House, what are they hoping to accomplish with it? Well, nothing actually,

"If you put too much of the actual official power in the hands of the Republicans, it makes them responsible. Right now, I think they're in perfect position tactically. Control the House, object, propose stuff that Obama may veto and run on that against him in 2012.”

While the country has a 9.6% unemployment rate? Does this sound to you like a party that has any interest in, oh, I don't know, fixing things?

Me neither.

The 2012 election campaign starts RIGHT NOW. And I say, bring it on. This is a fight we have to win.

Republicans Unify to Ensure Banks are Not Regulated

I'm so glad the Republican party has operated in lockstep to vote against Financial Reform. In recent years, our struggling banks have been the only salvation of the global economy, with their cautious and morally upright behaviour preventing us from falling into a cataclysmic financial crisis in 2008. Thank heavens the Republicans are unified to ensure that they can keep operating in exactly the same way. Shame on the Democrats for seeking to reign in these paragons of fiscal rectitude.

[Yes, it's OPPOSITE DAY here on the Obama London blog!]

Republicans Raising Money off Britain's Own David Cameron?

And wacky hijinks ensue....

Republicans are hoping to raise $80,000 (£53,000) from donors by offering them the chance to meet David Cameron, according to a leaked party document... Attractions beside Mr Cameron also include an Ultimate Fighting Championship bout in Las Vegas and a "professional bull riding event", planned to net $60,000 and $50,000 respectively.

I expect the Cameron people to commence distancing themselves from this with blinding speed. However, worth saying that I attended the Republicans Abroad drinks do at the last Conservative Conference (as an interested outsider, obviously) and heard a surprising amount of "here here's" to the "let's shrink government down to bathtub drowning size" rumbling there.

I'm not taking a (public) position on the British election, so enjoying this purely as spectacle...

Republicans Don't Care About Policy

Rachel Maddow has a good point here.



Republicans in the House and Senate voted unanimously against supporting the stimulus package that economists now agree has had a major positive impact on jobs and the economy. Then they have travelled around the country, with tedious frequency, touting the benefits of the stimulus funds in their own districts. Why?

Isn't it obvious? If they really thought those funds would be bad for their constituents, they wouldn't insist on taking credit for them.

Democrats have a majority, and it's time we started using it, because Republicans have no interest in doing the right thing.

Zen and the Art of Bipartisanship

"GOP member: 'I'd like this in the bill.'

"Dem member response: 'If we put it in, will you vote for the bill?'

"GOP member: 'You know I can't vote for the bill.'

"Dem member: 'Then why should we put it in the bill?'

That about sums it up, I reckon.

Republican Fiscal Responsibility is Dead. I mourn its loss...

This week, the Senate passed a bill that would:

"impose a requirement that key parts of the budget must be paid for with spending cuts or tax increases to prevent the federal deficit from increasing." 

This is called "Pay As You Go", and it's a discipline that was brought in at the urging and under the administration of President Bill Clinton. 

Under the Bush administration, this approach was scrapped, enabling the turnaround from a massive budget surplus to the $1.3 Trillion deficit that President Obama inherited.

Now, with Obama's encouragement, the Senate has passed a bill imposing restrictions on itself - if they want to spend more, they have to find the money from elsewhere or raise taxes. If they want to cut taxes, they also need to cut spending or find efficiencies that match. It's neither a progressive nor a Conservative approach - it's a discipline and a responsibility.

Every single Senate Republican voted against it.

I'd like to know... why?

Wanted: Thoughtful Right-Leaning Op Eds

HELP! I am losing my faith in intelligent debate! I keep reading totally brain dead opinion articles from right leaning people, who make intellectually dishonest or outright silly points that are easily debunked. I'm looking for something to read by someone that I will disagree with instinctively but that contains good arguments.

Mainly because I use so many left-leaning news sources, I seldom see good, intelligent Conservative critiques and I fear I may be missing important things.

I'm not looking for right leaning writers with articles that show conter intuitive support for a left leaning idea - I want good arguments and fact based analysis about health care, climate change, the economy, or foreign policy that will make me think.

I used to read Andrew Sullivan for this, but nowadays he's one of us. George Will, who I used to like occassionally, has so irritated me with his fact free climate denialism that I no longer trust him to present good information.

So, help me out. Who's good out there?

FYI: This post was prompted by my attempts to read Sarah Palin's most recent Op Ed. I will not link to it.

Deep thought

These guys don't seem real respectful of the members of the Women's Caucus.

Weird.



On a totally unrelated point, they had a lot of fun on the same day denying abortion rigths to an awful lot of women.

Coincidence, I'm sure, and not at all reflective of any innate misogyny. These guys are famous for their sensitivity to women, after all.

Empathy and the Court

In reflecting upon his forthcoming choice of a Supreme Court justice to replace the retiring Justice David Souter, President Obama recently described how he would approach what he called the "among my most serious responsibilities as President."

"I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity," he said. "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

Reflecting several centuries worth of considered legal philosophy, Republican National Committee Chair responded to this with a considered restatement of that Party's core judicial argument:

"I don't need some justice up there feeling bad for my opponent and short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law. Crazy nonsense empathetic. I'll give you empathy. Empathise right on your behind. Crazy!"

Now, I realise that Steele's position may contain more legal jargon and philosophical concepts than are easily understood by the lay reader, so let me make and effort to clarify his meaning for you.

Steele's argument essentially boils down to this: The law exists in a clear and knowable form, and the job of a justice is merely to apply this law to the individual case that comes before her (or him). It would not be desirable for a justice to experience empathy or understanding of the litigants appearing before him, as this would prevent them from applying the law in an impartial manner.

This is not a ridiculous argument. It's just incorrect.

In fact, what Steele is talking about here is a pretty good description of the work of judges in the lower courts - in most cases that come before a lower court judge, or even an appeals court judge, all that's required is to look at the facts, look at the law (including precendent) and determine how the one is applied to the other.

However, in some appeals court cases and in most cases before the Supreme Court, this simply isn't the job description. The function of the Supreme Court is to handle cases of interpretation - instances where it is not clear how the law can best be applied. More often than not, at the Supreme Court level you have to make choices about RELATIVE applications of the law - deciding priorities. For instance, does that State's right to ensure a safe and orderly environment supersede the individual's right to protest to such an extent that it is reasonable to impose limits on speech?

Does a property owner's right to freedom in their own possesions take precedence over the state's interest in regulating construction on that property?

When one parent wants a terminally ill child to be put on a do not recusitate order, and the other parent strongly opposes this - how to you break that deadlock?

When a small business owner wants to do drug testing on his or her staff, does that owner's concern for the health and safety of his customers and employees take precedence over the employees right to avoid unwarranted search and seizure?

What's the fair thing to do when the law is ambiguous, contradictory or simply silent on an important issue?

What Michael Steele appears to miss in his diatribe above, interestingly, is that empathy works BOTH WAYS. It's not just a question of a justice pitying your adversary and punishing you for it. Ideally constructed, the justice should be able to think through the motivations of both parties before making her judgement. It would be easy, for instance, in the case of the small busines owner conducting drug testing, to apply a strict interpretation of the constitution that declares unwarranted searches without probable cause to be banned - but before she does that, I would hope she would think through the concerns of the business owner worrying that an employee on drugs could harm his customers or make damaging mistakes. I hope she'll consider that the employee has a choice to work there or not, and that this action may be a reasonable and proportionate way for the owner to protect himself and the public. I hope she'll give that fair consideration, understanding both people's point of view.

That's empathy.

What Steele was talking about - seeing only one person's side to the detriment of the other side - isn't empathy at all. It's prejudice.

And in my view, when a court is capable of ruling that a woman can't sue for discrimination even though she's been paid less than male colleagues for years, because the company was successful at hiding that information from her until it was too late - in my view, that's prejudice too.

What Steele objects too isn't that Obama wants to encourage empathy, it's that he wants to end the prejudice on the court that for years now has always favoured the wealthy and the comfortable in its decisions. That kind of consistent record of ruling doesn't betray a strict application of the law, it betrays a skewed interpretation.

Deep Thought: Republicans in their Own Little World

So as part of some research I'm doing I needed to have a little look at the Republicans Abroad website. And on their page entitled citizenship, came across this interesting quote:

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds might have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust, sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again. Because there is no effort without error, there can be no achievement without setback.

The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms and the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause.

Who at best, in the end, knows the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, should he fail, at least fails while daring greatly.

For his place shall never be among those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

Question: Does anyone out there think that today's Republican party is really the doer of deeds, or can we all get together with the notion that they are currently acting as the critic? Anyone? Bueller?