Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:49 pm

God, how much would these people whine if they’d LOST?

There are a lot of voters out there who either have a lot to learn or who will never learn. I was reminded of this by the response of some Democrats to the (apparent, razor-thin) victory of Conor Lamb last night in the special election for Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District seat.

Lamb won by a couple of hundred votes — a small fraction of a percentage point — out of more than 210,000 cast in a district that went for Trump in 2016 by 20 percentage points. That’s remarkable in and of itself. What’s even more remarkable is that Lamb won despite the fact that the GOP spent $10 million against him and for his GOP opponent, Richard Saccone. (Fun fact: The GOP holds roughly 110 House seats that are more competitive than PA18, and they don’t have the money to spend $10 million on every one of them.)

How did he do it? He’s an ex-Marine (and as any Marine will tell you, there’s no such thing) and an ex-prosecutor, so at least on the surface, no one could question his patriotism or his stance on crime. (Surprise: He’s against it.) He says he’ll vote for women’s reproductive freedom. He supports the Affordable Care Act and believes in universal coverage. He wants to defend Social Security and Medicare. He explicitly supports unions, which even most Democrats hesitate to do anymore.

But some of the other ways he did it upset some on the far left edge of the Democratic Party, because Lamb had the temerity to vote for some things voters in his Pittsburgh-area district actually wanted. He supports fracking, which is big in PA18, albeit with strong government oversight. He supports gun rights, also big in PA18, where the opening of deer season is pretty much a national holiday. Although he says he’ll vote pro-choice, he’s personally anti-abortion.

I have one question for these people: Where was the pro-choice, pro-universal-health-care, pro-Social Security, pro-Medicare, pro-labor, anti-fracking, pro-renewable energy, pro-gun control, personally-OK-with-abortion candidate on the ballot in PA18 last night?

That’s right: There wasn’t one.

But you know who else WAS on the ballot last night? Rick Saccone: A guy who wants to cut taxes on the rich even more, who’s anti-labor, who thinks that the “free market” can “fix” the Affordable Care Act, who’s an anti-immigrant bigot, who claims to have “successfully negotiated with the North Koreans,” and who was endorsed by future defendant Donald J. Trump.

Those were the realistic choices in PA18. (A little-known independent candidate got a little over a thousand votes.) Your perfect candidate and mine were not on the ballot. So what are you going to do?

Here in the real world, you have these choices: 1) Vote for Lamb. 2) Vote for Saccone.

Yeah, you could vote for the independent candidate. But here in the real world, in 99.9% of cases, voting for the independent candidate really is a vote against the major-party candidate whose views align more closely with those of the independent candidate.

And you could have not voted at all. People do that. “The lesser of two evils is still evil,” you pout. But here in the real world, I spent most of my adult life in journalism, covering politics — two worlds in which pure black and pure white are incredibly hard to find. So maybe I’m missing something. But I’ve scoured the real world looking for what that might be and come up empty. If you find it — here in the real world — let me know.

And in this case, standing on that assertion would be a remarkably privileged thing to do, because one vote up or down on, say, the Affordable Care Act here in the real world could make an annual difference of thousands of Americans living or dead. Multiply that across such issues as gun control and climate change and pretty soon you’re talking about a lot of dead people. Add to that the fact that current GOP tax and economic policy are destroying the middle class, sending a lot of people into poverty here in the real world. If you’re morally retarded enough not to care about those deaths and that impoverishment, go to hell.

The time to go after your perfect candidate is in the party primary, but you need to know that whether your choice wins or not, whoever wins is not going to be your perfect candidate. That’s a unicorn. It’s a chimera. It doesn’t exist. You probably won’t even like the winner very much as a person. In more than 40 years of voting at all levels of government, I can point to maybe three people I voted for whom I didn’t want to just slap on a regular basis. THAT’S JUST LIFE. DEAL WITH IT.

The media spend a lot of time and effort telling you that there’s no major difference between the two major parties. That’s a lie. Research shows that in fact there’s a bigger gap between them than at any other time since 1860. It also shows that more than 80% of so-called “unaffiliated” voters reliably vote for one major party or the other more than 80% of the time.

There’s no perfect candidate. No savior. At this point in our history there is no middle. And just for grins, one of our two major parties, in its rejection of facts both economic and scientific, has gone batshit insane. But for God’s sake keep telling me how the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Conor Lamb was not my ideal candidate. But he was a good enough candidate for his particular House district to keep it out of the hands of someone who was a hell of a lot worse. By the lights of Lamb’s critics on the left it was an ugly win.

But you know what they call an ugly win? A win.

Now say “You’re welcome” and don’t whine again. And if you’re ever again tempted to whine, go down and file and run yourself.


Sunday, February 25, 2018 9:06 pm

Who ya got?

Anyone who is a hard-core Democrat may want to take what I’m about to discuss with a big ol’ grain of salt, inasmuch as I have been politically unaffiliated for a year, prior to which I was a Republican for 38 years.


I have been seeing a whole bunch of discussion on the web, mostly but not all from BernieBros, arguing that Nancy Pelosi, by virtue of her age, should step aside as House Democratic leader in favor of someone, well, younger. And my gut response is: Who ya got?

Who among House Democrats is as reliably progressive? Who among House Democrats can wrangle the herd of cats that is the House Democratic caucus as well as Pelosi? Who among House Democrats can get a bill passed, or killed, as reliably as Pelosi? And, in acknowledgment of her historic status as the first female House speaker, who among House Democrats meets all those criteria and is a woman or a person of color?

I’ve asked this question across social media. And so far I haven’t gotten a single answer.

Oh, I’ve gotten plenty of insistence that her time is over and she needs to step aside. A lot of generalities, in other words. But generalities don’t run for caucus leadership positions, let alone the speakership. People do. Real people with real, assessable records, or the lack of them.

To be clear, I don’t think Pelosi is the ideal House Democratic leader. But as I said, elections don’t take place between ideals, but between real people with real records. I’ve looked pretty hard at the House leadership, as well as some other House Dems not in leadership. And at the moment I don’t see anyone, anyone, who is clearly superior to her.

So, for those who think she needs replacing, I would suggest you work on developing a better candidate. And for those who might want to replace her, I would suggest you create a record that strongly suggests you could replace her. You’ll want to keep in mind that the next Democratic House speaker isn’t just going to have to be speaker, but also is going to have to start cleaning up the mind-numbing list of disasters committed by Donald Trump and his fascist, bigoted, cosmically ignorant administration. That’s not a job for amateurs or poseurs. It’ll take a pro.

A flesh-and-blood pro, not some idealized conception. So: Who ya got?

Monday, October 20, 2014 9:04 pm

They made their bed. Now let them damned well lie in it.

Driftglass on the insane Both-Siderism that keeps the American public from grasping just who’s really at fault:

The short history of modern American politics is as follows:

Conservatives poison the public well with paranoia, bigotry and plain bugfuck insanity while sabotaging the government on purpose to gain political and economic advantage.

Liberals point out that poisoning the public well and sabotaging the government are, y’know. bad things.

Centrists clutch their pearls until their palms bleed, and then blame their stigmata on both sides being equally unreasonable and mean.

All of this was on lurid display in this fascinating article in Esquire — “Help, We’re in a Living Hell and Don’t Know How to Get Out” — in which the author talks to 90 members of Congress and concludes that our the legislative branch is, well, this:

If you fastfood the article, the impression you would probably come away with is, Jebus, what a bunch of dysfunctional whinyass tittybabies.  [Bleep] ’em all.

In other words, the GOP long-range plan to sow ruin and despair is working flawlessly.

The author of the article to which Driftglass links asks us to believe two things for which there are no facts in evidence: 1) that there are Republican congresscritters who are really disturbed about what their party has become, and 2) that the same forces of immoderation and insanity that fuel the GOP fuel, in mirror image, the more radical Democrats. He does the latter despite the fact that Democrats manifestly are NOT being primaried, with the help of enormous, shadowy money groups, because they were insufficiently fervent in their advocacy of single-payer, abortion rights, gun control, climate-change amelioration, or other items on the Left’s wish list. Far from it; it’s hard for those issues even to get a respectful hearing on the Democratic side of the aisle.

So, no, it’s not both sides. And Driftglass makes that case most eloquently even if the people in the national media who most need to see it never will.

Monday, August 15, 2011 8:19 pm

Fire on the left

Filed under: Odds 'n' ends — Lex @ 8:19 pm
Tags: , ,

There’s a bit of a dispute going on right now among Democratic bloggers. I’m drawing a very broad outline here so I’m probably overlooking some nuances, but in general, those involved divide into two groups: those who think it’s proper and effective to criticize President Obama from the left and those who think Obama has done as well as any Democrat could under the circumstances and that any fire should be concentrated on Republicans. The former group is led, or at least exemplified (“leading” Democratic bloggers is even more meaningless than herding cats), by Jane Hamsher, founder and principal blogger at FireDogLake. Prominent members of the other camp include John Cole, principal blogger at Balloon Juice, and the pseudonymous blogger/Twitterer Shoq.

Inasmuch as I think Obama, for better or (mostly) worse, is doing exactly what he has chosen to be doing on most policy issues, I’m not sure this dispute, whether either side wins, will have much effect on policy outcomes. And, just to complicate things, 1) I’m a Republican and 2) I’ve already called for Obama to be impeached for ordering the extrajudicial assassination of a U.S. citizen, even as I grant that a lot of good stuff has happened under him that would not have happened under John McCain, so it’s not like I’m the world’s most objective observer.

My best guess is that an excess of Obama criticism, without an accompanying, workable solution, will just lead to a lot of Democratic (or anti-Republican) voters staying home in 2012, as happened in 2010. And if that happens, given the GOP field, I see no way disaster does not befall the country.

But David Atkins, who blogs as “thereisnospoon” over at Digby’s place, cites a report by Dave Dayen at FDL to offer an intriguing suggestion of what the Obama critics on the Left might be able to accomplish … based on what they already have accomplished. You may have heard over the weekend that GOP hopeful Mitt Romney defended corporations by saying, “Corporations are people” — a claim that is legally accurate but, in this economy, incredibly tone-deaf. It was an unforced error, and while I doubt it will hurt Romney’s quest for the nomination (which already faces signficant obstacles), if he does get the nomination it could kill him in the general election campaign.

Turns out that the group that prompted that error was one of those that criticizes Obama from the left:

In fact, the exchange with Romney started when an Iowa CCI member asked why shouldn’t we lift the payroll tax cap to bring long-term balance to Social Security. “The only position we have is no cuts, scrap the cap,” said Goodner.

Goodner acknowledged that the Supreme Court takes an attitude on corporations being people that is very similar to Mitt Romney. Goodner referenced a tweet by Ezra Klein, which said that Romney was right in the eyes of the law. “I don’t think the average Iowan is going to be sympathetic to that view,” Goodner added, however. “It shows how out of touch Romney is. From what he said, he stands on the side of big money corporations on Wall Street against everyday people.” Similarly, George Goehl, the Director of National People’s Action, a leader in the New Bottom Line project, said in a statement, “The corporations Mr. Romney believes are filling people’s pockets are the ones who crashed our economy and hijacked our democracy.”

Goodner and his group were not pleased with Romney’s full answer, where he touted so-called “progressive price indexing” (which would have to cut benefits well into the middle class to generate any savings) and raising the retirement age. “He’s talking about benefit cuts that are going to hurt seniors, the elderly, the poor and the disabled,” said Goodner. “And ask for nothing from the wealthiest Americans, and the companies on Wall Street.”

This sounds similar to what President Obama has been saying recently in support of a balanced deficit solution. But Iowa CCI isn’t exactly enthralled with his performance of late either. “Our members are very upset and angry at Obama,” Goodner said. “He was the one who put Social Security and Medicare on the table. We delivered a letter to his campaign office in Des Moines, telling him to back off, to take this off the table.” As it turns out, Obama will be in Peosta, Iowa next week, as part of a Rural Economic Forum. Iowa CCI has members there, but it’s not a public town hall meeting, so they are still strategizing about how to reach the President with their message. In the meantime, they are speaking to their representatives in Iowa (all of whom, Democratic or Republican, voted against the debt limit bill), or any other Democratic representatives, telling them to deliver their message to the President. It turns out that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is at the Iowa State Fair today, so we’ll see if anything transpires.

And they are adamant on this point. “Anytime a candidate or the President comes to Iowa, we’re going to bird-dog them,” Goodner said. “We put principles above party. They’re all going to hear from us.”

Atkins asserts:

These are the sorts of activists who are persistent and get things done. They’re the sorts of activists who will be there on behalf of Democratic principles come rain or shine, come Republican or Democratic Administrations. All the Democratic Party needs to do is have their back, and they can make magic happen. Iowa CCI just did more for the Obama re-election campaign than $50 million of advertising dollars could ever hope to do, against the candidate whom all the polls show would likely be Obama’s most formidable opponent in the general election.

I question whether activists of this type get as much done as Atkins seems to be claiming in terms of policy outcomes, but he’s quite right that the party needs these folks for electoral success

The Coles and Shoqs of the blogosphere (both of whom I read and admire, I should point out) dismiss people like this as “Firebaggers” and PUMAs, which stands for Party Unity, My Ass. (The phrase arose during the epic combat between Obama and Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.) I don’t know who’s right, but I think their position might be a little simplistic: As long as you still turn out to support your party’s nominee, whoever it might be (given what’s likely going to be offered by the other side), why not pressure your party’s candidates, including the incumbent, during the primary season to hew to your view on the issues you care most about?

In fact, if not then, when? Once the nomination is sewed up, your ability to affect the framing of the issues is going to be diminished as long as candidates hew to the conventional wisdom that you win a general election by moving to the middle. (The merits of that conventional wisdom are questionable, given the current make-up of the electorate, but that’s a post for another time).

Tuesday, September 7, 2010 9:44 pm

Not without a fight

Filed under: Odds 'n' ends — Lex @ 9:44 pm
Tags: , ,

I don’t do predictions on politics, so I don’t know whether the Democrats can keep the House this fall or not. In 435 separate races, weird things can happen.

There’s a lot of talk about the “enthusiasm gap” between likely Republican voters and likely Democratic voters. That gap is real, although several different reasons, some conflicting, go into it. A lot of people are unhappy with Democrats because of health-care reform, for example, although some of those people are unhappy because it went too far and quite a few, myself included, are unhappy because it didn’t go nearly far enough.

As a group, House Dems face a tough fight this fall. But mistermix at Balloon Juice makes one very good point:

… the fact remains that John Boehner is not popular, that doing nothing in the middle of an almost-depression is not popular, that sneering at teachers, cops and firemen is not popular, and that tax cuts for those making $250K or more are not popular.

Exactly right. If Democrats lose the House, it won’t be because the House wasn’t winnable for them.

Monday, March 22, 2010 10:22 pm

Unsolicited political perspective and advice, worth perhaps quite a bit more than it is costing you

Over at Sadly, No!, HTML Mencken (and boy, do I wish I’d thought up that nom du Web) wraps up the long political season just ended:

That even this crappy version of HCR — which is better than nothing and is worth fighting for — passed at all was because of Nancy Pelosi. I’m sure this will make D.A. cry, but Hopey Changey, who has managed his own political capital with the same skill neocons managed the occupation of Iraq [OUCH!! — Lex], deserves negative credit for its passing. When elected, he had a mandate to kick Republicans in the teeth; he wouldn’t have lost a single supporter had he immediately demonized and demagogued the [expletive] out of insurance companies and Wall Street, two of the most hated groups in American history. But he didn’t; he sucked-up, he kissed-up, he [messed] up. And it almost ruined everything. …

Also, spare me the crap about Republicans’ tying Obama’s hands. Their head are exploding, they voted as a disciplined anti- bloc, they are inciting teabagger violence, they are totally freaking the [expletive] out over this tepid, Romney-esque HCR, because they were gonna do that no matter what; that is how they are. Only a total fool — a bipartisan fetishist, perhaps? — would think otherwise …

Word. If Obama had actually fought this battle, he could have won much, much more than this. (UPDATE: If you compare the piece above with this embarrassingly inept David A. Sanger “News Analysis” in The New York Times — “Mr. Obama proved that he was willing to fight for something that moved him to his core.” … “… he showed that when he was finally committed to throwing all his political capital onto the table …” — as if! — you understand just why the Times is barreling toward oblivion at rates that must be scaring its high-interest major creditor and inducing infarctions among the stockholders.)

If I were a Democratic incumbent running this year and I voted for the health-care bill, I would read this and plan my campaign strategy accordingly:

At least this once a workable majority in the government has stood up to the forces of cruelty and injustice, and whatever else happens to us in the course of this long emergency, it will be a good thing if the party of fairness and justice identifies its adversaries for what they are: not “partners in governing,” or any such academical-therapeutic bull—-, but enemies of every generous impulse in the national character.

I hope that Mr. Obama’s party can carry this message clearly into the electoral battles ahead, painting the Republican opposition for what it is: a gang of hypocritical, pietistic sadists, seeking pleasure in the suffering of others while pretending to be Christians, devoid of sympathy, empathy, or any inclination to simple human kindness, constant breakers of the Golden Rule, enemies of the common good. In fact, the current edition of the Republican party has achieved something really memorable in the annals of collective bad intentions: they have managed to create a sense of the public interest whose main goal is the destruction of the public interest.

This is exactly what the Republican majority on the Supreme Court did earlier this year by deciding that corporations — which are sociopathic by definition in being answerable only to their shareholders and nothing else — should enjoy the same full privileges in election campaign contributions as human persons, who are assumed to have obligations, duties, and responsibilities to the common good (and therefore to the public interest). This shameful act by the court majority only underscores the chief defining characteristic of Republicans in their current incarnation: an inability to think. And so, naturally Republicans gravitate toward superstition and the traditional devices of improvident religious authorities — persecution of the weak, torture, denial of due process, and dogmas designed to spread hatred.

I hope the American public begins to understand this, because they have been manipulated in their own pain and hardship by these dark forces, and their thrall to the likes of John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, and the rest of these vicious morons could easily increase as their economic hardships deepen. We’re facing a comprehensive contraction of wealth and economy that is going to challenge every shared virtue in our national soul, and we’re not going to meet these difficulties successfully without a sense of mutual obligation and sympathy for each other. The Republican party is just itching to turn a giant thumbscrew on the US public — that is, before they try to start burning their enemies at the stake. We understand that the Health Care Reform Act is a first stand against that.

That’s right. I would take this legislation and I would beat my opponent over the head with it like a rented mule. Let them be the ones to campaign for denying health care to children. Let them be the ones to campaign for medical bankruptcy. Let them be the ones to campaign for insurance companies that fatten their bottom lines by ginning up “pre-existing conditions” and tossing people off their rolls. Let them be the voice for the guys that take 30% off the top. Let them be the candidate of “I’ve got mine; f— you.”

They want to campaign on a platform of repealing some real, positive (if inadequate) changes? Man, I’d be begging to be thrown into that briar patch. The only thing I’d like better than that would be to campaign against the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Sunday, February 28, 2010 10:45 pm

The Democratic Wrestling Federation

Filed under: We're so screwed — Lex @ 10:45 pm

When I was a kid, I watched Johnny Weaver on TV. Now, my kid watches “Thumb Wrestling Federation” on Cartoon Network. So why this parallel didn’t strike me before, I cannot explain. But Firedoglake contributor “hctomorrow” nails it:

Professional Wrestling is often misunderstood as being a ‘fake sport’, when in reality it’s a long running soap opera with most of the parts played by professional stuntmen. As such, it is an essentially static form of entertainment, where the same Manichean, Good vs. Evil, black and white struggle plays out, week after week, year after year. This is essential; delivering a consistent product brings in the advertisers (in both politics and wrestling, this means large corporations), who are buying a known quantity.

At the same time, in order to keep its audience, wrestling has to present the illusion of dynamism, or ‘change’ in the present parlance. Nobody wants to watch the exact same story all the time. So wrestling takes this static product and dresses it up in the paegentry of conflict, with most actors playing a rotating series of Good or Evil roles; in Wrestling terms, most wrestlers alternate between heroes (Faces) and villains (Heels).

So last week, what we saw with Senator Rockefeller, blatantly flip-flopping on his passionately stated (staged) support of the Public Option by refusing to pass it using reconciliation, that wasn’t a betrayal of the voters (audience), or of his principles; it was what is known to Wrestling fans as a ‘Face Heel Turn‘.

The only thing missing was a folding chair to the back of the Public Option’s skull.

What we do about this, I don’t know. The game is rigged against third parties. Ideas?

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:20 pm

Odds and ends for 1/20

Guantanamo homicides update: Col. Michael Bumgarner, the officer at the center of Scott Horton’s article in Harper’s about the “suicides” of three Guantanamo detainees on the night of June 9, 2006, issues a non-denial denial, including denying ever knowing the same witness whose Army Commendation Medal certificate he had signed less than three weeks before the deaths. If that’s the best he can do to cover something up, he’d better get a lawyer.

And speaking of homicides, a memo to the president: Inviting Rick Warren to pray around your inaugural, misguided as it was, is one thing. But attending an event sponsored by the Christofascist anticonstitutionalists The Family is just ridiculous. And sitting down to eat At. A. Freakin’. PRAYER BREAKFAST with a guy who is trying to legislate homicide (a fact that the article in the Ugandan paper, whose Web site claims it offers “truth every day,” conveniently forgot to mention)? Completely, flatly, absolutely unacceptable.

What you don’t know can hurt you: Did you know that the EPA has not banned asbestos despite its clear causal relationship to lung cancer? Did you know that it can’t? I didn’t. But apparently the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act makes it impossible. Fortunately, some changes to the law — which endangers the health of not only consumers and chemical workers but also the medical personnel who treat the latter — are in the works.

Things you should know about Afghanistan: Bribery is 23% of GDP, and the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction says that about three-fourths of its investigations involve at least one Westerner.

Things you should know about banks, courtesy of David Stockman, once Ronald Reagan’s budget director: “The baleful reality is that the big banks, the freakish offspring of the Fed’s easy money, are dangerous institutions, deeply embedded in a bull market culture of entitlement and greed. This is why the Obama tax is welcome: its underlying policy message is that big banking must get smaller because it does too little that is useful, productive or efficient.”

Things you should know about the fault line that caused the Haiti earthquake, particularly if you live in the Dominican Republic: “It is important that the world takes [Purdue seismologist Eric] Calais’ warning about the Septentrional Fault, with a great deal of Urgency. The fault, which runs through the Northern Dominican Republic is due for a quake even larger than that which occurred in Haiti. The Dominican Republic should learn all that it can from Haiti’s experience, as they are proverbially walking down a geological hallway with a large kick me sign affixed to their back.” With very cool, very scary maps.

Professionals face the threat of the amateur: This article focuses specifically on certain types of musicians, but it makes clear that the boundary delineating amateur from professional is growing thinner and grayer in a wide range of areas (including my former bidness, journalism). This tension has been manifest since the medieval rise of craft guilds and informs today everything from blogging to labor law.

And bloggers are killing journalism: Jeffrey Birnbaum, a journalist who has done more to expose the malignant effect of lobbyists on Congress than perhaps any other, is leaving journalism to become a lobbyist. This is not unlike the Mafia luring away the nation’s best FBI agent. Actually, it’s worse: Lobbyists are a bigger plague on society than the Mafia in terms of dollar value of the damage they cause, and there were already far fewer journalists of Birnbaum’s caliber and expertise than there are FBI agents. Sigh.

Opposition to gay marriage faces the threat of the McCains: Sen. John McCain’s wife Cindy has joined the “NoH8” campaign in California to repeal Prop 8, which banned gay marriage. (Their daughter Meghan joined last summer.) Good for her.

Interesting poll results you probably haven’t seen on TV: By a 3-2 margin, people who voted for Obama in 2008 AND who voted for Republican Scott Brown in Tuesday’s U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts oppose the current health-care bill — not because it goes too far, but because it doesn’t go far enough.

Marrying insight and brevity, Brad at Sadly, No! sums up the meaning of Tuesday’s election: “People will support you if they see that you’re making their lives better. If you don’t do that, then they’ll get [angry] and vote for whatever else is around. And guess what? ‘Whatever else is around’ is, sadly, the [expletive] GOP.”

And after Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing corporate contributions to politicians, the U.S. will look like Italy: Italian lawmakers have preliminarily approved a bill that would retroactively limit the length of criminal trials, which would have the entirely incidental and coincidental (I’m sure) effect of making pending corruption and tax fraud charges against prime minister Silvio Berluscone just … go away.

Great moments in editing, via my friend Alex Johnson at MSNBC.

And, finally, the Quote of the Day, from Jon Walker — it’s long, so I put it at the end:

Let me put this as simply as possible. Democrats control everything in Washington right now [except SCOTUS, but for legislative purposes, yeah — Lex]. They control the White House. They have huge margins in the House and in the Senate. Democrats have larger margins in both chambers than any party has had for decades. They have zero excuses for failing to deliver. Americans will not find some nonsense about having only 59 Senate seats as an acceptable excuse for failing to accomplish anything. If Democrats think they can win in 2010 by running against Republican obstructionism, they will lose badly.

Not only will Democrats lose badly if they adopt this strategy, but they will be laughed at. Republicans never had 59 Senate seats, and that did not stop them from passing the legislation they wanted. Trying to explain to the American people how, despite controlling everything, Democrats cannot do anything, because a mean minority of 41 Republican senators won’t let them, is a message that will go over like a lead balloon. If you try to use that excuse, people will think elected Democrats are liars, wimps, idiots, or an ineffectual combination of all three.

Friday, September 4, 2009 11:46 am

Your liberal media

Filed under: Y'all go read this — Lex @ 11:46 am
Tags: , , ,

Jon Talton: If the Democrats aren’t screwed, they deserve to be:

The Democrats deserve to lose big in the mid-terms. They are operating on two fatal misconceptions: that they can gain the favor of the economic royalists that have apparently truly taken over the government, and that the liberal base will stick with them. Oh, and one more: That the Republicans are so discombobulated and off-putting that they can’t come back quickly. What the Republicans lack in sanity or truthfulness, they make up for with discipline and a true alignment with the corporate masters.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: