Multi Medium

Great Moments In Defense Strategy

James Murdoch explains that he wasn’t aware of the full extent of the News Of The World phone hacking scandal because he couldn’t be bothered to read all of an email from a company lawyer trying to warn him about a “nightmare scenario.”

Regardless of whether he’s lying or telling the truth, I think it’s safe to say that he really should never be allowed to manage anything ever again.

Add comment December 14th, 2011 at 07:21am Posted by Eli

Not Too Slow On The Uptake

I thought this was kind of hilarious.  Gloria Borger worries that a tent full of clowns and elephants might turn into a circus.

Add comment December 8th, 2011 at 07:13am Posted by Eli

Bobo Sort Of Gets It?

Amazing.  David Brooks actually acknowledges that Obama really isn’t nearly as anti-business and pro-regulation as Republicans keep claiming he is, and even admits that what regulation there is has not been the cause our chronic high unemployment.

He still seems to think Obama’s imposed too much regulation, just because.  But at least it’s progress of a sort.

Add comment December 6th, 2011 at 07:48am Posted by Eli

General Vs. Specific

Thomas Sowell attempts to make the case that Republican presidential candidates should let their conservative flag fly, rather than tacking to the center or “trying to be all things to all people”.

I think Obama is widely disliked enough at this point that a candidate like Reagan (Sowell’s sole example of a successful Republican candidate who ran as a conservative) could unseat him, but who would that be, exactly?  The column’s primary purpose appears to be to persuade Republican primary voters not to vote for Romney, but which of the conservative candidates are going to appeal to mainstream voters?

Cain is an unserious loose cannon who gets accused of sexual misconduct on a daily or weekly basis.  Bachmann is batshit crazy-eyes insane.  Rick Perry is dumb as rocks and will give people Dubya flashbacks.  And Gingrich is a pompous unlikable family values hypocrite.  Unpopular as Obama is, it would be a gamble at best to assume that a majority of voters would flock to any of those alternatives.

Reagan was a conservative, yes, but he was also a very charismatic and skilled politician, running against an unpopular failed incumbent.  The 2012 GOP field has the second element going for them, but not the first.

Add comment November 30th, 2011 at 07:19am Posted by Eli

The Inspirer

April 1st is almost five months away, so I have to assume that James Rosen was dead serious when writing his ridiculous column about how George W. Bush deserves credit for “inspiring” the Arab Spring because he single-handedly created the idea that Arab countries can have democracy too.  Seriously, I’m not kidding.

The idea that Dubya’s Soaring Democracy Talk “inspired” Middle Eastern Muslims to do anything other than join al Qaeda is laughable and pathetic.  It’s like me taking credit for the Giants winning yesterday because I told them they just had to beat the Patriots.

Add comment November 7th, 2011 at 08:08am Posted by Eli

Remember When The Tea Party Was The New Silent Majority?

I seem to remember media (and politicians) making a big deal out of polls showing that some huge percentage of Americans “supported” the Tea Party, and both parties were eager to appease them.

How things can change…

[Occupy Wall Street] has a 54% favorability rating compared to the conservative group’s 27%, according to a new Time magazine poll.

A sizable number – 23% – said they didn’t know enough about the Wall St. protesters to make a decision.

In contrast, 23% said they had a negative opinion of Occupy Wall Street compared to 65% who said the Tea Party’s influence has been negative or negligible.

Who ever could have guessed that a message about corrupt rich people and corporations hijacking our country for their own gain would be more popular than “Fuck the poor”?

(I also find it hilarious when teabaggers and Republicans indignantly complain about how the Occupiers are angry, rude, divisive and negative.  Not like those nice polite people who were carrying guns and shouting down their elected representatives at healthcare town halls, or carrying misspelled signs portraying the President Of The United States as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose.)

Add comment October 14th, 2011 at 07:21am Posted by Eli

Why Does George Will Hate Billionaires?

George Will is deeply offended by Elizabeth Warren’s obvious communism, clearly on display in this statement here:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. . . . You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless, keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Will’s epically point-missing response:

Everyone knows that all striving occurs in a social context, so all attainments are conditioned by their context. This does not, however, entail a collectivist political agenda.

Such an agenda’s premise is that individualism is a chimera, that any individual’s achievements should be considered entirely derivative from society, so the achievements need not be treated as belonging to the individual. Society is entitled to socialize — i.e., conscript — whatever portion it considers its share. It may, as an optional act of political grace, allow the individual the remainder of what is misleadingly called the individual’s possession.

Will thinks that “collectivists,” otherwise known as “people who want a functional country,” believe that the government should collect taxes from corporations and the wealthy solely as some sort of reward or payback for the generosity that made their individual successes possible.  But that’s not it at all – we believe that the government should collect taxes from corporations and the wealthy in order to preserve and grow the foundation for future individual successes.

Starving the government to satisfy some misguided fetish of rugged individualism and self-reliance will make it increasingly difficult for future – and current – entrepreneurs to succeed, as they try to produce, sell and transport their products with poorly educated workers, slow internet connections, and crumbling roads and rail.  More and more of them will either flee to or be out-competed by countries that recognize the value of investing in themselves.

Taxes are not a prize that government arbitrarily awards itself for being generous and awesome.  Taxes are the revenue that government uses to build infrastructure and weave a safety net, making it easier to take risks and then make them pay off.

Will thinks that any government that collects taxes is socialist, that our system is hopelessly tilted against businesses. But the reality is the exact opposite – just ask Dwayne Andreas:

[Archer Daniels Midland CEO Dwayne] Andreas recently told a reporter for Mother Jones, “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.“

Hey, I guess we’re both right!

1 comment October 6th, 2011 at 10:12pm Posted by Eli

Word Choice Of The Day

Chicago Business makes it sound like Obama’s supporters just got bored and wandered off:

President Barack Obama’s Chicago-based re-election campaign has a hometown problem: the donors and volunteers who have lost interest after launching his run for the White House four years ago.

Obama’s problem isn’t that his supporters have “lost interest,” it’s that they’ve been paying attention.

Add comment September 28th, 2011 at 07:36am Posted by Eli

The Source Of All Obama’s Problems Is Revealed!

It was Bill Daley all along!

Never mind that Obama was a lousy president who collaborated with (or at the very least capitulated to) the GOP and frittered away huge congressional majorities long before Bill Daley showed up, or any other little minor details like that…

I think the main reason for the focus on Bill Daley is that he’s not Obama, or Geithner, or Holder, or any of Obama’s other corrupt and/or craven agency heads and cabinet members.  Obama sucked before Bill Daley, and he continues to suck now.  Bill Daley is not the problem, although he is equally clearly not the solution.

Add comment September 17th, 2011 at 12:17pm Posted by Eli

What I’ve Been Saying

Apparently it took an unpleasant healthcare experience for columnist Allan Sloan to realize that private insurance is also a bureaucracy.  Which is what I said over two years ago:

If there must be a bureaucrat between me and my doctor, I would much prefer that said bureaucrat does not have a vested interest in denying me care.

See also: My post from yesterday.

Add comment September 15th, 2011 at 07:25am Posted by Eli

Strawman Of The Day

Thomas Sowell courageously attacks those who oppose the creation of wealth.

The thing is, no one that I know of is actually opposed to wealth creation.  But I and most other progressives are opposed to creating wealth solely for the enrichment of the wealthy.  If everyone else had a little more wealth, that just might create a virtuous cycle of consumer demand, increased employment, and yes, more wealth.

1 comment September 8th, 2011 at 07:32am Posted by Eli

No Room For Improvement

Ezra Klein explains that Obama couldn’t possibly have done a better job, what with his miniscule majorities in both houses of Congress and all.  I particularly like the part where he suggests that Obama would have been less popular and the 2010 bloodbath would have been worse if Obama had passed an effective stimulus and generally done more to live up to his campaign promises.

Because the American people just hate strong politicians who get results, especially when they don’t act like corporate tools.  That’s why FDR was only able to get elected 4 times.  Well, that and dying.

Add comment August 23rd, 2011 at 07:51am Posted by Eli

Are There No Workhouses?

Thomas Sowell laments that the poor just don’t know their place anymore, and that this will be the end of civilization as we know it.

Of course, there’s absolutely no possibility that they might have legitimate grievances, or that most of “the top” that they’re so “focused on tearing down” has been motivated by nothing more than selfishness and greed, and has been buying politicians for years to avoid participating in any of the “shared sacrifice” being heaped on the poor, the working class, the sick, and the old.

Add comment August 17th, 2011 at 08:11am Posted by Eli

It All Depends On What The Meaning Of The Word “Good” Is…

The NYT recently revived Obama’s old quote from early in his presidency that he would rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president, in the context of talking about what he has to do to turn his presidency around before he’s up for re-election.  But really, that only makes sense if you buy the premise that he hasn’t been a good president, which can only be properly evaluated if you know what his goals are.

That is the question.  There has been a spate of Obama-evaluating articles and blog posts lately, with the likes of Robert Reich, Drew Westen, Der Spiegel, LAT, and the Wall Street Journal attributing his disappointing presidency to weakness and/or cluelessness, while Matt Stoller, David Sirota, Jamie Galbraith, and, well, me, argue that Obama has been enacting exactly the policies he wants to enact.

There is room for agreement between the two views, however: Regardless of whether Obama is a successful Republican or an unsuccessful Democrat, he has been an absolutely miserable politician who has demoralized his own base, alienated independents, and done nothing to win over Republicans. (Well, actually, he’s done quite a lot to win over Republicans, but none of it has worked.)  And the economy and employment situation is still terrible, although I suppose that could also be considered a matter of perspective – the wealthy are still doing fine, if not better, but the overwhelming majority of the electorate are not feeling very secure.

So is Obama a good president or a mediocre one?  I think the answer mainly depends on how much money you have.  Is he a one-term president or a two-term one?  I think the answer mainly depends on how crazy the Republican nominee is.

1 comment August 11th, 2011 at 07:42am Posted by Eli

This Is What Happens When You’re Not Paying Attention

You say clueless, ridiculous things like this:

Republicans will still be able to refuse to raise taxes. But if they do, it won’t matter. The only way they can succeed in keeping taxes from rising is if the Obama administration and the Democrats stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Srsly?  Did you not see what happened last December???

Add comment August 1st, 2011 at 11:27am Posted by Eli

The Only Winners And Losers Who Really Matter

If you want to understand how Washington thinks and why our government and media are so worthless, just read this repellent column by the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza, toting up “The debt-ceiling deal… winners and losers.”

In the winning column, he lists Mitch McConnell, the Tea Party, Obama, the Congressional Budget Office, Grover Norquist, and – I’m not kidding – David Wu.

In the losing column, he lists Congress, the Gang Of Six, commissions, and liberals.

Missing from either list: The economy or the American people.  Just like they were missing from all the political calculations and posturing by Obama and the Tea Party, who collaborated to produce a terrible deal that will make the country weaker and maybe even increase the debt it was supposed to reduce.

You also have to love this little snippet of DLC-style conventional wisdom:

But remember that Obama’s target constituency in 2012 is not his base but rather independent and moderate voters. And those fence-sitters love compromise in almost any form.

Yep, there’s nothing independents and moderates love more than politicians with no convictions at all (I personally believe Obama is a strong Republican masquerading as a weak Democrat, but the appearance is the same).  And of course they always turn out in droves, not like a motivated Democratic base would.

I understand that most politicians – and much of the media who cover them – are corrupt, shallow, self-centered creatures, and it’s folly to expect them to always put the good of the country first.  But couldn’t they at least think about it a little bit?

Add comment August 1st, 2011 at 07:49am Posted by Eli

The Real Enemies Of Democracy

As Paul Krugman points out, it’s not the Republican crazies that are destroying the country – it’s all the media enablers who present their insanity as just one, perfectly valid side of the story, or pretend that both sides of the political spectrum are equally unreasonable.

We need less balance and more truth.

1 comment July 27th, 2011 at 09:42am Posted by Eli

Going After The Real Jihadis

Jennifer Rubin follows up her mega-wrong OMG NORWAY JIHAD!!!ONE! post with one explaining that even though this time it wasn’t actually al Qaeda, “[t]here are many more jihadists than blond Norwegians out to kill Americans.”

Which may be true, but it does kinda beg the question: How many terrorist attacks on American soil have been committed by jihadists vs. right-wing Christian conservatives?

If you want to be gung-ho about going after jihadists, at least be consistent about going after all the jihadists, not just the Muslim ones.

And maybe the economic ones, too…

1 comment July 24th, 2011 at 10:59am Posted by Eli

The Guardian Reads My Mind

For all of the people speculating about how the phone-hacking scandal could bring down Fox News or Rupert Murdoch, I just don’t see it.  Even if it comes out that Fox hacked the phones of 9/11 victims, Obama and the Democrats just don’t have the guts to take them on, and would fold at the first Republican accusations of “politically-motivated witch hunt!”.

And of course, as the Guardian points out, Republicans would – and have – destroyed liberal organizations for far less, and even for nothing at all (see: ACORN).

Does no one remember all the scandals of the Bush administration, and how each one was going to be the one that finally brought it down?  It never happened.

Add comment July 21st, 2011 at 07:15am Posted by Eli

Daily Caller Vs. Bachmann?

Most people I know think the Daily Caller story about Michele Bachmann’s supposedly debilitating migraines is the Republican establishment’s attempt to get her out of the way for the 2012 election, but I think maybe Tucker Carlson is just trying to reassure us that she won’t be trying to wreck the country 24/7.

Add comment July 20th, 2011 at 07:11am Posted by Eli

Because That Worked Out So Well The Last Time…

Andrea Tantaros brags about what an awesome decisive straight shooter Michele Bachmann is.  Um, our last president was a decisive straight shooter too, and the country still hasn’t recovered.  A decisive straight shooter is not such an asset when they’re wrong all the time, about everything.

Besides, I think she’s being unfair to Obama: He knows exactly what he wants, he just has to put on a show and pretend that he wants the exact opposite.  Then he pragmatically “compromises” back to his true position.

Add comment June 30th, 2011 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

The End Of Journalism

Welcome to rock bottom.

Yeah I know, they were just JOKING!

Add comment May 31st, 2011 at 07:01pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Political Analysis

Conservative pundit Andrea Tantaros helpfully explains that Republican voters should nominate the best candidate, makes no attempt to identify who that might be.

Insightful columnist is insightful!

Add comment May 19th, 2011 at 07:09am Posted by Eli

Attack Of The Giant If

Paul Krugman is conditionally okay with the content of Obama’s Big Important Budget Speech:

Much better than many of us feared. Hardly any Bowles-Simpson — yay!

The actual plan relies on some discretionary spending cuts, this time including defense — good, although I think too much is being cut from domestic spending. It relies on letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire — finally! — plus unspecified reductions in tax expenditures.

(…)

Overall, way better than the rumors and trial balloons. I can live with this. And whatever the pundits may say, it was much, much more serious than the Ryan “plan”.

However:

I should probably say, I could live with this as an end result. If this becomes the left pole, and the center is halfway between this and Ryan, then no — better to pursue the zero option of just doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts as a whole expire.

That is one enormous If for a president who plays tug-of-war in roller skates.

Add comment April 13th, 2011 at 06:50pm Posted by Eli

Thomas Sowell’s Analogy Fail

Thomas Sowell helpfully explains why it’s so terribly unfair to accuse the right’s Serious Budget Grownups of trying to destroy Medicare and Social Security:

When someone gives you a check and the bank informs you that there are insufficient funds, who do you get mad at? In your own life, you get mad at the guy who gave you a check that bounced, not at the bank. But in politics, you get mad at whoever tells you that there is no money.

Well, that certainly is some lovely and poetic imagery there, but perhaps a better analogy would be if the bank informs you that it has no money for withdrawals because it blew it all on freebies and giveaways for its most valued wealthy and corporate customers, expensive hunting trips overseas, and maybe losing big at Vegas.

Not only that, but that it intends to siphon off your savings and/or garnish your wages so that it can lavish even more money on rich people, gambling and bloodshed.

So yeah, I’m pretty sure I’d be mad at the bank.

(Cross-posted at MyFDL)

Add comment April 6th, 2011 at 08:39pm Posted by Eli

Sob Stories From A Parallel Universe

This is not the first time that I’ve wished that I lived in that alternate world conservatives think they live in, the one where cunning, all-powerful, unstoppable liberals have all the advantages and control all the messaging and media.  But you have to admit that this world does sound appealing:

[C]onservative operatives working on independent research efforts say they’ve encountered some reluctance to engage in the more aggressive tactics of opposition research, and a dearth of talent willing to put in the long hours necessary to make it a success. Raising money for it has also been a problem.

“A lot of conservatives think that you have to abide by Marquess of Queensberry rules even if you’re in a knock-down, drag-out bar fight,” said Matthew Vadum, a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a conservative non-profit that researches liberal donors. “And it’s good to be ethical, but sometimes maybe you need to explore new frontiers to reflect the changing nature of political combat in modern America.”

He added, “This doesn’t mean we have to go all Saul Alinsky on the left, but the right can be more aggressive in how it deals with the left and we’re starting to see that.”

Though Vadum cast the right’s effort to close the oppo gap as part of a normal cycle of political innovation and mimicry, he also pointed out that some conservatives have expressed discomfort with the alternately effective-and-disastrous undercover sting tactics of videographer James O’Keefe.

The right needs to overcome its skittishness and “start manufacturing more conservative journalists, and you have to wonder if that’s going to happen, because the people who tend to go into journalism for ideological motivations are on the left,” Vadum said.

If only the right had its own network that it could use to broadcast its own propaganda 24 hours a day in the guise of “news.”  Or alternatively, maybe if they stopped being so blatantly corrupt, spiteful, dishonest, and downright crazy, doing oppo on them would be a little less like searching for three-leaf clovers.

Add comment April 4th, 2011 at 07:58am Posted by Eli

Beck Vs. O’Keefe

I think the real question is not “Why is Glenn Beck attacking James O’Keefe?”, although that is certainly an interesting one to ask.  The real question is, “Why was there such a skepticism and analysis vacuum for him to fill in the first place?”

Given that O’Keefe is well-known to be a purveyor of deceptively edited hit pieces, I think it’s safe to say that our conventional media is officially worse than useless.

Add comment March 16th, 2011 at 07:35am Posted by Eli

What Digby Said

Digby sums up what’s wrong with the budget debate in one sentence:

It’s very easy to prescribe “shared sacrifice” when you will not personally sacrifice anything at all.

Washington’s definition of “shared” is ridiculously constrained.  If the corporations and the rich were forced to “sacrifice” to the same level of pain as the Republicans (and probably Obama and lots of Democrats) advocate, we could probably wipe out the deficit and still have money left over for real stimulus and infrastructure repair.

1 comment March 11th, 2011 at 11:29am Posted by Eli

What Passes For Budget Honesty On The Right

Joe Scarborough acknowledges the significant role of tax cuts, defense spending, and wars in turning the Clinton budget surplus into a massive deficit… then proceeds to focus on cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to balance the budget.

Umm, why not just roll back all the tax cuts and military spending that you yourself admit blew the hole in the budget in the first place?  Sounds crazy, I know.

Add comment March 9th, 2011 at 07:55am Posted by Eli

Dishonest Or Stupid?

Bob Samuelson, the Anti-Krugman, explains why Social Security is welfare:

We don’t call Social Security “welfare” because it’s a pejorative term and politicians don’t want to offend. So they classify Social Security as something else, when it isn’t. Here’s how I define a welfare program: first, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it’s pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people’s own savings pay their later benefits; and second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions, and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

So apparently unless Social Security pays you back the exact same dollars that you paid into it, it’s welfare.  Oh, and that huge surplus to deal with the baby boomers retiring?  Total accident:

The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today’s big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in Social Security: The Unfinished Work. In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus “just developed. It wasn’t planned,” the commission’s executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear as the number of retirees rises.

I’m gonna go with dishonest, I think.  Although that certainly doesn’t rule out stupid.

Add comment March 7th, 2011 at 11:37am Posted by Eli