Obama's remarks in Rolling Stone chastising liberals:

Sure looks premeditated and deliberate. (As opposed to an emotional off-the-cuff remark.)

It's lousy politics, at least in terms of getting the base motivated. But it does have two advantages. It sends a message to right-leaning independents that "Obama ruffles the feathers of the left" which might get them to vote Democratic this year. And it's a possible excuse for a bad election night this November: Not our fault, it's the progressives that failed to deliver.


posted by Quiddity at 9/28/2010 08:02:00 PM

Ross Douthat issues a false statement that aligns with his prejudices:

He writes:

"And as everybody knows, the only way to really bring the budget into balance is to reform (i.e., cut) Medicare and Social Security."

As Dean Baker points out:

1) Social Security is not contributing to the deficit or to budget woes.
2) One can rein in Medicare (and all medical) costs, not by cuts, but by adopting a Japan/Canada/European system of health care.


posted by Quiddity at 9/27/2010 08:20:00 AM

Shorter Tom Friedman:

I used to get all my ideas from chatting with taxi drivers, but now I spend my days in Chinese factories. And even though I write, "The backbone of the modern U.S. economy was locally made cars powered by locally produced oil", I'm not going to propose any trade policy that would give domestic electric car manufacturing an advantage.

posted by Quiddity at 9/26/2010 04:16:00 AM

Texas is right:

In the news: (emp add)

The Texas State Board of Education adopted a resolution Friday that seeks to curtail references to Islam in Texas textbooks, as social conservative board members warned of what they describe as a creeping Middle Eastern influence in the nation's publishing industry.

We should eliminate from our nation all Middle Eastern influences, no matter how far back in time they originated.


posted by Quiddity at 9/25/2010 02:32:00 AM

Thinking it over:

From Obama's perspective, he hasn't really "lost" on any political issue, has he? Yes, nominations are stuck in the Senate and some other things haven't gotten done (e.g. climate legislation) but is there any issue where Obama put his stamp on it and it then didn't pass? Partly it's because he's let Congress do the work and so the failures, such as they are, are Reid's and Pelosi's. I wonder if that sense of a winning streak (or more accurately, not having lost) is affecting how they see the electorate, their base, and their overall situation. I bet they feel pretty good about themselves.


posted by Quiddity at 9/23/2010 10:19:00 PM

What was that name?

In a story about a sports fiasco in India, Commonwealth Games chief rushing to New Delhi, we read:

On Tuesday, a 90-meter (yard) pedestrian bridge collapsed at the main stadium, injuring 27 construction workers, five critically. On Wednesday, part of a drop ceiling at the weightlifting venue collapsed, officials said. ...

Referring to the collapsed pedestrian bridge, New Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit told reporters: "The accident is not as big as being made out to be." Dikshit is the equivalent of the city's mayor.

This was an attempt to put a good face on things:

Public works minister Raj Kumar Chauhan told reporters the bridge, linking the stadium's parking lot to the venue, was meant exclusively for athletes and officials, underlying the lack of attention to facilities tom-tommed as world-class. But later in the day, as fears over safety grew, Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit, while visiting the injured at AIIMS, tried to play it down insensitively by saying the overbridge was meant for ordinary spectators.

Not as big a deal if a bridge meant for "ordinary spectators" collapses.

And:

A day after the visiting Commonwealth delegates objected to "unliveable conditions in the Games village, some of the smaller teams are now considering withdrawing. ...

Among the evidence apparently submitted by the Scottish delegation is a photograph of a dog defecating on a bed in the games village.

Visuals always have a big impact.


posted by Quiddity at 9/22/2010 03:53:00 AM

David Frum reviews the book "The Ruling Class":

And is on target. Here's an excerpt: (emp add)

... “The Ruling Class” takes us as deep as we are ever likely to get into the minds of Tea Party Americans. It is important not for what it argues, but for what it reveals.

Here’s what it does reveal:

1) The central concept of the Tea Party is the division of the nation into two parts: the legitimate and the illegitimate, “real America” vs unreal. This is the idea behind Sarah Palin’s speeches.

That has been evident for some time now. The use of "constitutional" in "constitutional conservative" is merely a way to define themselves as genuinely American, and others as not, even though they dismiss the Constitution (declaring what Congress has passed as illegitimate and demanding revisions to the Constitution).

and

5) If one idea unites “The Ruling Class” it is Codevilla’s conviction that white Christians are targets of oppression and discrimination fully equal to that which ever oppressed black Americans. ...

Codevilla’s story never explicitly acknowledges race, but it is unmistakably racialized. If Christian whites are America’s new Negroes, what happened to the old Negroes? Apparently they joined the Ruling Class.

In this regard, Codevilla’s 2/3 vs. 1/3 division of the country begins to look less like a morale-boosting attempt to conjure up a majority for his preferred side of the argument — and more like a tally of the proportion of whites and non-whites in the voting age population.

... “The Ruling Class” is not a book about governing. It’s a book about feeling: about identifying targets for blame, about mobilizing anger against those targets, about defining who is – and who is not – a proper American. The book does not aspire to be useful, but to be satisfying to those who feel most outraged and alienated.

Interesting stuff. (Ignore the comments, though.)


posted by Quiddity at 9/22/2010 03:06:00 AM

On Krugman and free trade:

Did you catch Krugman's column earlier this week? He's upset that the Chinese are "taxing imports while subsidizing exports" by manipulating the currency, and that "depriv[es] other nations of much-needed sales and jobs". He says that maybe the U.S. should consider tariffs to counter this unfair activity.

Question: How is China "manipulating" their currency any different from China having cheap labor? Looking at the black-box that is China's manufacturing, who cares? The impact on the U.S. market (principally labor) is the same: lost jobs due to outsourcing or price-undercutting.

Somehow Krugman - a free-trader, as far as I can tell - is able to differentiate between the two aspects of Chinese trade (currency rates : labor costs) and sees only one of them as meriting a response. I suspect that Krugman is making a value judgment here. Because low Chinese wages are seen as somehow "natural", there's no need to counter them with tariffs, whereas with currency manipulation, there is. But that's not economics. That's philosophy. Krugman's column was revealing in that respect.


posted by Quiddity at 9/16/2010 04:31:00 PM

Ed Kilgore at TNR:

Yesterday’s eight contests all but ended 2010’s primaries, and we're now able to step back and assess their overall political impact. The immediately obvious effect of this year's contests has been to move the GOP far, far to the right—not only via successful primary challenges that overthrew incumbents, but also because the remaining independent-minded Republicans, fearing for their careers, rushed headlong into Tea Party orthodoxy. ...

The role of the Tea Party movement in this rightward shift was significant, but it was not ubiquitous. And if, like me, you think the Tea Partiers are simply a mobilized bloc of conservative Republican voters, focusing on their role as if it were some sort of independent force is a chimera. What we have actually witnessed this year is the final victory in a Fifty Year War waged by the conservative movement for control of the Republican Party. The timing of this rightward lurch is remarkable, given that the usual practice of parties which have recently lost multiple elections is to “move to the center.” And, barring some miracle, an electoral triumph for this newly hard-right Republican Party will almost certainly render the transformation semi-permanent, confirming, as it will, the longstanding belief held by “movement conservatives” that excessive moderation — usually defined as any moderation — hurts Republicans politically. ...

the events of this primary season confirm the picture of an exceptionally excited Republican Party that is moving to the ideological right as fast as is practicable.

Re:

The timing of this rightward lurch is remarkable, given that the usual practice of parties which have recently lost multiple elections is to “move to the center.”

That would be true in ordinary circumstances where a party competes on a more-or-less even field. But now that big money has returned to politics (last seen during the Guilded Age), there is no need for compromise. If you own the megaphone (like Murdocn) or can create synthetic populist movements (as the Kochs and Armey have), then there is no need to go back to the center. Just stay on message - or go even more to the right. The money will get you in.


posted by Quiddity at 9/16/2010 02:17:00 AM

Shorter David Broder:

Since I have no clue that moneyed interests drive the debate (e.g. Fox news) and are behind "grass-roots" movements (e.g. Tea Party), I will not mention them in my after-election analysis.

posted by Quiddity at 9/16/2010 01:34:00 AM

A base-depressing move:

The news that Obama will NOT nominate Elizabeth Warren to that consumer protection agency, but will, instead, have her as an assistant to President Obama, is not good news. Most likely she will have the same amount of policy influence as that other adviser, Paul Volker. That is to say, very little.

UPDATE: Her status may not be quite that lowly, so maybe the situation isn't as bad as some fear. Still, it's odd that Obama didn't nominate - and fight for - her as the official head of the agency.


posted by Quiddity at 9/16/2010 01:24:00 AM

Election results thoughts:

• Christine O'Donnell is very much a Ralph Reed Christian Coalition candidate (attitudes on sex, evolution, status of women).
• Moderate Republicanism is officially dead.
• Initially, the Republican Senate Campaign Committee dismissed O'Donnell. But that was like dissing Limbaugh. They've changed their stripes and now support her. Who is running the Republicans now? Fox News and the money-supported Tea Party (and related groups) or McConnell/Cornyn/Boehner?
• Will Christine O'Donnell make Sharon Angle look less crazy, and hence, more electable?
• Watch closely the news coverage of Christine O'Donnell. It's a clear chance for the press to take a stand. By any definition, she's unqualified for the Senate. Will the press advocate for that view? My guess is that they will, but only because O'Donnell can be presented as totally nuts, much like that preacher who wanted to burn the Koran. But the rest of the Tea Party? It will probably get a pass.
• Will those Tea Party candidates that win in the general election get co-opted by the Republican establishment or will they form some sort of radical group under the guidance of Jim DeMint? I say the latter.
• The Tea Party candidates are, on the whole, fairly young. It's not as if - like with Reagan - they were in politics for a long time and only now are getting into power. The Tea Party presence in the Republican party will not diminish over time (as people retire or die) but will get stronger. Be afraid.
• This Tea Party movement is not to be underestimated. It is largely the exposure of the Republican party's "inner libertariahat technology has reached the point where everyone can watch high-def television at home play realistic computer/video games, or be immersed in YouTube and IPod entertainment. At some level of material well-being, people will become apathetic to what's going on around them, or they will engage in fantasy politics (e.g. Tea Party). Perhaps we've reached that stage now.

posted by Quiddity at 9/16/2010 12:47:00 AM

National Republican Senatorial Committee on Christine O'Donnell:

They issued this statement to the Weekly Standard:

“Considering the strong support that Christine O’Donnell has received from Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express, and given their fervent belief that she’s a viable candidate, we have no doubt that support will extend into the general. Given that already strong level of support, I expect national Republicans will be re-directing their resources to other states like California, Washington and Wisconsin, where Republicans have an opportunity to win. But we look forward to Senator DeMint carrying through on his promise of an O’Donnell victory this November.”

Boy, are they pissed.


posted by Quiddity at 9/15/2010 03:00:00 AM

Jim DeMint of South Carolina congratulates Christine O'Donnell: (emp add)

"I want to congratulate Christine on her remarkable victory tonight," said Senator DeMint. "She came from behind and won this race because of her unwavering support for the principles of freedom. She wasn't afraid to stand up to the establishment and she overcame some pretty nasty attacks.

"I also want to thank the thousands of grassroots conservatives in Delaware and around the country who worked so hard to make this possible. Without their support, Christine would not have been able to do it.

"Now it's time for all Republicans to unite behind Christine so she can go on to win in November. If she is elected, she will join a growing group of new leaders in the Senate who will stand up to the big spenders in both parties and help us take our country back."

There's that word again, "freedom". Last week it was Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Conference. Plus, there's FreedomWorks behind the Tea Party movement.

And there are many conservative outfits with "liberty" in their name (it was the American Liberty League that fought the New Deal many years ago).

Just like Palin's support for "constitutional" conservatives, it's a linguistic technique that claims ownership of cherished values, even if they don't believe any of it.


posted by Quiddity at 9/15/2010 02:46:00 AM

Two posts on the execrable Dinesh D'Souza article in Forbes:

Adam Serwer's overall take is the best out there.

At the Economist, they "analyze" D'Souza the same way D'Souza did Obama, by looking at his family background in Goa.


posted by Quiddity at 9/13/2010 07:20:00 PM

AEI scholar Gerard Alexander:

Has an essay in the Washington Post where he argues that "conservatism does not equal racism". One talking point that he uncritically repeats is:

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) recently argued that race did not play a central role in the partisan shift in the South, saying the transformation was led by a younger generation of Southerners in the post-segregation 1970s.

Yet, in the much-derided Alexander op-ed six months ago (also in the Post) on why liberals are so condescending, he wrote:

Race doubtless played a significant role in the shift of Deep South whites to the Republican Party during and after the 1960s.

AEI scholar, don't forget.


posted by Quiddity at 9/12/2010 03:46:00 AM

Here's how to boost employment:

Here is the complete story: (emp add)

Igor poised to become hurricane in Atlantic

MIAMI (Reuters) – Tropical Storm Igor was close to becoming a hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean on Saturday as it spun westward, but posed no immediate threat to land or energy interests.

The U.S. National Hurricane Center said Igor had top sustained winds of 70 miles per hour as it swirled in the open sea, with its center about 1,140 miles west of the Cape Verde Islands.

"Igor is expected to become a hurricane later tonight or early on Sunday, and could reach major hurricane strength by late Monday," the Miami-based hurricane center said.

Igor is moving west at 18 mph and was expected to continue in that direction for the next two or three days, after which it is expected to turn more to the northwest, forecasters at the center said.

Computer models projected it would stay in the Atlantic and not enter the Gulf of Mexico, where U.S. oil and gas operations are clustered.

Tropical storms become hurricanes when their sustained winds reach 74 mph. Igor was expected to continue strengthening over the next three days and could become an intense and large hurricane, the forecasters said.

(Writing by Eric Walsh and Pascal Fletcher; editing by Mohammad Zargham)

posted by Quiddity at 9/11/2010 07:44:00 PM

At least he didn't quit:

Schwarzenegger has made plenty of mistakes but he's also done a few good things, and he's certainly been active whenever the state faced natural disasters. Oh, and California's eonomy is 40 times larger* with 60 times more people.

Palin comes off as a fool (even if this was ghost-written, it speaks for her brand). AP:

Flying over Alaska on his way to Asia, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't help but take a lighthearted jab at the state's former governor.

His Twitter message Thursday night said

Over Anchorage, AK. Looking everywhere but can't see Russia from here. Will keep you updated as search continues.

That prompted a tart response from Palin on Friday.

The former Alaska governor says in her own Twitter message that "Arnold should have landed" so she could explain to him her state's multibillion dollar budget surplus. California has a $19 billion budget deficit.

Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, was leaving for a weeklong trade mission to China, Japan and South Korea.

* California's economy is larger than Brazil's. Alaska's is smaller than Luxembourg's.


posted by Quiddity at 9/11/2010 06:17:00 PM

They really did this:

Fox News uses map of 9/11 body parts to fight ‘ground zero mosque.’

(report includes screenshot from Fox & Friends)

This seems on a par with the witch hunting craze. If the cattle got sick, someone would recall seeing an old woman pass by the farm, which meant she was guilty. The next thing you know, she's burned at the stake.

UPDATE: The map was not confined to Fox & Friends. Another Murdoch outlet, the New York Post "made the case" (which the National Review promoted)


posted by Quiddity at 9/11/2010 12:53:00 PM

What if?

Jack Shafer writes:

... if Ground Zero belongs to those who suffered and died there, why is Larry Silverstein building on it? Because he acquired the site. The place is not sacred. It's profane. Just look at the property records. All of this talk about hallowed ground is a lame attempt to leverage ownership of 9/11—something that can't be owned, I've already insisted—and to commandeer the collective memory of the attacks.

If Silverstein had, by now, rebuilt the site and it was a bustling business area then the Park51 Islamic center would generate very little attention (even by Pam Geller). But the place hasn't been rebuilt, and because it still looks like a recently evacuated battlefield, some commentators feel free to say it's "hallowed" and to make political hay.


posted by Quiddity at 9/11/2010 10:16:00 AM

We're not fooled:

Obama:

To those who may still run for office planning to privatize Social Security, let me be clear: as long as I'm President, I'll fight every effort to take the retirement savings of a generation of Americans and hand it over to Wall Street. Not on my watch."

Although to judge by the way this was reported at TPM (David Kurtz), "Obama takes a clear shot at House Republicans", maybe Obama has fooled some people who should know better.

UPDATE: Just to make it clear, Obama is fooling people when he speaks out firmly against Social Security privatization, yet never utters a word defending Social Security from proposals that would reduce benefits (e.g. by raising retirement age or other ideas his Deficit Commission will come up with).

This recent statement by Obama along with a weekly address last month was so obvious in that it hewed strictly to attacking privatization, but nothing else. Why doesn't he say more than that? Social Security is the least of our concerns, is in good shape for 30 years, and paid for. People would be much more reassured if Obama defended Social Security in toto, instead of merely attacking only one of the many approaches to weakening the program.

UPDATE2: If Obama comes out and defends Social Security, basically as it is (there can be some minor tweaks), then I'll salute him and apologize for the post above.


posted by Quiddity at 9/07/2010 03:59:00 AM

Timing matters:

Via Chait, this observation by Martin Wolf:

Suppose that the US presidential election of 1932 had, in fact, taken place in 1930, at an early stage in the Great Depression. Suppose, too, that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had won then, though not by the landslide of 1932. How different subsequent events might have been. The president might have watched helplessly as output and employment collapsed. The decades of Democratic dominance might not have happened.

I've been saying that privately for a long time.

Wolf continues:

But this time was different: the crisis brought Barack Obama to power close to the beginning of the economic collapse. I (among others) then argued that policy needed to be hugely aggressive. Alas, it was not. I noted on February 4 2009, at the beginning of the new presidency:

“Instead of an overwhelming fiscal stimulus, what is emerging is too small, too wasteful and too ill-focused.”

A week later, I asked:

“Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much.”

This was right.

One thing that Obama could have done is, like FDR, stayed away from the administration while 2008 was playing out. Not hostile, but a studied neutrality. That way, when he took office, he would have been able to present a clearer distinction between his administration and the economic problems of the previous one.


posted by Quiddity at 9/01/2010 09:54:00 AM