Clowns:

With the economy rapidly weakening, some senior Democrats are having second thoughts about raising taxes on the nation’s wealthiest families and are pressing party leaders to consider extending the full array of Bush administration tax cuts, at least through next year.

This rethinking comes barely a month after Democrats trumpeted plans to stage a high-stakes battle over taxes in the final weeks before the November congressional elections.

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire in December. Republicans are pushing to extend them all, while President Obama has forcefully argued that the country cannot afford to keep tax breaks on income over $250,000 a year for families and $200,000 a year for individuals.

But a growing cadre of Democrats – alarmed by evidence that the recovery is losing steam and fearful of wounding conservative Democrats in a tough election year – are advocating a plan that would permanently extend tax cuts benefiting the middle class while renewing breaks for the wealthy through 2011, senior Democratic aides said.

Awesome strategery, Democrats. Extend tax cuts that do nothing to stimulate the economy and de facto cede the argument about tax cuts helping the economy, get blamed for the deficit costs of those tax cuts as more evidence of the free-spending liberals, continue the growth in income inequality and the distribution of wealth concentrated at the top of the tiers, leave less money available to engage in worthy projects, and demoralize your base while throwing a bone to people who are NEVER EVER EVER going to vote for you.

I hate being a Democrat.

Bitter encomium from a fellow Masshole, Charles P. Pierce, at Esquire:

... The cool cats ‘n’ kittens of the elite press corps — Print and Television regiments, but especially the latter — spent the next few days praising the deceased’s ability to “get things done,” and to “reach across the aisle,” and to “practice the art of the possible.” There was much moaning and wailing and rending of upholstery in the Green Room about the current state of our politics, as though the art of governing in a democratic republic could be summed up in the ability to get along with such a consummate faker as Orrin Hatch. Lost, except in occasional euphemism, was the fact that, at the time Kennedy died, one party had determined that it was good politics that very little get done, national interest and the results of the previous two national elections be damned; that reaching across the aisle now meant extending your hand into a gibbering monkeyhouse, and that there was no art of the possible, well, possible, as long as one side determines that richly empowered nonsense is the key to political success in a country too numb to act in its own self-interest. Lost, except in occasional euphemism, was the fact that thousands of people don’t wait four hours in the soggy middle of a storm-fresh night to celebrate someone’s unique gift for compromise. What was needed at the time of Ted Kennedy’s death was not the man who got suckered by George Bush and his No Child Left Behind confidence game, but the man who stood and spoke, loudly and uncompromisingly, in order to keep a bitter Victorian yahoo like Robert Bork off the Supreme Court.
[...]

Consider: just this year, the Senate found itself unable to act on extending unemployment insurance during a time when somewhere north of 17 percent of the country was out of work. In other words, allegedly sentient politicians found themselves unable to appreciate the political value of giving away money. And the Senate also found itself unable to act on the issue of extending health care benefits to the people who got sick working on the pile of rubble that once was the World Trade Center… Free money and helping the heroes of Ground Zero now no longer have viable enough political constituencies in the Congress to get themselves passed. And these are the politics on the verge of success.

... Meanwhile, nobody can seem to make a good campaign issue out of the fact that, for the first time ever, a law was passed that embraced at least in principle Ted Kennedy’s lifelong dream of universal health insurance. It was a weak and sickly stab at it, but it was a political triumph nonetheless. Why is this administration not getting credit for all it’s done, wonder the president’s most avid supporters. It’s because there’s nobody out there — including the president, apparently — who can connect these accomplishments in a coherent narrative in such a way as to command the respect of a public conditioned to believe that universal health insurance means that Stalin will rise from his grave in order to march your white-haired granny into hers. That’s what’s never been replaced since we all stood in line by the sea, under the shattered light of a moon as the clouds raced in front of it ahead of the storm.

The story of the Minerals Management Service capture spans three Presidents and decades. It’s a long, familiar arc.

It begins with Reagan, George H.W. Bush walked back some of Reagan’s excess, Bill Clinton did his part under his favorite “partner with industry!” idea, and then George W. Bush dropped all pretense and just had the regulated industry write the rules.

It’s a good basic article with a time line, but that isn’t what I wanted to talk about.

The article made me think of James Carville, and his loud and long critique of Obama’s Gulf Spill response. I know Carville wasn’t responsible for policy during the Clinton years, but he was there, and he was the political guy who sold the “centrist” approach, part of which was private-public partnership. I also know Carville was objecting to the Obama response in the Gulf, not the Obama policy, so maybe that’s the distinction, because a Clinton-era Democrat doesn’t have much to brag about regarding that regulatory agency, as it turns out.

Still, it brought to mind something I’ve been wondering ever since Gibbs made the comment about the “Professional Left”. We’ve spent so much time and energy discussing the Professional Left’s role in critiquing Obama, maybe we’ve missed that the Professional Democrats have carped and second-guessed and parroted conservative critics of the President nearly constantly since he was elected.

It occurs to me that Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald don’t claim long-term membership in the Democratic Party, and don’t base their careers on membership in the Democratic Party.

They’re not “Democrats” so much as they are “liberals” and they don’t support a Party platform so much as they support individual issues. But that’s not true of Carville and Rendell and Reich and the rest. They’re Party people.

I wouldn’t expect individual liberals or issue advocates to rally ‘round Obama. Instead I would expect the people who identify as members of the Democratic Party to rally ‘round the Democratic President and broader Democratic platform, because that’s one of the roles of a political Party.

I know the general rap on Democrats, the herding cats and the inability to speak with one clear voice, and all of that is true. But, in my opinion, Obama, in particular, has gotten little support from the people who identify, professionally, as Democrats, and that doesn’t make sense to me.

So how did it become the job of the Professional Left to promote or defend the Democratic Party and Democratic President, and why isn’t anyone asking why the Professional Democrats haven’t done it, in Obama’s case? Is it maybe because lots of these problems he’s stuck with have a long arc, and if Professional Democrats defended Obama they might be forced to look at that?

I know we’re all sick of the Death to America Ground Zero Mosque, but for the love of Allah, why can’t all Democrats do as well as Al Franken did when talking about it?

The pattern is simple: First, know the facts. Unlike Dean and Reed, Franken points out that it’s a community center that can’t be seen from ground zero. Second, call it what it is and link it to a pattern:

On a more serious note, he also added: “They (Republicans) do this every two years. They try to find a wedge issue, and they try to work it.”

Contrast Franken’s words to the typical piss-pants Democratic response. First, they treat the nontoversy as a very serious issue, worthy of a few Oprahs and a 20/20. Because it’s so serious, they’re afraid to face it head-on, so they run away or give evasive statements. Then, after the noise machine has been working long enough for the first polls to appear, the ignorant, fleeting opinions reflected in those polls cause the weaker links in the Democratic chain to issue statements that essentially agree with Republicans. Once that happens, the issue is far more legitimate in the eyes of the media, so what was once a nothingburger is now a topic for experts to discuss for hundreds of hours of cable TV.

I guess the Democratic leadership thinks this is a desired outcome, because they do it all the fucking time.

Here’s part of Howard Dean’s response to criticism of his position on the Ground Zero Freedom Hating Mosque:

My argument is simple. This Center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens. That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are “justified” or not. No doubt the Republic will survive if this center is built on its current site or not. But I think this is a missed opportunity to try to have an open discussion about why this is a big deal because it is a big deal to a lot of Americans who are not just right wing politicians pushing the hate button again. I think those people need to be heard respectfully whether they are right or whether they are wrong.

This has nothing to do with the right to build and unlike same sex marriage or the civil rights movement it is not about equal protection under the law. The rights of the builders are not in dispute. This is about ending the poisonous atmosphere engendered by fear and hate, and in order to do that there has to be genuine listening, hearing and willingness to compromise on both sides I personally believe that there are other possible solutions that could result from such a process and that a genuine exploration of those possibilities is something we ought to try.

This is stupid in so many ways. First, what “compromise” is necessary on the part of Muslims who want to convert that building? The Imam was on 60 Minutes a few days after 9/11 denouncing radicals, so I doubt that he needs to compromise his position on terrorists who claim to be true Muslims. So the “compromise” must mean that the Imam does whatever his benighted, out-of-town critics want him to do.

Second, and more important, what a great way to encourage stupid, cable-driven nontroversies. Instead of just keeping his fucking mouth shut, Dean treats this whole ginned-up affair like some kind of grassroots, serious protest instead of a lie calculated to inflame. You can’t have “genuine listening” when the whole conversation starts with bullshit: It isn’t just a mosque, you can’t see ground zero from it, and it’s nothing new in that neighborhood. Start there, and you have nothing that needs to be “heard respectfully”.

In the political crowd I used to run with, people would say things like “I think Eric Massa is the second coming, Howard Dean was the first” (that is close to a verbatim quote). A lot of these people were really pissed when Obama didn’t give Dean a key position in the cabinet (they wanted him as head of HHS).

I like Howard Dean a lot better than I like Eric Massa, at this point, but they’re both hot heads who have their own agenda. And they’re both back-stabbers.

I thought Dean’s comments that “Bush would have had the health care bill done a long time ago” were beyond stupid for a number of reasons. First, because Bush would never have tried to get something like health care through. Second, because Bush’s two big pushes for difficult domestic legislation (Social Security privatization, immigration reform) failed. Third, because what is the point of saying things like that? If you cared about health care reform, wouldn’t you support some kind of actual legislation instead of whining about what you think Bush would have done?

And the same thing here, of course: what’s the point of Dean making these remarks? Has he thought about the issue to the point where he feels strongly this way? If so, he’s an idiot. If not, he’s an opportunist.

Once and for all, can everyone stop holding up Dean up as a TRUE PROGRESSIVE that Obama shits on?

See what I mean about the Democrats?

P.S. Ted Olson is right.

P.P.S. I got the video link from Glenn Greenwald and you know what, I didn’t even notice it was Breitbart TV. I would definitely withhold judgment until there’s verification that this is Dean.

Also, the thread winner goes to Gen. Jrod and his Howling Army:

Here’s a possible compromise: instead of making the building a mosque, minarets and all, they could just make it a community center along the lines of the YMCA, and include a praying area for Muslims. That should satisfy all involved.

Awesome.

Harold Meyerson is shrill:

Several recent polls have called the Democrats’ attention to what should have been obvious to them: That helping America regain its industrial preeminence is one government activity that wins support across the board. One recent survey by Democratic pollster Mark Mellman found 78 percent support for having a “national manufacturing strategy,” while 92 percent said they supported infrastructure improvements using only American-made materials. Another survey from Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found 52 percent of respondents preferred government investment “in the future,” while just 42 percent favored the alternative course of large spending cuts.

The appeal of bolstering manufacturing and upgrading infrastructure cuts across lines of race, gender and class. Even a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh would have trouble characterizing them, as he did health-care reform, as “reparations.” Just as important, the public is right. Every bit of economic news confirms its apprehensions that by off-shoring our manufacturing, we have not only eliminated millions of good-paying jobs but we have also rendered ourselves incapable of regaining our economic health. The two major economies that are booming amidst the global bust are China’s and Germany’s—that is, the two major economies most oriented to manufacturing. In the month since I first noted this in a column, China has surpassed Japan as the world’s second-largest economy, and German exports have continued to soar. If China and Germany’s growth rates for their second quarter are annualized, they come to 10 percent and 9 percent, respectively.

When it comes to reviving American manufacturing, however, the Democrats have sounded an uncertain trumpet. The Mellman survey asked whether, on balance, the president and the two parties have bolstered manufacturing or not. While Obama’s ratings were modestly favorable, those of the Democrats were not (45 percent to 48 percent), and those of Republicans were worse (35 percent to 57 percent).

Democrats have responded to these numbers by throwing together some modest pro-manufacturing legislation, but it’s all fairly small beer. A bolder and more effective proposal is that of Intel’s legendary former chief executive Andy Grove, which ran in Bloomberg BusinessWeek last month: Tax the products of off-shored labor, and put the proceeds in a fund that can be tapped by American businesses increasing their American hiring.

Throughout his term, Obama has spoken eloquently—but only sporadically—about the need to shift from an economy that makes deals to an economy that makes things. Not only does he need to say that more often, and put some serious legislative substance behind it, but it should be the mantra for congressional Democrats who need all the help they can get in the election looming darkly before them.

Harry Reid’s statement:

The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation.

There’s a simple reason why Republicans keep the Wurlitzer running: it works.

I have nothing substantive to add to this piece about the despondent Democrats other than to state every time I read one of these pieces I just want to scream.

If George Bush had had the kind of legislative session Obama and the Democrats just had, the EPA would have been abolished, it would be illegal to not drill for oil everywhere it was located, capital gains and the “death tax” would be completely abolished, social security would have been privatized, medicare and medicaid would be abolished and we would all have personal health savings accounts, and the department of education would be simply in business to hand out vouchers to white kids in urban areas. The base of the GOP wouldn’t be whining and moaning that they hadn’t gotten around to outlawing homosexuality and that abortion is still legal in some cases so Bush is just a miserable failure and they are just too damned depressed to manage to whip up any enthusiasm to go to the polls.

Christ people. Health care is now a right. I know, I know. We didn’t get to punish insurance companies and tell off the Republicans while we did it. I give up.

What Digby Said.

The Republicans have really stepped in it here, and the Democrats would be fools to pass up this opportunity. Which means they probably will pass and instead continue the circular firing squad- ZOMG DID YOU HEAR WHAT GIBBS SAID?

Given the local fondness for Paul Krugman, I found this passage from Frank Rich’s review of Jonathan Alter’s The Promise for the NY Review of Books particularly interesting:

... The Promise depicts a carelessness and dysfunctionality in the economic team that at times matches that revealed by Rolling Stone in the military and civilian leadership of the team managing the Afghanistan war. Geithner’s inexplicable serial income tax delinquencies, as elucidated by Alter, should have disqualified him for Treasury secretary just as Stanley McChrystal’s role in the Pentagon’s political coverup of Pat Tillman’s friendly fire death should have barred him from the top military job in Afghanistan. Summers’s Machiavellian efforts to minimize or outright exclude the input of ostensible administration economic players like Paul Volcker, Austan Goolsbee, and Christina Romer seem to have engaged his energies as much as the policy issues at hand.

In April 2009, at Obama’s insistence, a group of economists that Summers had blocked from the Oval Office, including Volcker, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Alan Blinder, was invited to a White House dinner. That colloquy has been cited ever since by White House aides in response to complaints that the administration’s economic circle is too insular. The dinner was a one-off, however, and the liberal economists’ ideas about tougher financial reform and a more ambitious stimulus package have languished.

Obama may have entered the White House with the intention of assembling a Lincolnesque “team of rivals,” but Summers subverted that notion by making himself chief packager and gatekeeper for any dissenting arguments about economic policy—all, he claimed, to spare the President from meeting with “long-winded people.” Lincoln’s “team of rivals” reported directly to Lincoln, but, as one source told Alter, Summers so skewed the process in this White House that it was like “a team of rivals reporting to Edwin Stanton, Lincoln’s prideful secretary of war.” Even Warren Buffett, a supporter who had spoken to Obama weekly during the fall of 2008, “found himself mysteriously out of touch with the new president” once he took office.

Obama was now imprisoned within the cozy Summers-Geithner group “and it would be increasingly difficult for him to see beyond its borders.” This “disconnection from the world,” Alter concludes, was not due to ideology or the clout of special interests but was instead “the malign consequence of the American love of expertise, which, with the help of citadels of the meritocracy, had moved from a mere culture to something approaching a cult.” For all Obama’s skepticism of cant, he was “in thrall to the idea that with enough analysis, there was a ‘right answer’ to everything. But a right answer for whom?”

Fareed Zakaria returns an ADL award and the $10K that went with it:

[...] I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue. This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come. Whether or not the center is built, what is at stake here is the integrity of the ADL and its fidelity to its mission. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain your reputation.

Zakaria’s action and letter are an interesting contrast to Anthony Weiner’s public silence and weasel-worded, evasive missive on the same topic.

Gregg Sargent has been waiting for word about the Islamic cultural center from prominent New York politicans, including Weiner and Schumer:

Weiner wants to be mayor of New York. Last I checked, that city is home to a few Muslims, all of whom would become his constituents. Yet he can’t bring himself to stand up for their right to worship two blocks from Ground Zero. The guy he wants to replace, Michael Bloomberg, had the guts to do this very eloquently yesterday. Where’s Weiner?

Other members of Congress, such as Jerrold Nadler, have stood up and done the right thing, vocally condemning the opposition for what it is. Yes, Nadler’s district includes Ground Zero. But again, Weiner wants to represent the whole city, and Schumer already represents the whole state.

Perhaps the most notable fact about this whole event is that Chuck Schumer was able to both keep quiet and stay away from TV cameras. I don’t know when that last happened, but it’s been a hell of a long time.

Update: Forgot to add: Fuck Joe Lieberman.

Tim Geithner on the op-ed page the NYT:

THE devastation wrought by the great recession is still all too real for millions of Americans who lost their jobs, businesses and homes. The scars of the crisis are fresh, and every new economic report brings another wave of anxiety. That uncertainty is understandable, but a review of recent data on the American economy shows that we are on a path back to growth.

The front page of the NYT:

Consumer spending and personal incomes were stagnant in June, according to government statistics released on Tuesday, the latest indication that the economy will continue to struggle in the second half of the year.

The Department of Commerce figures showed that consumers were continuing to try and save money while also paring down their debts. They were the latest figures in a picture of a weak economic recovery plagued by unemployment, a sickly housing market and uncertain consumer confidence.

Personal income was flat in June, compared with a slight 0.3 percent rise in May, the Commerce Department figures showed on Tuesday. Disposable personal income, or income after taxes and expenditures were also flat, compared with slight increases in May.

Don’t worry. Republicans and Blue Dogs will make sure there is no relief any time soon. At least not before November.