Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Here’s Cory Booker on the Maddow Show for those who missed it. Rachel’s intro is actually better than the Booker interview, especially the part where she lists the off-message gaffes made by Romney endorsers.
I don’t think Booker did himself any favors. First, I don’t know who he thinks will be inspired by the “independent Democrat” label that he’s given himself, since the Democratic base sees that as code for “I’ll shit on any Democrat if it helps me” and most everyone else sees it as a weak inability to pick a side. I also don’t see it as an excuse here, because he chose to be Obama’s surrogate, and if he was too “independent” to stick to the talking points, maybe he should have just stayed off of MTP.
His attempt to turn his criticism of the Obama campaign into a more general criticism of negative campaigning is also pretty weak. It’s pretty obvious that this never works–it just leads to reporters to ask you if you’re engaging in “negative campaigning” the next time you criticize someone, because there’s nothing the DC media loves more than a Democrat fighting with one hand tied behind his back.
If you’re a politician from the New York metro area, you need to be palatable to Wall Street without appearing to be a total money whore sellout. Booker didn’t get the job done, and it’s not that hard a job to do. One way to do it is to say that being part of Bain doesn’t make you a job creator without saying that private equity is bad (Obama showed how that’s done)
Another way to handle it is to point out that Romney is talking about Bain because he can’t talk about his real political experience as Governor of Massachusetts. Even Chris Wallace gets this, in a Fox News Sunday question that might be in the news if Booker hadn’t pooped himself:
Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts for four years, Congressman Ryan. And during that time, Massachusetts ranked 47th of the 50 states in job creation. The only reason the unemployment rate went down [was] because so many people left the work force — more than any other state in the country except Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. Is that a record to be proud of?”
Romney’s success in Massachusetts, Romneycare, is another thing he’s running away from. Both of those topics would have been a nice pivot to get Booker out of talking about his private equity contributors. Instead, here he his, trying to unfuck what shouldn’t have been fucked in the first place.
Baud
It’s over now. Booker just needs to lie low and not say anything until the convention when he can give a speech in which he reaffirms his Democratic bona fides.
Dan
Booker f-ed up, and he deserved to be called out on it, but the amount of time the progressive blogosphere has spent beating up on a rising star in the Democratic party makes me want to break stuff. Way to lose the plot, folks.
Ron
Yeah, he fucked up. I don’t think anyone denies that. The question is should that be enough to write him off altogether? I don’t think so.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
booker wasn’t going to be a very good spokesperson anyway. the gop ought to reconsider spiking the ball on booker. the more they talk booker, the more they open themselves up to being the party that thinks we need less financial regulation. they are opening a gateway to attack romney.
EconWatcher
Was this his first really big national media event? He’s been a local personality, which is much easier. I think we should cut him some slack–for now.
Hal
Rachel Maddow’s other point was that when Republicans go off message, it’s no big deal to the press, they just have a chuckle and move on. When a Dem does it, it’s major news, and not just the Republicans come out guns blazing, so do fellow Dems.
This doesn’t hurt Obama with anyone who was going to vote for him. All it is is another bullshit message Romney can shill on Fox News while pretending he’s the one true conservative.
mistermix
@Ron: You’re right, but the “independent Democrat” thing shows a bad tendency. If that’s where he’s going, I don’t think he’s going to get to where he wants to be, which is President.
Zandar
FTFY.
Also, I don’t think we should write Cory off. He did in the course of the interview apologize for the Wright/Bain “both sides do it” idiocy, which was my major problem with him.
Having said that, no, he didn’t help himself much otherwise, even with Rachel setting up the T-ball stand for him.
Linda Featheringill
I guess I’m in with the Cory defenders. He goofed, but I don’t think he did any real damage. We’re still talking about Bain.
Besides, anyone who dashes into a burning house obviously is given to impulsiveness. He isn’t a bad person, he just needs to tighten the reins on those impulses a little bit.
amk
bory cooker had an golden opportunity to become next Obama, instead he chose to become next harold ford jr. what a fucked up entry into national politics.
amk
fuck, booker is ok now with fucking wp ? Ok, how much did you sell out for, wp?
Jon Rockoford
I think we should also recognize that Rachel Maddow also embarrassed herself. She became Booker’s enabler, allowing him to ramble on about all sorts of other matters (he’s for gender equality therefore should be forgiven!) while never addressing his comments straight on.
Maddow prides herself on being a tough but fair interviewer. Last night she was a pathetic shill for Booker. She blamed the whole thing on IOKIYAR and did nothing to address the fact that Booker defended Bain and equated the Rev. Wright bullshit to legitimate questions about Romney’s record. Never asked him what the hell was he thinking and never confronted him with his actual comments (a tactic she uses often on other guests).
It’s obvious that Booker chose to do the only interview of the day with Maddow because he knew he would not have been confronted. From all the liberal shows on MSNBC Maddow’s used to be my favorite. I found myself last night wishing the Ed or Lawrence or somebody else would step in and ask Booker if he realized he will never be able to be seen in the same light ever again. He’s now besmirched. And sadly so is Maddow. She also has feet of clay. She’s apparently willing to put principle aside and bend over backwards to accommodate a hack friend.
Sad all around for liberals who thought Booker and Maddow had inviolable integrity.
amk
fvck the partiality in moderation.
c u n d gulag
I don’t think Booker goofed at all.
Sorry, but he sold his soul, for campaign finance dollars for future elections from it, to the company story.
Booker’s now a “Made Man” in the MSM Mafia and the Villagers.
I hope he used those ’30 pieces of silver’ wisely.
No REAL Democrat will ever vote for this DINO again.
But what do WE matter, when there will be tons of money spent to elect/reelect Booker, now considered “A Centrist?”
Evan Bayh is smiling at his new disciple.
c u n d gulag
You know, if I’m going to be ‘awaiting moderation’ for fairly innocuous comments, I might as well throw in some nasty 4-letter words!
:-)
gene108
I’ll defend Mayor Booker simply because he’s done an excellent job as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Newark’s one of the poorest most crime riddled cities in the country and he seems to be making things better there.
I’ll forgive him this gaffe simply because he’s getting the job done in his day job and liberals on the blogosphere shouldn’t forget the positives he’s done (hint: John “I’ll never donate to him, if he runs for higher office” Cole because he got money from Wall Street) as mayor.
He’s a rising star in the Democratic Party because he’s actually doing some good for the folks in his town and not because glibertarian and right-wing-nut media is fluffing him, like say Rep. Paul Ryan.
mistermix
Something’s going on with moderation. I’m fishing out comments as they get caught.
Maude
@gene108:
He is no longer a rising star in the Democratic Party. He stabbed the president in the back.
Newark isn’t out of the woods by a long shot. The private monies that have come into the city haven’t saved it.
That’s like saying Cheney once rescued a puppy and so everything he did after that was okay.
The Mayor of Newark was bought and he stayed bought.
Bruce S
Booker has the stuff of an excellent mayor. Which is hard and a unique skill set. He’ll also make a good governor one day. But that’s about it. He does deserve – despite this stupid comment on Meet The Press – to be set apart from a clown and shill like Harold Ford Jr. because Booker actually cares about stuff other than himself and is devoted to public service. I think his “independent” angle is because his political experience is exclusively in a city where Democrats have a lock on the electorate but haven’t delivered much. He also likely sees Newark as starved of capital investment. And of course, any NY-NJ Dem is going to look to the financial sector for backers, funding, etc. (At least he’s not Jon Corzine.) It’s now apparent he sucks as a surrogate. Which, as Maddow demonstrated, the Dems can less afford than Romney – most of whose endorsements are obviously coming from folks who don’t even respect him, much less like him. That’s being touted as a Willard feature, not a flaw.
Obama handled this beautifully, incidentally. It was probably worth Booker’s blunder to get handed that question at the NATO press event and knock it out of the park.
Bruce S
Hey, my observations were as moderate as it gets. Is Harold Ford Jr. in charge of the comments?
Mike
@gene108: Except that the right wing IS fluffing him, now… big time!
c u n d gulag
@mistermix:
Hey, poop happens…
Thanks for letting us know.
That’s more important.
‘Cause I was wondering what rule(s) I broke now?
I don’t mind ‘awaiting moderation’ when I deserve it (and FSM knows I write a lot of stupid sh*t), but I didn’t see how that particular comment needed it.
Bruce S
“I think we should also recognize that Rachel Maddow also embarrassed herself. She became Booker’s enabler”
FWIW – Maddow and Booker have been friends since college at Stanford. She may have demonstrated a weakness, but let’s put it in proper context. It was for an old friend who she’s long liked and respected personally. Let’s not consign everyone to the dustbin of history or assume they have zero integrity because they don’t demonstrate the rigor, depth and consistency of…uh…Balloon Juice.
Also, Maddow’s intro to the interview was worth the price of admission and made a larger point than any other commentators on this tempest in an MTP pot.
Dan
@Mike: If the right wing wants to fluff a pro-gay marriage African American who believes in investing in education and infrastructure, I’m cool with that.
JPL
@c u n d gulag: you can’t say Bo..oker… cuz that’s why.
You can stand with Bo..oker… You just can’t type it.
Mike
@Dan: I think people are more mad at him for being close to Wall Street than for walking over Obama campaign talking points.
Now that people are looking at him more closely, it’s pretty clear that this “rising star” is rising in the same way that Evan Bayh, Harold Ford Jr., or to a lesser extent Mark Warner rose up. Do we really need *another* Wall Street concern troll in our caucus?
I hope Booker takes this lesson as a teaching moment and learns something from it. He can certainly remake himself as more of a mainstream Democrat if he wishes. He needs to drop the “Independent Democrat” schtick. That’s not a winning formula anymore, if it ever really was. He should look at the failed bids by his hero Harold Ford and Artur Davis. Being a conservadem did not help them at all, Davis got ousted by his own party for trying to be too much like a Republican.
rikyrah
Maddow can go somewhere and sit down.
Booker thought that he could betray the President of the United States and not get called on it.
not.happening.
cjw779
That was a disgraceful interview by Maddow. She acted exactly like Sean Hannity would have acted if Gingrich stepped in it and needed to absolve himself. No tough questions at all, and she didn’t even bring up how absurd it was that Booker equated Wright with Bain. I hate partisan news channels, but I honestly thought she was different. I lost a lot of respect for her last night.
Raven
They go way back ““Rachel, as I knew her, has always been about making a contribution,” says Cory B, the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, who was friends with Maddow at Stanford and Oxford. “She wasn’t just about giving commentary; she was an activist. She wanted to change the world”
Raven
They go way back ““Rachel, as I knew her, has always been about making a contribution,” says Cory B, the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, who was friends with Maddow at Stanford and Oxford. “She wasn’t just about giving commentary; she was an activist. She wanted to change the world”
cjw779
Bruce S Says:
That makes it even worse, in my opinion. She didn’t do him any favors by giving him such a sycophantic interview. She should have challenged him. He’s a politician with national stature. She made it look like he couldn’t stand up to the tough questions.
FlipYrWhig
The discussion of B00ker on Lawrence O’Donnel (Martin Bashir subbing) was surprisingly illuminating. Steve Kornacki seems to have a bead on the guy.
I remember first hearing about B00ker from a Republican friend who was living in NJ and working in the financial sector. He sets off my spidey sense, like Michelle Rhee. A lot of talk of “reform” and chasing after private money.
Raven
Rachel is getting killed on her blog.
Bruce S
Maddow did Booker AND the Dems a favor, incidentally, by gently allowing him to back off without skewering him further. If Maddow had gone prosecutorial on Booker, it would have given FOX, et. al. exactly the hook they needed to extend the kerfuffle according to their chosen narrative. As the President demonstrated, there’s no percentage in anything other than politely drawing distinctions – as Axelrod and Obama have – and giving Booker the chance to back off. The FOXoids want to make this about splits among Dems because they need distractions from Romney’s weakness regarding “job creation” – personally and politically. Why feed that frenzy?
JPL
@cjw779:
I don’t think he can stand up to the tough questions.
Jon Rockoford
I think it’s right and proper to make a list of other fake democrats who think that Mr. Romney should be allowed to tout his stint as a venture capitalist without any criticism:
Cory Booker
Steve Rattner
LZ Granderson
Harold Ford Jr.
Add others at will.
Legalize
Now Newton Leroy is “warning” Team O not to mess with Bain. Is there still any doubt that the Bain stuff is working?
Dan
@Bruce S: Exactly.
JoeShabadoo
Bookers political career is pretty much over now. He becomes a surrogate to get brownie points with Obama for future advancement but totally screws it up. Obama is not going to let him see the light of day if he is smart to keep him out of the press and to make an example of him to anyone else who wants to be his surrogate without actually supporting his policies.
Bruce S
@rikyrah:
“betray the President of the United States”
That’s exactly the response that the FOXoids are trying to trigger. Get a fucking grip, people. Obama and Axelrod demonstrated how this shit is handled. Fine to vent in comments threads because obviously this is all meaningless and has virtually nothing to do with effective politics and everything with letting off steam, but even Maddow is too high profile as a liberal Dem to have had it make any sense for her to treat Booker like a “traitor.”
Bruce S
@JPL:
As a national politician, agreed. He’s got some strengths that I think he can leverage as mayor or even governor, but I don’t think he projects great political skills beyond that level. I don’t think this ridiculous running of the mouth off-message on a lazy Beltway news-hack show that unfortunately is taken far more seriously than it deserves was a reflection just of his ideological positioning, but of his impulsiveness.
Mino
Democratic leaders need to show their the adult, more in sorrow, side. We prols need to scour his ass.
I don’t think Cory has any illusions about how badly he fucked up.
Chris Christie might have a little difficulty getting Cory in the sequel, heh.
Suffern ACE
@Legalize: Really. The guy who brought it up in the first place?
Mino
@FlipYrWhig: Yes, Cory is really, really bad on education. That should disqualify him from higher office all by itself.
And I really like Martin.
Dan
The more I think about this kerfufle, the better I think it is. It’s clear the base is riled up and Obama will cruise to victory against B00ker in November. Go Team!
Mike
@Bruce S: Agreed. The purpose of the interview was for Booker to get himself back into the fold, restate his support for the president, and start healing the wound. The purpose was not to destroy Corey Booker.
I do find it interesting that the Romney camp elevates any Joe Schmoe on TV to iconic status when they mess up their lines. Hillary Rosen was made out to be Obama’s right hand woman, even though she was a failed hillary surrogate who was lucky to get on TV at all. Booker’s a “future star”, sure, but he’s still just a mayor.
EconWatcher
@Dan:
Well put. Honestly, some of you guys sound like our own teabaggers, desperate to burn a heretic. The guy said something stupid. It may mean he’s a jerk, or it may mean just that he said something stupid. We’ll see. Meanwhile, chill out.
Bruce S
“He sets off my spidey sense, like Michelle Rhee. A lot of talk of ‘reform’ and chasing after private money.”
Big, big difference between Booker and Rhee, so far as I can tell. People who are dealing with the guy – even as adversaries – on the ground in Newark around various issues don’t simply hate him, presumably because he doesn’t project contempt for everyone other than himself.
EconWatcher
Krugman thinks B00ker has ended his political career. I just don’t get this. He goofed. But a career ender? Why on earth? Romney has a goof this bad about twice a week. Admittedly, you have to be much more disciplined to survive as a Dem, but is there no slack at all?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/godwinization/
Odie Hugh Manatee
I saw Book-er on Maddow and I told my wife that if he was riding a bike on her show that he would be doing 50, backwards.
Sorry, no love for Book-er here. He’s clearly shown that his wealthy investment donors/buddies at Bain are more important than being a surrogate for President Obama. If the locals in NJ love him then let them keep him in NJ.
We have enough of his type in DC already, no need for another bought and paid for pol like him.
gene108
@EconWatcher: I don’t take Krugman seriously as a political analyst. He’s not much better informed than most folks.
On the economic commentary on the other hand…I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt…
Also, as mixed as B’s term as Mayor has been, I give him the benefit of the doubt because he’s working through the worst economic recession in 3 generations and there’s still some progress being made in Newark.
Keith G
Team Obama should keep B$$ker around for a few specific campaign needs, then after the election make him ambassador to Zimbabwe.
Mike
@EconWatcher: The gaffe opened up the hood and it’s not pretty under there. Bain’s $500,000 campaign contributions will forever haunt Booker, way more than any gaffe. It certainly may cut short his political career.
Bruce S
@EconWatcher:
“Krugman thinks B00ker has ended his political career.”
I love Krugman and agree with 110% of his criticisms of the administration on policy, but don’t ever read Krugman for wisdom on politics per se. I learned this in 2007-08 when he said some shit that made my blood boil about the Obama campaign. The funny thing about Krugman is that even now he’s not venturing far from his pole position as an orthodox liberal technocratic economist. It’s just that coincident to his being handed a New York Times column – which he doesn’t need to “be somebody” like every one of his colleagues – he watched the GOP go so far off the rails of rationality that he got really, really pissed off and was able to expound on it outside of a faculty lounge.
He’s a great asset to us – although it’s a testament to the current absurdity of American politics that a conventional Keynesian economics professor is considered a major tribune of “the Democratic Left” – rather than a contemporary version of Michael Harrington.
But I wouldn’t take Krugman’s ventures into pure political analysis any more seriously than, say, a reasonably intelligent next-door neighbor. That said, it’s also crazy for people to criticize Krugman’s economic analysis because it doesn’t use political expediency or the fact of Beltway dysfunction as it’s foundation. He’s an economics professor. Outside of that range of his true expertise, he’s just another guy with opinions.
Anya
@Jon Rockoford: I wouldn’t put Steve Rattner in that list. I don’t think he said that at all. What he said was that private equity funds are not about creating jobs, but is about maximizing profit. I don’t think that’s a faulty argument.
Jon Rockoford
EconWatcher has it exactly right. The “gaffe” was a trigger that opened up Booker for scrutiny and there are many people who’ve known that he was a Wall Street Dem all along and now they can talk about it. He may not go all the way and end up on FOX or Morning Joe but now he’s been exposed. He needs to find more houses on fire.
Anya
@Dan: Ha!
You should go to the Obama Diary, it’s madness out there. The way some people are acting, you would think B00ker endorsed Romney. Sadly, we have our own teabaggers.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I knew Rachel and B0oker were friends, I didn’t realize how close or how far they went back, but yeah, she embarrassed herself. I was just waiting for her to scold B0oker’s critics as the “PL”, which would have made me laugh heartily. Her I can forgive. And it was fun to watch mild mannered Steve Kornacki roast B0oker over a spit in the next hour.
Keith G
Oh, and as for Rachel Maddow, she made bad choices. Certainly she could have been tough in seeking out the truth of the matter and still honored her past relationship with Cory – although such feelings should have been her last consideration. She did not act out the professional standards she talks about.
I thought she was different.
Elie
@amk:
I agree. He effed up badly and it shows something else that is troubling: stoopid. It was such a tin ear mistake for any politician at any level. Something is wrong with this guy. And his defense and attempt to pivot later, also lame and ineffective. He is a rising star to some. Not to me.. he is just another lame, wanabe Harold Ford — someone who is “smart” about his own self interest (narrowly defined) and perhaps too impatient/undisciplined to actually define and follow a course of action. How is it he decides to be a surrogate and then shits over his party leader? What happened in Correy Booker’s b-b-b-b brain? Maybe he got too much smoke inhalation running into that burning building and it fried his brain cells. Whatever…
JoeShabadoo
Its not just about letting it be known that he is a wallstreet tool, its also about hurting the president whem he was trusted to help. You don’t become president by letting surrogates screw you without consequence.
Bruce S
@Anya:
Anyone who has ever tried to make measured criticisms of the administration in an ABL thread here knows how this works. And they’re not even “teabaggers” so much as sychophants. At least give the teabaggers that they have the balls to engage in politics – crazy as they may be. This is more a FOX News mentality, where everyone has to think and function like a party surrogate all of the time. It’s, frankly, why the administration has been weakened politically over the last 3 years – it’s “friends” who can’t think or act outside of a DNC/OFA box. I WISH we had more “teabaggers” – i.e. activists who stick to an issue like a dog with a bone and will push their own party over it. It took a bunch of half-baked folks doing something I would have never done – i.e. set up pup tents in a Wall Street park – to begin to change the political conversation from deficits to income inequality. Obama has benefited enormously from this “left field” set of events, even as he takes heat from that faction.
I’d lay odds that a lot of the same people here who are furious with Corey Booker would also probably defend stupid, retrograde shit like appointing Erskine Bowles as the “Democratic” standard-bearer paired with a crazy Social Security-hating old coot on a “Deficit Commission” simply because Obama is the one who came up with that horrible “off-message” appointment. Or they’d tell you how effective and canny Rahm Emmanuel is, even though as Chief of Staff he tried to convince Obama to go short on health care and essentially embrace defeat on the issue. Booker isn’t my ideal Dem and he showed himself to be utterly amateurish at best on MTP, but a lot of the outrage here is being ginned up and isn’t rooted in anything that’s consistent beyond the fact of a campaign year and all of the opportunities it presents for intense voyeurism.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Bruce S:
You keep admiring those teabaggers and I’ll keep laughing at them and their equivalent on the left.
Works for me.
JustMe
Outside of that range of his true expertise, he’s just another guy with opinions.
I would say even less so. Krugman is good because he doesn’t get influenced by “the conventional wisdom” since he’s so disconnected from it. But that’s also a weakness– he does not understand how something or someone will “play” politically because he’s incapable of understanding how the average shallow Villager thinks.
Bruce S
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
That’s because you’re a complacent fuck. And were you “laughing” when the Teabaggers dominated the political news-space, even though they were completely nuts, while there was practically zero pushback on the left over the “deficits uber alles” idiocy, which even Obama caved to with some rather large gestures when he was confronted with all of that noise?
Sentient Puddle
exasperated sigh
For something that nobody’s going to remember two months from now, everybody’s doing an awful lot of shitting on Cory. This is why we can’t have nice things.
boss bitch
@Anya:
Excuse me. The Obama Diary’s reaction was no different than those on Twitter or any other blog. Don’t equate the owner of that blog or anyone on that blog with fucking teabaggers.
Check yourself.
boss bitch
By the way, Cory Booker deserved every bit of the spanking he got. We should give him the same consideration he didn’t give to the Obama campaign? He put his career above the entire party. This guy is showing you all who he is and yet people are ready to forgive all. Yes, some on the left are often too quick to throw some Dems under the bus but the left is very notorious for turning a blind eye to Dems who shout “I’m No Good”. When people show you who they are, BELIEVE THEM. Keep a side eye on Cory, ok?
Suffern ACE
@Sentient Puddle: Well anything to avoid talking about our surrender to the Taliban.
feebog
B00ker steped in it on MTP for sure. First, he not only went off message as a surrogate, he went anti-message. Compare this to the Hillary Rosen dust-up. Rosen did not go off message; she just delivered the message poorly. B00ker was 180 degrees off.
Second, a little research revealed what a lot of insiders already knew; B00ker takes a lot of money from Wall Street, including employees of Bain Capital, and was carrying their water, not Obama’s.
Third, I agree with those upthread who felt his interview with Rachel Maddow was lame at best. He rambled on, never really addressed the real issue, and accomplished nothing. Instead of confronting his fuckup head on, he simply ran around it in a big circle. And yes, Rachel could have confronted him and asked tougher questions, but I think she was trying to thread the needle here. She was trying to let B00ker extricate himself, while not giving Romney or the Foxbots any more ammo.
Sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug.
Keith G
@Bruce S: When one tries to characterize or interpret the words or meanings of others one does not know, one is often wrong.
For me, B00ker on MTP had to choose between the Book’r message and the Obama message. This is the beginning presidential campaign and not the beginning of a Stanford debate society meeting. In such an instance, his agenda is irrelevant. His actions were either tragically stupid or stupidly deceitful.
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
@Dan:
Politics is a team sport.
Better for Hizhonner to learn the lesson sooner, rather than later.
Linnaeus
I agree that B00ker deserved to be called out on what he said (although I don’t think it was a mistake from the perspective of his own political position in Newark) and I also agree that this one particular incident shouldn’t define him as a politician.
If he’s going to seek higher office, especially at the federal level, I would be concerned that this statement falls into a pattern, i.e., that it’s indicative of how he sees things generally and it gives us a sense of what his future positions will be. He may remake himself in the months and years following and I’m willing to wait and see what he does in that respect.
What bothered me about the MTP comment (among a few things) was what it showed about American political discourse. Let’s face it: the national religion of this country is capitalism. As such, you really can’t find more than the mildest criticism of capitalism and its institutions in much of the American media. Even so, one would expect that a Democrat would be willing to advance such criticisms, or at least countenance them. A wealthy and powerful institution like Bain Capital doesn’t need defending by a Democrat on the national stage.
Bruce S
“The Obama Diary’s reaction was no different than those on Twitter or any other blog. Don’t equate the owner of that blog or anyone on that blog with fucking teabaggers.”
Good point. Teabaggers actually had the political acuity to get off their crazy asses and raise hell over an issue that agitated them. And they made an impact on the political debate, whether you like it or not. “Diaries” and Twitter are total bullshit.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Bruce S:
Flame on, Lil’ Firebagger, your words are wasted on me. Trying to communicate with idiots like you is a waste of time, you’re only fun to smack around for idle amusement.
So rail away at it if it makes you feel good! I might come back and read it.
@Bruce S:
You guys raised hell too, it’s just that nobody cared because your ‘message’ sucked.
Bruce S
@Keith G:
I’ve never defended Booker’s stupid shit on MTP (“stupid shit on MTP” might be an oxymoron.) He did a terrible job. But we’ve got people here skewering Rachel Maddow because she went “soft” on him, or suggesting “his political career is over.” Or putting him on a “list” of traitorous Dems. Sorry for trying to inject a bit of perspective or putting this in a broader frame – as Maddow skillfully did. Not as much fun as venting or “j’accuse”, I will acknowledge. If you want the exact right tone and strategy for dealing with this, no better example than Obama’s.
Bruce S
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Thanks for proving my point. Based on previous experience, I would expect nothing more. And you haven’t “smacked” shit. You’re as lame as you are tiresome. Actually, you’ve got a lot in common with Teabaggers, at the level of intellect, analysis and rhetoric. You just lack their ambition and energy.
Dan
@Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor:
Yeah, and I’d rather concentrate on beating the other team than attacking our own players. I got no problem with Obama’s measured response, and I hope the White House folks privately reamed B00ker out, but I’d rather not feed the media narrative that the democrats are disorganized purity trolls.
JGabriel
mistermix @ Top:
That’s just not true. Everyone knows the DC media loves it even more when they can make a Democrat fight with both hands tied behind his back. And the Village gives bonus points if they can chop off a leg and make the Democrat hop around like The Black Knight.
.
Silver
@Dan: It would help if the first time our players step onto the playing surface they could figure out which goal to aim for.
Coddling the feelings of private equity right now? Full retard.
burnspbesq
@EconWatcher:
Krugman wasn’t going to vote for Booker in the 2013 Dem gubernatorial primary anyway. And as a general rule, his political analysis is suspect.
burnspbesq
@Silver:
Perhaps this is true in some parallel universe. In this one, with our existing system of campaign finance, politicians cozy up to hedge fund and private equity guys for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: it’s where the money is. You can decry this all you want, and I’ll probably agree with you, but it is the reality of the situation, and purity-troll denial of reality doesn’t advance any ball that’s worth advancing.
The idea is to win, and winning requires money. Lots of money.
FlipYrWhig
I still don’t get how this episode warrants this much attention. During every major Obama initiative, a handful of prominent Dems would give interviews calling into question the whole Obama argument. I don’t remember a bunch of squealing from all quarters when Jim Webb or Joe Manchin said something contrary. In the left blogosphere, sure. But why do all these other people care? And Romney is running an ad on it? I mean, that’s straight-up looney.
FlipYrWhig
@burnspbesq: To the degree that B00ker had a point, I think it was something like that: that private equity as a concept and Bain in particular aren’t evil by nature. There might well be instances where the equity investment saved the business and turned it around. Or when an equity firm provided ROI for other investors, like public employee pension funds, which B00ker highlighted. Great!
Of course the other part of that, which I don’t think he’s said enough, is that when private equity _fucks with people’s lives and livelihoods_ it is more than fair game to point to the damage done. And Obama’s statement was spot on: presidents aren’t trying to maximize profits for shareholders, they’re trying to advance the general good as widely as possible, and being a private-equity-like president would be a disaster.
Silver
@burnspbesq:
Odd then that the President didn’t back Cory up and gently cup Bain’s balls.
You can cozy up all you want. You don’t announce it on MTP and do a Joe Lieberman impression in an election year.
Bruce S
@FlipYrWhig:
The big difference is that this wasn’t a policy debate – it was an appearance as an official campaign designate in an election year. It also was simply a bizarrely stupid “equivalence” on Booker’s part. Even given his own political positioning and ideological “nuance” as a Dem mayor. He fucked up big-time, as political fumbling goes in context of a national campaign.
But he also gave the President an opportunity to address the Bain issue beyond the campaign spot, and this gives the spot and the issue even more credibility in context. The RNC response is a measure of weakness. I’m not as pissed at Booker as I might be had I just heard his remark and it had just sat there, with not much notice. (Of course, I don’t subject myself to Meet the Press unless, perhaps, Maddow is on.)
This is becoming a net minus for Romney IMHO – and Obama and his campaign are following through beautifully. Booker just looks like he’s out of his league as a “national politician.” He’s got a great future in New Jersey – his political career is hardly “over.” He could still turn out to be a very good mayor or governor – or the usual mediocre one. What’s “over” is over-rating Corey Booker’s political skills in the big time, of which I think there has been a lot.
Elie
@EconWatcher:
I tend to side with Krugman because it was an unforced error that indicates his lack of political awareness AND also signals his character. In a low risk situation he made it high risk for the position that HE selected as a surrogate AND, signficantly — FOR HIMSELF! He shot himself in the foot in a low risk situation. There were fifteen different alternative ways to signal a more sophisticated message to Bain and Wall Street. He is either stupid or not the instinctive politician he has been touted to be. To be a successful Democrat, you had better be both.
Bruce S
“He is either stupid or not the instinctive politician he has been touted to be.”
He’s clearly not stupid by any conventional definition.
The Latter, BigTime!
amk
@Bruce S:
That’s because teh left was busy ratfucking Obama instead of real villains. FO firebagger.
Bruce S
amk – it’s never useful to expose oneself as a total idiot whose only ammunition is yelling “Firebagger.” You’ve got two Big Ideas in the context of Obama’s presidency – “ratfucking” and “firebagging.” Intellectual infantilism that would do a Teabagger proud. People like you are totally fucking useless. No wonder institutional Dems are always screwed and caving to bullshit.
The best quick advice I can give to these types is to pick up a copy of Van Jones’ book. But that would require thinking about stuff beyond one dimension.
amk
@Bruce S: yeah, the obama sux one issue morons like you will lead america to its glory, whatever fuck it is.
Bruce S
amk – You literally don’t have a clue who the fuck you’re talking to in terms of my politics or activities in support of Obama as well as on some key issues. You, on the other hand, have revealed that you’re brain-dead. And, in supreme irony, arrogant about it.
amk
@Bruce S: You have some inferiority complex issues. Go see a doctor. You know jacksquat about politics as well as policies. Idjit.
Stuck in the Funhouse
Goodness gracious, I think Bruce S may have finally conquered the conundrum bedeviling man since the primordial ooze, demonstrating an ability to give himself a blowjob and typing nonsense at the same time. Somebody ought to build a statue.
Bruce S
amk – don’t dig it deeper.
Bruce S
Stuck! Still! On Stupid!
This thread has officially been taken over by Trolls.
Life beckons. Thankfully, I’ve got one.
amk
@Bruce S: Go see a doctor. or GFY. Your choice.
burnspbesq
@Bruce S:
@amk:
Get a room.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@amk:
No mere doctor could suffice for our Bruce s. Unless we dug up Sigmund for some top quality mind shrinking for our resident Tea Tard fluffer.
A Humble Lurker
The way I see it, he’s on probation. *Shrug* We keep our eyes on him and see if he continues to pull crap like this or if he can redeem himself. And then we act accordingly.