Fool me eight times?!

Jon Stewart tears up the last eight administrations' empty promises to get the US off of oil dependence.   Call me a pinko if you will but this guy is pretty much the only one talking politics in the media with the slightest shred of integrity.    There, I said it. 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
An Energy-Independent Future
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Gaza Flotilla

My first reaction to the IDF attack on the Palestinian aide vessel was annoyance mixed with utter despair and concern.  Just another insult on the way to the inevitable breakout of WWIII that Israel seems to welcome.  As I've been perusing left and right blogosphere though I'm left more confused than anything.    I think Chait breaks it down the best (after ample prodding by Sullivan, of course.

First, is the underlying blockade of Gaza humanely constructed? No it is not:

Israel prevents Gazans from importing, among other things, cilantro, sage, jam, chocolate, French fries, dried fruit, fabrics, notebooks, empty flowerpots and toys, none of which are particularly useful in building Kassam rockets. It’s why Israel bans virtually all exports from Gaza, a policy that has helped to destroy the Strip’s agriculture, contributed to the closing of some 95 percent of its factories, and left more 80 percent of its population dependent on food aid. It’s why Gaza’s fishermen are not allowed to travel more than three miles from the coast, which dramatically reduces their catch. And it’s why Israel prevents Gazan students from studying in the West Bank, a policy recently denounced by 10 winners of the prestigious Israel Prize. There’s a name for all this: collective punishment.

Second, given that the blockade was in place, was Israel militarily justified in responding as it did? Yes, it was:

We have no sympathy for the motives of the participants in the flotilla -- a motley collection that included European sympathizers with the Palestinian cause, Israeli Arab leaders and Turkish Islamic activists. Israel says that some of the organizers have ties to Hamas and al-Qaeda. What's plain is that the group's nominal purpose, delivering "humanitarian" supplies to Gaza, was secondary to the aim of provoking a confrontation. The flotilla turned down an Israeli offer to unload the six boats and deliver the goods to Gaza by truck; it ignored repeated warnings that it would not be allowed to reach Gaza. Its spokesmen said they would insist on "breaking Israel's siege," as one of them put it.

Third, given that Israel had a right to stop the ship and reply to the lethal force used against its soldiers, was it wise to respond as it did? No, it was not:

Better information was needed. The commandos didn't know they were going to face an angry mob armed with knives and bats. Different equipment was needed: The raiders apparently didn't have enough nonlethal weapons on hand. A more creative approach was needed: Maybe a way to stop the ship without having to board it. But these are all just technical details of an operation gone sour.

This level-headed perspective is why I like reading Chait.  The Blockade is inhumane; the Israeli's had a right to deter the ship from breaking the blockade; the Israeli's used excessive force.   In the end it seems the Flotilla's main goal of bringing political attention to the Gaza blockade was wildly successful in that it put Israel's inhumane blockade in the forefront of world news.  The whole ordeal also gave us a glimpse into the future of Western border security, should the right ever get their wish to turn the US into a isolated giant.    Excessive force?   Sure!  As long as we protect our borders!!

But I digress.  Where I'm most disappointed in all this is Obama's response, which to me was like the equivalent of a soccer mom threatening to pull the minivan over.  Now now kids, mommy's trying to concentrate here. When nine civilians are murdered on an aide vessel by your supposed ally, you should come right out and denounce the damn action.  Plain and simple. Stop being a pussy about it and put your foot down, Mr. President.

Time to take charge, B

Check out this great editorial from Boston.com, urging President Obama  to take the reigns on the Deepwater oil spill disaster.  

Money Quote:

It’s appalling that the federal government, under any administration, would allow drilling deep underwater without making adequate preparations for a massive oil leak. But that’s what happened. After the oil spill, Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new wells and said that he is stopping the type of waivers that BP was able to obtain. But, as The New York Times has reported, at least seven new permits for various type of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted since then. That is an insult to those harmed by the disaster unfolding on the Gulf Coast.

It's certainly turning into his giant debacle, with every passing BP failing attempt to plug the leak.   I'm glad he called out BP to pay for it all, but at some point he needs to grab every top mind in oceanography, physics, engineering etc to come up with solutions.   Pointing fingers just isn't enough. 

A Brief History of the Party of No

Arun Gupta's op ed on the Republican and Tea Party obstructionist strategy is informative, riveting and terrifying.   It points out the irrational nature and bigotry of the right and the poor strategy of the Obama Administration and Democratic leadership of pandering too heavily to the right and open the door for a hard swing come November.  There's a lot to be concerned about if you're even remotely moderate-minded a person.   

The entire lengthy piece is well worth the read.  Some highlights:

I use “the right” instead of “Republican” or even “conservative” to describe the movement and its ideas. Until recent years, there was a breed of socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican that retained a foothold in the GOP. These Republicans provided critical support for civil rights and other progressive legislation. This segment, which tended to concentrate in the North, has largely shifted to the Democratic Party (with the result of pushing the Democrats further to the right). So while the right may now overlap significantly with the Republican Party, it wasn’t always so. More important, as shown by the Christian Right in years past and the Tea Party today, the right will try to purge those Republicans deemed not sufficiently orthodox, making the party more and more extreme.

 

The Tea Party is the latest chapter in the history of the Republicans as the “Party of No.” Its existence depends on continuous promotion from FOX News, organizing by Republican consultants, front groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, and the GOP itself. Much of the Tea Party’s funding comes from right-wing foundations through the front groups, and its politics are anti-government, anti-labor, pro-corporate and often socially conservative, which is the same agenda the right has been pushing for more than 30 years.

(emphasis mine) and

Wallace pioneered the race-based appeals that still excite the populist right today. But he was also a deft cultural warrior who, writes Carter, “knew that a substantial percentage of the American electorate despised the civil rights agitators and antiwar demonstrators as symptoms of a fundamental decline in the traditional cultural compass of God, family, and country, a decline reflected in rising crime rates, the legalization of abortion, the rise in out-of-wedlock pregnancies, the increase in divorce rates, and the proliferation of ‘obscene’ literature and films.” Add gay marriage, Islamophobia and immigration, and you pretty much have the right’s culture war agenda of today.

and

There is one final step in how the right mobilizes grassroots support behind an obstructionist agenda. Few people mull over philosophical concepts when making political decisions. That’s why mobilizing group resentment and solidarity simultaneously is so effective. It gives people a way to see both enemies and allies in their daily lives. In the case of immigrants, the narrative is about “illegals” stealing jobs and social services from taxpayers. In the case of the Obama administration, the story is that taxes are being stolen from hard-working Americans to support parasites ranging from welfare recipients to Wall Street bankers.

 and finally

However irrational this position may be, the logical consequences are not: anything Obama and the Democrats do must be opposed because it is a life-and-death struggle. In opposing the health care plan, the right is not just trying to deny services to the undeserving, it is affirming and protecting free choice, family, the sanctity of life, the market, God, country, the Constitution – all arguments trotted out in the last year.

 

Like the Clinton years, no matter how much Obama tries to appease Republicans, he will remain under attack and be held responsible for bizarre crimes and conspiracies because the right has nothing to gain from compromise. In fact, Republican opposition has devolved from the philosophical to the tactical. The right-wing noise machine frames Obama and the Democrats as the source of all evil, making compromise virtually impossible. Republicans now assail Obama policies they used to champion from the market-friendly health care law and huge tax cuts in the stimulus bill to the bipartisan deficit commission and pay-as you-go budget rules.

 

At the same time, the Obama administration has stoked support for the Tea Party by providing aid and comfort to Wall Street rather than Main Street. The Republicans have exploited legitimate anxieties over high unemployment, a shrinking economy and onerous taxes by scapegoating the weak and marginal for policies that are structural and historical in nature.

 

The lesson for Obama and Democrats is not that they went too far to the “left,” it’s that they went too far to the right. Obama had the political capital and the leverage over the banking and auto industries to push for a “Green New Deal” that could have restructured the transportation and energy sectors and created millions of new jobs. Slashing the bloated military budget while fighting for some type of single-payer health care – instead of a plan that uses public money to subsidize the for-profit healthcare industry – budget deficits could have been constrained while reducing the financial burden of medical bills for most American households. Implementing such an agenda could have created a mass constituency that would fight for a progressive vision and against the right’s repressive politics.

 

The right has well-thought-out ideologies, a specific agenda, clearly defined enemies, and ruthlessly pursues power to achieve its goals. And it’s fighting a Democratic White House and Party that stand for nothing, which is why being the “Party of No” will continue to be a winning strategy for Republicans.

The Pliable Romney

This couldn't possibly go over well with the Tea Partiers come 2012...

(via Sullivan)

Quote For The Day

16 Apr 2010 10:35 am

"If ever again somewhere down the road I would be debating [Obama], I would be happy to take credit for his [healthcare] accomplishment," - Mitt Romney.

Another Small Step for Gay Rights

President Obama issued a memo to the Department of Health and Human Services directing them to create an exception to the relatives-only policy for gay couples.   The exception comes in handy for same-sex couples in states where gay marriage is not legally recognized.  

Obama requested that the regulation make clear that any hospital receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, which includes the vast majority of U.S. hospitals, must allow patients to decide who can visit them and prohibit discrimination based on a variety of characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

This is another feather in the cap for the gay community, as the memo follows on the heels of Obama's repeal of DADT.  While it doesn't solve all of the problems related to the ban on gay marriage that exist in most states, it's another solid step in affording equality to all.   Kudos. 

Good Dem, Bad Dem

So Politico posted a piece on Sunday, claiming that President Obama's 2010 priority is getting Deval Patrick re-elected as governor of Massachusetts.    To which I say, are you out of your God Damned Mind?!

Deval Patrick is political fucking napalm - and not in the ass-to-mouth-loving, Jessica Simpson way.   This is a guy who fucked over the unions that got him elected, raised the state sales tax, built his entire campaign on legalizing casinos (which failed miserably), and just cost a major provider of jobs in the state $100M when employment is already on shaky ground as it is.

This guy embodies  reason that Scott Brown got elected to the Senate in January; people are sick of tax-and-spend-achusetts and Deval represents the very foundation of that angst.   As I've said before in this space, while Obama's voting record as a Senator may have been to the left, his governing as president has been very much centered.   This is what makes him a desirable political figure in today's age of hyper-partisanship and hate-fueled rhetoric.    Aligning himself with a guy who's liberalism would make Gore Vidal blush can't possibly be a political home run.   He shouldn't have to disown the guy, but he should at least watch from a safe distance.

Second verse, same as the first

John Avlon has a great article on the Obama-as-Hitler and Bush-as-Hitler hysterics that have been so prevalent the last few years.

This may come as a shock to some but neither claim is appropriate.  And getting more pissy about one over the other, based solely on your political allegiance, is no better.  

Says John:

I condemn both Bush-as-Hitler and Obama-as-Hitler comparisons in my book and subsequent speeches. Liberals frequently object to my invocation of Bush Derangement Syndrome, just as conservatives bristle at my detailing of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Centrists are used to liberals calling them conservative and conservatives calling them liberal. This impulse is designed to discredit independents and reinforces the left/right divide.

But what's most striking to me is the way committed partisans miss the broader moral equivalency behind these two syndromes: If you only object to the president of your party being compared to Hitler, then you're part of the problem.  (my bold for emphasis)

The GOP's Worst Nightmare Coming True

Oh this is just too good to not post.   I practically have wood over here.   Here's a great string of posts by Sullivan and others on the CBO report and other Health Care Reform related items. 

The first being a grid that shows pretty clearly how silly the right's grandstanding of Obama's inexperience has been (i/r/t pundits/blowhards citing how disjointed his own party was around the HC Debate)   New year, new tactic, new solidarity. 

 -- Nate Silver on why the left is suddenly unified behind the bill:

Personally, I think the reason for the increase in support is mostly this: the Democratic leadership, and particularly President Obama, are now fighting for this bill tooth and nail. They didn't necessarily have to do this; they could have thrown in the towel, passed off some bipartisan crap that didn't do much to help the uninsured, and called it a day. That's what Rahm Emanuel wanted to do, as Chris Bowers points out. But that isn't what Obama did: instead, he's gone all-in on the thing, potentially staking his Presidency on the outcome. Liberals like the idea of being the scrappy underdog -- being the fighter -- and Obama, after a strangely aloof performance on the health care bill throughout 2009, has been fighting the good fight.

Then some fiscal sanity figures.   Not too F'n shabby, if you ask me.  

-- Ezra Klein unpacks the CBO score:

The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years -- so, 2020 to 2029 -- it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population. To put this in context, that's more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill.

-- Hotline:

The bill is now headed to the House Rules Committee, where Dems will finalize their options for moving forward. Floor action is expected on Sunday, 72  hours after the bill gets posted online.

 Chait on getting close:

MSNBC's First Read reports, "We’re told that the White House and House Dem leaders are fewer than five votes away from 216." I have always thought that the key is to get within four or five votes. Once you're there, you're very likely to win. Why? Because then the White House and Democratic leaders can concentrate all their attention on a few holdouts. And they can make an irresistible argument: If you don't vote for this bill, you will be responsible for the political and moral disaster that ensues. I just don't think anybody is willing to be the person who kills health care reform. They may hold back, they may want to see if the bill is going to die anyway, and they may want somebody else to go first. But when the finish line is in sight, they won't say no.