help us obi-wan, part trois

i think CNN may be trying to kill us. they have announced who has been invited to their september 12th debate, and it includes, rather inexplicably, two "candidates" who aren't currently even running for the office:

in a statement, CNN announces its line-up for the september 12 tea party express co-sponsored debate in tampa: gov. rick perry, rep. michele bachmann, gov. mitt romney, rep. ron paul, newt gingrich, herman cain, rick santorum, and jon huntsman. the network adds that rudy giuliani and sarah palin were invited: "giuliani declined the debate invitation, while a palin representative has yet to respond to it."

you've got to be kidding me, right? we're still pretending rick santorum is somehow worthy of inclusion over, say, gary johnson or buddy roemer, but somehow CNN is still so hard up for slots that they're inviting two republicans who aren't even running? are we all that hard up for sarah palin news, that CNN is desperate to generate some whether she's running or not?

post of the day

i simply decided to steal this post outright since it hit exactly all the right notes — notes that need to be hit. will the white house hear them? more importantly, will obama deliver the much-needed coda? ¹

vilsack will review decision to fire sherrod by brooklynbadboy MSNBC is reporting that agriculture secretary tom vilsack has now decided he wants to conduct a review of the facts with respect to ms. sherrod: vilsack's statement came after the NAACP posted the full video of sherrod's comments tuesday night and retracted its earlier condemnation of her. "i am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the american people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner," Vilsack said. so, if i have this correctly, breitbart and fox news burps, she get's fired immediately. CNN and the NAACP release the undisputed facts, and now there must be a thorough review. (facepalm) i want to return to something the white house keeps saying in response to ms. sherrod: shirley sherrod, a former USDA employee who resigned after a controversial video surfaced, told CNN tuesday that members of the obama administration "harassed" her and demanded she resign her post immediately. in an interview with CNN, sherrod said she repeatedly fielded calls on monday during a long car ride, during which officials insisted that she pull over to the side of the road and quit her post. "they asked me to resign, and, in fact, they harassed me as i was driving back to the state office from west point, georgia yesterday," sherrod told CNN. "i had at least three calls telling me the white house wanted me to resign...and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it." ... sherrod said the final call came from cheryl cook, an undersecretary at the department of agriculture. sherrod said white house officials wanted her to quit immediately because the controversy was "going to be on glenn beck tonight." "we did not pressure USDA or ms. sherrod," a white house official reportedly wrote in an email on tuesday to the washington Post. i guess the buck stops somewhere else. the white house needs to get off this stance and start showing some sympathy toward ms. sherrod. she has, clearly, been done terribly wrong by the white supremacist fringe of the republican party. the white house acts like they are afraid of a bunch of bigots. martin luther king, jr. would be sickened by how this white house has behaved toward this woman. some racist bigot makes an accusation against her and they don't even waste one minute before firing her without review. yet when the truth comes out, they don't re-hire her on the spot. then, and only then, are they willing to conduct a review. disgusting. if they have the decency to offer her the job back, i hope she turns it down. i wouldn't want to work for people who were so easily pushed around by a by an internet skinhead like breitbart or a certified nutcase like beck. the white house should at least apologize to ms. sherrod and accept responsibility for how this kind and lovely public servant has been treated. that would be the minimum of something to show breitbart and the rest of his skinhead crew that decent americans will not be intimidated by the likes of scum like them. you know what is so pathetic about all this? now that the truth has come out, glenn beck, the same glenn back who had the administration cowering in fear, is attacking the administration over firing her in the first place: how and why would you force the resignation of someone who is just relating a story of 24-year-old incident to make a point? how many times when a controversy comes up have we heard that someone was "misquoted" or they "misspoke" or we're told that "the only point they were simply making was that ..." and then some point that bears no resemblance to the one they made; or they were just "taken out of context?" now here's a possible actual example of someone taken completely out of context and they immediately get rid of her. can you believe this white house is being pushed around by these people? update: it appears ms. sherrod sees the old boss in a different light: the woman at the center of a racially tinged firestorm involving the obama administration and the NAACP said wednesday she doesn't know if she'd return to her job at the agriculture department, even if asked. "i am just not sure how i would be treated there," shirley sherrod said in a nationally broadcast interview. i agree. now get yourself a damn good attorney ms. sherrod.

---

1) face it, obama: breitbart and beck were aiming for you when they went after sherrod and they've so far won that much at least, since it's now squarely on you to snatch their victory from the jaws of your defeat — and on center stage where everyone can see.

politics 2010

i see no surprises in the coming year — conservatives will triple-down on their special brand of crazy ...

... which unfortunately for the rest of us means another year of non-stop lies, attacks, obstruction, fear-mongering, tantrums, tea-bagging and general misanthropy, all in a craven effort to poison the taste of liberal governance.

it's a brain-free strategy that doesn't require them to actually tackle real problems, like jobs and money, the kind real people worry about. no doubt the increasingly impolitic-looking defection of parker griffith (r-al) and increasingly divergent polls from increasingly GOP-chummy pollsters are sending visions of sugar-plum majorities dancing in their rovian heads.

but, as i noted in "no rewards for failure", conservatives need to pay attention not to democratic but republican ratings. because as frustrated and disappointed as the electorate appears with the struggling democrats, john q. public is giving no points to republicans, whom john q. continues to rate worse.

the bad news for the GOP: voters still trust president obama more than republicans, even on health care. the numbers: economy, obama +12; health care, obama +7; afghanistan, obama +12; energy, obama +10. what's the lesson? even though americans disapprove of president obama's record on many domestic policy issues, they do not see the republican party as a viable alternative.

at the very least, john q. recognizes that democrats are at least trying to address real problems, even if he isn't entirely sold on their solutions. as long as republicans continue to hold their breath, stamp their feet, wave their guns and threaten to repeal health reform, john q. is not going to switch horses in midstream, especially if the other horse is a crabby, flea-bitten nag.

conservatives will remain too cynical to realize that their 24-7, it-goes-to-11, non-stop attack-poodle shtick actually alienates those of us living outside their echo chamber. unleashed without any sense of moderation or proportion, their constant carping has already become impossible to take seriously. but, desperate to make any muck stick, republicans will continue to take every possible opportunity to politicize every event and loudly accuse every democrat of ... something, whether it's simply accepting prestigious international awards or making sales pitches for the olympics. why stop now? unfortunately for the GOP, anybody who's not a political junkie will simply tune this noise out — and with it the noisemakers.

still, conservatives need only knock off one democratic senator to bring congress to a literally screeching halt, especially if the house, even if left its sizable margin, chooses to defer to the senate, as it appears resigned to do in order to pass a health reform bill. but that is a dilemma for 2011 and 2012.

no rewards for failure

the washington post:

the latest NBC/wall street journal poll suggests the country is slipping back into the pessimism it felt before last year's presidential election with just one in three american saying the country is headed in the right direction while 55 percent said it was off on the wrong track. less than three in ten (27 percent) said life would be better for their children than it is for them and six in ten agreed with the statement that the country was in a "state of decline." democratic pollster peter hart, who helps conduct the NBC/WSJ poll, called the results evidence that "optimism has crashed through the floor board." remember that much of obama's appeal is centered on the ideas of hope and change; if voters see his administration as overseeing more of the same, there could be considerable backlash from voters against democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.

this is GGRRREEEEAAAAATT NEWS FOR REPUBLICANS!!!! ain't it?

or maybe not ...

daily kos, on the same poll:

the bad news for the GOP: voters still trust president obama more than republicans, even on health care. the numbers: economy, obama +12; health care, obama +7; afghanistan, obama +12; energy, obama +10. what's the lesson? even though americans disapprove of president obama's record on many domestic policy issues, they do not see the republican party as a viable alternative. at some point, that may change, because the GOP is also the only alternative, but for now, the country is not looking for president obama to be more like republicans — they are looking for him (and the democratic congress) to deliver on the change they voted for in 2008. if the white house can deliver, the GOP will be left out in the cold, partying with the teabaggers.

the GOP won't be winning any rewards for sitting out a constructive debate on health care reform. had they developed a real plan and defended it honestly, instead of dangling promises of pretend plans while screeching "no!no!no!" to everything else and patting themselves on the back while cheerleading failure, they might now be looking like a credible alternative.

but of course, that would require the GOP being interested in reform in the first place.

from ridiculous to sublime

digby @ hullaballoo:

... saying that it "covers everyone," as if there's a big new benefit is a big stretch. nothing will have changed on that count except changing the law to force people to buy private insurance if they don't get it from their employer. ... nobody's "getting covered" here. after all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to aetna or blue cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good.

david waldman @ daily kos:

this is, of course, quite true. to sell a bill that imposes a federal mandate on you, individually, to buy insurance from a private provider doesn't "expand coverage," it expands tax penalties. ... what do we think people hear when they hear that this bill, would "provide 29 million americans health care"? why not a bill that would "provide 29 million american families with a home of their own" ... provided they buy themselves one? that, or course, would be ridiculous. but let's add just a little more ridiculousness. what if we "provided" millions of american families with homes of their own... provided they buy themselves one... or else face a penalty under federal law? see? from ridiculous to sublime!

round and round

... we go.

where we stop, does anyone know ... ?

obama: ... any plan i sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans — including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest — and choose what’s best for your family. (jul. 17)

obama: all i'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. (aug. 15)

ap: health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius says obama still believes there should be choice and competition" in the health insurance market — but that a public option is 'not the essential element.' (aug. 16)

sebelius: here’s the bottom-line: absolutely nothing has changed. we continue to support the public option that will help lower costs, give american consumers more choice, and keep private insurers honest. (aug. 18)

obama: the only thing that we have said — and this continues to be the truth — and i mean, sometimes you can fault me maybe for being honest to a fault — is that the public option is just one component of a broader plan. (aug. 20)

dailykos: [senate majority leader harry] reid spokesman jim manley emails in that reid's preference is for a "public option," but would not confirm that reid means "public option" as commonly understood: an insurance program run by the department of health and human services or another government body. (aug. 28)

nancy pelosi: a bill without a strong public option will not pass the house. eliminating the public option would be a major victory for the insurance companies who have rationed care, increased premiums and denied coverage. (sep. 3)

politico: "we have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition," [a white house] aide said. (sep. 3)

ny times: [administration officials] insisted that mr. obama had not given up on the provision that has attracted the most fire from the right, a proposal for a government-run competitor to private insurers, although many democrats say the proposal may eventually be jettisoned. (sep. 3)

cnn: president barack obama and top aides have quietly stepped up talks with moderate republican sen. olympia snowe of maine on a scaled-back health-care bill, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations. the compromise plan would lack a government-run public health insurance option favored by obama, but would leave the door open to adding that provision down the road under an idea proposed by snowe, the sources said. (sep. 3)

anatomy of a landslide

(h/t glutz78 @ daily kos)

quote of the day

on creationism, intelligent design and the wedge strategy, from daily kos:

fortunately creationists don't realize that their wedge strategy is a two-edged sword. once they decided to adopt intelligent design and don a cloak of empiricism, attempting to wage war in the same evidentiary arena as reputable career scientists required their ceding to naturalism larger and larger swaths of territory — such as the acknowledgment "micro-evolution" — if they hope to be taken seriously on the battleground of ideas. the only question left is how much of their theology they're willing to give up in order to win the standing and prestige from the scientific community they so desperately crave. they may not realize it now, or perhaps are still merely too stubborn to admit it, even to themselves, but their own vanity is methodically boxing them into irrelevance.

quote of the day

from urizen @ daily kos, singing the unsung good news swirling out of this campaign season's teapot tempests which have engulfed, to date, jeremiah wright and john hagee and rod parsley and now michael pfleger:

i'm thrilled to see that candidates' faiths are becoming a liability to them instead of an asset ...

could be worse

so you think the obama-clinton fights at liberal blogs daily kos, booman tribune and mydd are nasty?

associated press: norristown, pa. — montgomery county authorities say a man stabbed his brother-in-law during an argument over who should get the democratic nomination for president. what's more, jose ortiz, 28, who's charged with felony assault, is a registered republican. district attorney risa ferman said ortiz supports hillary clinton and sean shurelds supports barack obama. she told reporters monday that the two got into an argument in a collegeville home thursday night and shurelds tried to choke ortiz. she says ortiz then stabbed shurelds in the abdomen. shurelds was taken to a hospital in critical condition, but is expected to recover.

afaik, no one on those blogs has had to take a trip to the emergency room ... yet.

post mortem

let us examine the corpse, shall we?

admiralnaismith @ mydd:

lieberman was the goliath candidate. when you're goliath, you win by being as gracious as possible, trying to keep the condescension out of your voice as you welcome the chance for an amicable primary contest and talk about how democracy is so wonderful and your little-known opponent has every right to run, and then you swamp him financially with positive, upbeat ads about your record, mentioning the "david" by name barely if ever. "goliath" wins popularity contests by being a gentle giant, not by being a brutal bully. lieberman didn't do that. he was fred sanford, clutching his chest and yelling "lamont! lamont!" every chance he got. he didn't even bother to hide his contempt for the democratic process as he screeched and raged at how this bloody peasant was daring to besmirch the divine right of incumbents. he publicly insulted not only the "david" but anyone who held "david"s views — which happened to be popular, majority views. and to cap it off, he unveiled his spoiler independent bid, stabbing his own party in the back before he had even had the primary. it was lieberman, and not lamont, who turned this race from nothing into a real contest, and then an upset.

thereisnospoon @ daily kos:

let's face some cold, hard facts, people. we didn't do this, because what we supposedly did was impossible to do — in any politcal climate. in one corner, you had a bunch of unpaid volunteers, internet rabble-rousers, and an inexperienced politician whose highest post had been county selectman. in the other, you had the three-time senator, former vice-presidential candidate, visible party statesman, bill clinton, hillary clinton, harry reid, barbara boxer, the other popular ct senator dodd, most of organized labor, the women's groups and the environmental groups, most of traditional democratic party support, paid lobbyist support, paid armies of gotv staff, the slick ad money, the top dlc consultants, and a 3 to 1 budget gap. i'm sorry. that's not david vs. goliath. this isn't even the nba champions versus a rec league team. that's more like an ant vs. my shoe. and the shoe lost. but then, the dlc is an old shoe — and the most politically incompetent shoe i've ever seen. the truth is that the dlc couldn't beat my dead great-grandmother. or yours. they couldn't beat their own shadow. so why did anyone think they could beat karl rove?

josh marshall @ time:

he's seemed almost militantly indifferent to the disaster iraq has become. and his passion about the war seemed reserved exclusively for those who questioned it rather than those who had so clearly botched the enterprise. his continual embrace of president bush — both literal and figurative — was an insult to democrats, the great majority of whom believe bush has governed as one of the most destructive presidents in modern american history. it's almost as though lieberman has gone out of his way to provoke and offend democrats on every point possible, often, seemingly, purely for the reason of provoking. is it any wonder the guy got whacked in a party primary? lieberman got in trouble because he let himself live in the bubble of d.c. conventional wisdom and a-list punditry. he flattered them; and they loved him back. and as part of that club he was part of the delusion and denial that has sustained our enterprise in iraq for the last three years. in the weeks leading up to tuesday's primary, a-list d.c. pundits were writing columns portraying lieberman's possible defeat as some sort of cataclysmic event that might foreshadow a dark new phase in american politics — as though voters choosing new representation were on a par with abolishing the constitution or condoning political violence. but those breathless plaints only showed how disconnected they are from what's happening in the country at large. they mirrored his disconnection from the politics of the moment.

juan cole:

first of all, the man was brain dead on the iraq issue. ... lieberman had bought into the rove master narrative. bush went to war electively, thus very conveniently making himself a war president and therefore above criticism. he got a second term that way despite having been among the worst presidents in history. lieberman ceded to bush a kind of invulnerability on the most important republican party snafu since its policies contributed to the onset of the great depression. why would a democrat do that? the answer is that on foreign policy issues, lieberman is a neoconservative, and supports the iraq project for the same reasons that douglas feith and paul wolfowitz (then number 3 and 2 respectively at the pentagon) did. ... lieberman may run as an independent, and we cannot know what will happen in that case. but for the reasons given above, it is important that he has been repudiated by democratic voters. the rest of the party now has a shot at taking the house, without risking having their colleague's pro-bush sanctimonies on iraq constantly thrown in their faces.

christy hardin smith @ firedoglake:

at some point, the folks who report on politics and the folks who run for office will wake up and understand that bloggers are merely americans who try to amplify the sentiment of thousands more just like them. and the overwhelming sentiment that i have been hearing for months and months is that people have had enough of the lies, the manipulation, the self-dealing, the egos, the idiocy, the selfishness, and the outright dereliction of duty and lack of accountability from so many in washington, d.c. in this rubber stamp republican congress … we’ve had enough.

time for a change

well, it's primary day in connecticut and the country finally gets to see if democratic and independent voters there want a new senator. although lamont has enjoyed an amazing 13-point lead in the polls over the last week, that lead was halved over the weekend, and polls have been known to be wrong anyway. lamont's "netroots" supporters have been careful to temper their enthusiasm, having bitterly tasted defeat too often before.

i've been trying to step back and look at the race in more fundamental terms, beyond the particular issues being argued in it. in most regular elections the voters are offered two choices: the incumbent or the challenger; the status quo or change.

and right now the entire country is disgusted with the direction the white house and congress has taken the country, and nowhere is that truer than in connecticut, one of the bluest of the blue states. the country is aching for change. it's a fundamental dynamic that seems only today to be getting the emphasis it really deserves:

americablog: people are frustrated. they're tired of the republicans and their arrogance, their failed policies, their incompetence, and their inability to learn and grow from their mistakes. that is why the blogs came about, and it's why we've been successful at getting a voice. we are tapping into that frustration and, yes, anger, and channeling it towards an effort to change things for the better. and that, my reporter friends, is what is happening in connecticut and across america. joe lieberman is a victim of the anti-incumbent, anti-republican times in which we live. he is not a victim of the peace movement. he is not a victim of the iraq war. he is part or the larger passion play that is taking place across the country against the incumbent party in power. republicans control the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. americans believe our country is heading in the wrong direction and we, rightfully, are finally holding those running the country accountable, in addition to those who enable and embrace them.

mydd: luis, a poll worker who came out for some fresh air, said "lots of democrats today!" — the polling place had separate doors for the republican and democratic primaries, and i could see fewer than 1 out of 10 voters were going in the republican door. luis said he's seen a lot of new voters and young voters today. "they want change."

for all his vaunted experience in politics, lieberman strangely has been either unwilling or unable to recognize or respond to that basic dynamic. he's lost touch with his own constituents. he's been taking them for granted.

this race shouldn't have been a contest. it's been lieberman's to lose all along, and he will. what finally convinced me was lieberman's last big media statement, his "closing argument", which he delivered as a speech on sunday in east haven.

in it he reiterated his record and ticked off his democratic bona fides. but not once did he say the magic words: i'm going to change.

lieberman insists that he's been good for connecticut for 18 years and connecticut needs him to continue to do what he's been doing.

he even insists that he hears the criticism:

what i will say is this: i not only respect your right to disagree or question the president, i value it.

but just how does he demonstrate that? he never explains how his constituents' views influence his behavior, if at all. i get the impression of joe patting a boy on the head, telling him, "i know you're upset — i really, really do — you just need to understand your daddy knows what's good for you."

so it comes as little surprise, according to markos of daily kos, that lieberman omitted these words from his planned ending for that speech when he finally delivered it:

if after hearing the truth about where i stand on iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then i respect your decision.

lieberman apparently had second thoughts about legitimizing that rationale for the voters.

and when asked early sunday for his position on iraq by george stephanopolous on abc's this week:

gs:	you're right that iraq is the number one issue, there's just no question —
jl:	— there's no question about it and you see not only — you see it in the opinion polls.
gs:	and you said in the debate [with lamont on july 7] that iraq is better now than a year ago. do you still believe that?
jl:	it is better now ... it- it- it’s better and worse if you’ll allow me to put it that way ...

joe just can't let go of his support for the failed occupation. even while suffering the damage it's done to his career — which explains his fumbling bush-like doublespeak.

so joe's not gonna change his tune or his behavior, and he expects connecticut voters to simply accept that.

and they will, but only for a few hours longer.