Victory For Two

Michele Bachmann has emerged victorious in the ludicrous and un-democratic Iowa straw poll as 4,823 men and women, their votes having been purchased, cast their ballot for the Minnesota congresswoman. Only in the Republican Party.

Prediction, even analysis, is dangerous, especially for someone who expected Mitt Romney to square off against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Clearly, though, there was at least one other big winner in Ames- and it wasn't the newest entrant, Rick Perry, in the GOP sweepstakes.

The Texas governor now will have to compete with Bachmann in primaries and caucuses for the anti-establishment, off-the-cliff right wing vote. If Tim Pawlenty had won the straw poll and thus emerged as Mitt Romney's main challenger, Perry could have stood alone, as he aimed at the former governors, as the representative of the extremist wing of the extremist party.

Still, Perry can find solace in directly competing with only one, rather than two, legitimate candidates. Mitt Romney, of course, is no prize: Talking Points Memo, citing an article in USA Today, reports that the campaign's leading moderate wants the federal government to subsidize companies when they "hire and train the long-term unemployed." Meanwhile, he wants to substitute "individual unemployed savings accounts" for unemployment insurance, a de facto privatization of unemployment compensation.

Nevertheless, the former Massachusetts governor is no Michele Bachmann. Following Thursday night's debate, MSNBC house Republican Joe Scarborough (video, below, from Crooks and Liars) asserted Michele Bachmann has no chance to be nominated and complained

Michele Bachmann’s first answer was, I wish the federal government had defaulted. Had defaulted! A week after Americans lost — some of them perhaps lost half of their pensions. Lost half of their 401ks. When trillions of dollars went down the drain with Americans suffering, she said that and got applause.

If anybody thinks that guys like my dad are going to be voting that way… they are out of their mind and they are too stupid not only to prognosticate, they are too stupid to run Slurpee machines in Des Moines… Michele Bachmann is a joke. She is a joke. Her answer is a joke. Her candidacy is a joke… Iowa, if you let her win, you prove your irrelevance once again.

Scarborough has not left the reservation. If he is saying this, a lot of Republican pols and operatives are saying roughly the same thing (minus references to the elder Mr. Scarborough and Slurpees). If Tim Pawlenty had won the straw poll in Iowa, he would have been a far bigger threat to Mitt Romney than is Michele Bachmann, as Scarborough understands.

So congratulations are due to Michele Bachmann and to Mitt Romney. They both had a great day in the Midwest.

Share|

Off The Charts

During the GOP presidential debate last night in Ames, Iowa, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum squared off on Iran. It's worth watching (video immediately below). These guys actually believe what they say, in a debate in which every deficit-hating candidate pledged to oppose a hypothetical deal with ten times as much in spending cuts as tax increases.

Among their other disadvantages, Paul and Santorum never have learned to fake sincerity and thus are not exalted by the mainstream media as "genuine." And they seem to have a clear idea of the issues involved. Not so, however, in the case of another Repub presidential contender, as demonstrated by the following exchange (debate transcript, here):

BACHMANN: That’s right. I was very vocal against that tax. And I fought against that tax. The problem is, when the deal was put together, Governor Pawlenty cut a deal with the special interest groups and he put in the same bill, a vote to increase the cigarette tax as well as the vote that would take away protections from the unborn.

And I made a decision, I believe in the sanctity of human life. And I believe you can get money wrong, but you can’t get life wrong. And that’s why I came down on that decision that I made.

(APPLAUSE)

YORK: Governor Pawlenty, do you have a response — 30 seconds — to that?

PAWLENTY: Yeah, what is wrong in the answer is the answer.
Congresswoman Bachmann didn’t vote for that bill because of a stripping away of pro-life protection, she voted for it and is now creating that as the excuse.

But nonetheless, she speaks of leading these efforts in Washington and Minnesota, leading and failing is not the objective. Leading and getting results is the objective. I’ve got the best record of results as any candidate in this race.

YORK: All right. Thank you. We’re going to go to Senator Santorum.

OK, yes you can.

BACHMANN: In the — this is exactly what I’m trying to illustrate. We need to have a president of the United States who stands firm on their convictions. This is what I have demonstrated for everyday that I have been in congress. I have a consistent record of standing on my convictions. I didn’t cut deals with special interests where you put the pro-life issues together with tax increase issues. That’s a fundamental. It’s a nonnegotiable.

And when we come to a nonnegotiable, we must stand. And I stand.

(APPLAUSE)

YORK: Governor we’re going to come back around.

PAWLENTY: Just very quickly.

Her answer is illogical. Her answer is illogical. If there were two bad things in the bill — a tax increase and we’re hypothetically stripping away pro-life protections, which we weren’t, then it is a double reason to vote against it. She voted for it.

BACHMANN: I need to respond to that.

YORK: OK. We have other people here.

BACHMANN: I need to respond to that, because — I need to respond to that.

YORK: I understand.

I understand. You have the next question. (addresses Senator Santorum) You have the next question, senator. I promise.

(APPLAUSE)

(UNKNOWN): Congresswoman Bachmann, 15 seconds, OK?

BACHMANN: This is what I want to say. If a person — if a member casts a vote one way, they would be increasing the cigarette tax. If they cast a vote another way, they would not be voting for the pro-life protection. It was a choice. The governor put us in that box and I chose to protect human life.

This is thoroughly incoherent. Initially, Bachmann characterizes Pawlenty's bill as one "to increase the cigarette tax as well as the vote that would take away protections from the unborn"- and so, oddly, she voted for it. By the end of the exchange, she characterizes her vote ("the governor put us in that box and I chose to protect human life"), legitimately, as one opposing abortion. But the bill never "(took) away protections from the unborn"- an anti-abortion provision was added at the behest of those "special interest groups" which Bachmann supports.

The bill was proposed to end (as it did) the shutdown of Minnesota's state government. The provision intimidating pregnant women discouraging abortion was added. Combining two, completely unrelated, issues, even during a crisis, is how Washington (and St. Paul, apparently) works, but Bachmann apparently had no problem with that.

Bachmann wasn't content to misrepresent a critical piece of legislation in Minnesota to give her an opportunity to attack her chief rival in the Iowa straw poll. Pawlenty accused her of merely an "illogical answer" about her vote in the state capital. Asked about the debt ceiling, however, she claimed

It — it was very important that we not raise the debt ceiling, because — consider what happened. The Congress gave Barack Obama a blank check for $2.4 trillion.

That is the first "blank check" in history with the amount specified. But Bachmann made it worse, responding to the next question by imagining

I think the — I think the analysts — I think we just heard from Standard & Poor’s. When they dropped — when they dropped our credit rating, what they said is, we don’t have an ability to repay our debt. That’s what the final word was from them.

But Standard and Poor's said nothing- nothing- about the nation being unable to repay its debt and there is no dispute that the U.S.A. can repay its debt. The problem clearly, is willingness, not ability. Greg Sargent notes

the news emerges that S & P has confirmed that it was precisely this opposition to raising the debt ceiling, and the cavalier attitude towards default exhibited by the likes of Bachmann, that led to our downgrade.

The question of what led S & P to downgrade our credit rating is a matter of verifiable fact. And S & P has now confirmed that one of the central rationales of her candidacy is a key reason for their downgrade. What will she say when confronted with this fact? How will she explain it away? Will anyone even ask her to try to explain it?

In a rational universe, this would be devastating to her candidacy. Of course, the world of GOP primary politics is anything but a rational universe.

Michele Bachmann's world, however, goes beyond irrationality. At some point, the mainstream media may decide that the standards applied to male candidates for national audience should be applied also to female candidates. Even in GOP primary politics, the candidacy of the Minnesota congresswoman would not be able to withstand that scrutiny, or even a portion of it.

Share|

Champion of Self-Promotion

It's not sinful to be a back-bencher or to flail against windmills, raising issues which fail to be resolved or legislation which is not enacted.

But a little humility is in order- or at least an absence of braggadocio. But Michele Bachmann disagrees, as she displayed (segment transcript, here; video, sort of, below) at last night's debate in Ames, Iowa:

This is what qualifies me, as a fighter and Representative of the people, to go to Washington, D.C. and the White House. People are looking for a champion. They want someone who has been fighting. When it came to healthcare, I brought tens of thousands of Americans to Washington to fight the unconstitutional individual mandates. I didn't praise it. When it came to cap and trade, I fought it with everything that was in me. I introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act so people could purchase the ligh tbulb of their choice.

The great freedoms- among them, the right to vote; the right to worship as one chooses; the right to purchase a home regardless of race, gender, or religion. And the right of a corporation to manufacture and sell the light bulb of its choice. The latter would be the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, introduced by a U.S. Representative virulently opposed to reproductive freedom of choice.

A moment later, the self-proclaimed champion continued:

I was at the tip of the spear fighting against the implementation of Obamacare in the United States Congress. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama ran Congress, but I gave them a run for their money. Again on cap and trade, I was there from the very beginning giving Speaker Pelosi a run for her money. That's why i was Speaker Pelosi's number one target to defeat last year because I was effectively taking them on nearly every argument they put forward. I fought. When others ran, I fought and I led against increasing the debt ceiling.

Bragging about trying to bring the economy to its knees may be a little untoward but this was a Repub Party debate, after all. But a little perspective on Bachmann's run for Pelosi's money was provided in late June by Politico

Now in her third House term, Bachmann has never had a bill or resolution she’s sponsored signed into law, and she’s never wielded a committee gavel, either at the full or subcommittee level. Bachmann’s amendments and bills have rarely been considered by any committee, even with the House under GOP control. In a chamber that rewards substantive policy work and insider maneuvering, Bachmann has shunned the inside game, choosing to be more of a bomb thrower than a legislator.

Choosing to be more of a bomb thrower than a legislator. It brings to mind the campaign in Georgia in 1986 for an open seat in the House of Representatives when civil rights legend (and victim of police brutality) John Lewis faced off against civil rights legend Julian Bond. In a race featuring his on-ground experience against the fame of Bond, the lesser-known Lewis asserted he was "a race horse, not a show horse" (and won).

Michele Bachmann is no John Lewis- or even Julian Bond. But In the exceedingly unlikely event the Republican Party's spear tip impresses primary voters one-fourth as much as she impresses herself, she'll be on her way to a presidential nomination.

Share|

Weak Link In Missouri

Don't be disappointed in Democrat Claire McCaskill. As in that loathsome saying, she is what she is. And that's really bad.

It shouldn't have been surprising that the freshman Senator, on a tour Monday of three companies in Missouri, stated that a jobs bill is unlikely because

I think it's very doubtful we will do anything that spends money, but there's other things we can do. We can look at patent reform, we can look at trade agreements as long as they're fair and don't hurt American middle-class workers even more than they've already been hurt. We can look at regulations -- what regulations are absolutely necessary and what regulations are getting in the way of businesses.

So that's the problem with the economy! Corporations are making near-record profits but are suffering because of regulations and lack of trade agreements. McCaskill, unsurprisingly, did not identify any specific regulations, nor did she explain how the nation's economy ever survived before job-killing trade agreements became de rigeur 20-25 years ago (probably with a thriving middle class, now shrinking).

Cool to the idea of an aggressive effort to reduce the 9.1% unemployment rate, McCaskill must be in favor of increasing the federal guarantee of unemployment compensation from 99 weeks (26 weeks of state benefits- 20 in Missouri- followed by 73 weeks of federal benefits) to the proposed 113 weeks. Nonetheless, McCaskill, facing a re-election challenge in 2012, asserted"I'm not for extending the unemployment benefits any further."

But little ever should have been expected from the former State Auditor. Well before the state's 2012 presidential primary- won narrowly on Super Tuesday by Barack Obama- McCaskill endorsed the Illinois Senator for the Democratic nomination. That was unexceptional and reasonable, though with the course of the Obama presidency and the country, it now ought to make her a little embarrassed.

No, the endorsement was understandable- but the thought process was, well, idiotic. In an article lauding the influence of youth in politics, Time soon after the endorsement explained

The Senator's daughter Maddie Esposito had seen the way her mother teared up whenever she heard Obama speak. And now it was happening again as mother and daughter sat side by side on the family-room sofa in a suburb of St. Louis, watching the results of the Iowa caucuses on TV. "You know you believe in him," Maddie admonished her damp-eyed mother. "It's time to step up." The next morning, Maddie, a college freshman home for the holidays, added a threat: "You have to do it, or I'm never talking to you again."

McCaskill endorsed Obama- a big boost in an important Super Tuesday primary state.

It's hard to determine which is a worse reason for a U.S. Senator to endorse an indiviudal for President of the United States of America- because her daughter told her to do so or because she cried upon hearing his speeches. The nation already was in recession and involved in two wars- and Claire McCaskill, probably the leading figure in her state party whose primary would prove pivotal in the nominating process- allowed her 18-year-old to tell her what to do (what, there was no coin to flip?).

This is where the sarcastic would suggest that there was no better reason to endorse Barack Obama. But there really was, especially for someone who had worked with him in the Senate, as had the Missourian. Claire McCaskill, fortunately, does contribute something besides (usually) a Democratic vote in the Senate. When we search for explanations- and there are a few, including the rightward lurch of the GOP- for the dysfunction of the U.S. Congress, one may be found in the likes of Missouri's junior U.S. Senator.

Share|

"What Do You Mean 'Me,' Kemosabe?"

Jed Lewison of Daily Kos notes that Mitt Romney has criticized President Obama because the latter won't "sit down" and talk to ratings agencies, unlike the approach the Massachusetts governor took when Standard & Poor's upgraded the state's credit rating from AA- to AA while Romney was governor. He notes that Ben Smith calls Romney on it:

Gov. Mitt Romney lobbied the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s in 2004 to raise his state’s credit rating in part because Massachusetts had raised taxes during an economic downturn two years earlier.

The claim was part of a presentation to the ratings agency obtained by POLITICO under a state freedom of information law from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance.

Lewison notes

Now, Romney opposes any sort of revenue increase—the sort of revenue increase that would have settled any open questions about our long-term fiscal security. It's the wrong sort of flip-flop, going from a reasonable position to the extreme, simply to win conservative votes in the primary.

Romney isn't the only one to blame, however. Just imagine how much different things would be if Republicans were open to raising taxes—or if Democrats had insisted on doing so last December, when they had the chance.

Of course, if we lived in that sort of world, jobs would be the top item on Washington's agenda. Instead, we're fighting over something that's easy to fix—and won't really be a major problem until several years from now.

Point- and an extremely important one- well taken. This is precisely the wrong time to be to be obsessed with the national debt, which took on new life in the Reagan Administration, slowed appreciably as President Clinton hiked income taxes, and ballooned under the most conservative President of the post-war period, GW Bush.

But- if Democrats had insisted on doing so last December? What do you mean, "Democrats?"

Fox News, on Pearl Harbor Day, reported

President Obama and White House officials underscored the need to compromise Monday in unveiling a congressional deal to avoid the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts at the end of the year, but some of the toughest critics of Obama's version of compromise come from within his own party.

Democrats have generally argued that the tax cuts should be extended for the middle class -- but not for the wealthiest 2 percent. Republicans have argued that the cuts should be extended for all taxpayers.

The "framework" of the deal that Obama outlined Monday evening calls for a two-year extension of the cuts in all income tax brackets. It also would extend long-term unemployment benefits through next year. The estate tax rate would be renewed, but at a lower rate than even during the Bush administration. And the Obama administration is proposing a one-year payroll tax reduction that sources say would cut the amount contributed to Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

Those Democrats were led by one President Barack Obama. Many individuals on liberal web sites, disgusted by the compromise and capitulation of the Administration, have commented that they are through with the Democratic Party. They have been thoroughly disappointed by the historic candidate of hope and change- and vow to take it out on the party the President represents.

That is destructive of progressive interests. These voters, finding the option to President Obama to be at best (!) Mitt Romney, will pull the lever for the incumbent. But they may not do so for candidates down the line, which might result in a Republican Senate and Republican House, rather than a split split legislative branch, as now prevails. That is a major threat, would do real damage to the country, and liberals ought to remember that our dysfunctional government, now presiding over a nation reeling at home and abroad, has been directed by President Obama and congressional Republicans.

So blame Democrats, if you must, for capitulating to Barack Obama as he capitulates to Republicans reportedly capitulating to tea party extremists. But that would be a far cry from a blanket criticism of "Democrats," which takes us down a dangerous road.

Share|

Because They Feel So Bad About Being Hypocrites

Last night, Rachel Maddow addressed (show transcript, here) the 9.1% unemployment rate and recommended a solution which she credited to Steve Benen, a blogger at The Washington Monthly. She explained, without breaking out in hysterical laughter:

Michele Bachmann has an idea to create 1,500 new jobs in the city of Big Lake, Minnesota, by providing funding for something called the Big Lake Rail Park, a project she notes that will enhance economic development and job opportunities in this rural Minnesota community. There`s 1,500 jobs right there at the Big Lake Rail Park.

We know Michele Bachmann wants these jobs because of the intrepid Sam Stein at "The Huffington Post." Sam Stein filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out if while presidential candidate Michele Bachmann was denouncing the stimulus as -- in her words -- "an orgy of spending," while she was doing that in public, she`s also asking for stimulus funding for her district at the same time. Because, really, regardless of what she was saying publicly for political effect, she actually knows this is the way that government can create jobs.

Was she saying something in public that contradicted what she was doing in private? Yes, she`s doing that over and over again. Sam Stein was able to dig up at least 16 separate occasions where Michele Bachmann was publicly denouncing the futility, even the job-killing nature of the stimulus act while privately telling the Obama administration that stimulus programs would create jobs and please, could she have some of that good job-creating federal money for her district.

And again, this is not a personal thing, this is not the kind of personal hypocrisy of denouncing Medicaid as a program, like Michele Bachmann has done, while personally benefiting from Medicaid dollars at her family`s business. It`s not the same thing as denouncing farm subsidies, which Michele Bachmann has done while personally benefiting from farm subsidies, which she has also done. That`s a whole different kind of hypocrisy. That`s frankly about the politician as the person, that`s a personal thing.

But this is the kind of hypocrisy proves a policy point, which is that Republicans know that there are some things government can do to create jobs. They know that. And so, whatever hypocrisy political points you can score against an individual politician on this sort of thing, that`s sort of beside the point when the country is in the trouble that we are in right now.

Look at the Dow today, down another 520 points. We are in an economic pickle right now, we are in really big trouble and, frankly, we need to do something fast.

This demonstrative hypocrisy from politicians like Michele Bachmann -- sure, it`s interesting if you`re interested in Michele Bachmann as a person or as a candidate. But more than that, it could be constructive for the whole country. This could actually save the country right now.

Steve Benen writing at "Washington Monthly," he`s the man to be credited with this proposal, we`ll be talking about this with Steve about this in just a moment. But, essentially, the idea is this, it`s genius -- right now, we are at risk of a double-dip recession, right? The recovery is sputtering. Things going on globally in the economy are really, really hurting us. There`s both an urgent, urgent need to create jobs quickly, to put jumper cables on the dead battery of this economy.

And Republicans are saying they will not let that happen. They don`t want government action to stimulate the economy. There`s nothing government can do to create jobs. That`s what they say.

So, in Steve Benen`s words, "Here`s the pitch: have the White House take the several hundred letters Republican lawmakers have sent to the executive branch from 2009 asking for public investments to create jobs and let President Obama announce he will gladly fund all the Republicans` request that have not yet been filled...."

Don`t tell me that we can`t fund economic stimulus right now. Don`t tell me that the government cannot do anything to create jobs right now because Republicans will object to that. These are things that Republicans asked for, because they know it works. They themselves made the argument that it would work. They put numerical figures on the number of jobs these things would create. They are asking and the answer should be yes....

You don`t have to call it a jobs program, you don`t have to call it stimulus if you don`t want to, just start there. All their bridges and road building projects that would create jobs, approve it.

Yes, every program they lobby for that is a national program that will create jobs and help the economy, approve it -- even if they are only asking for it for their own district, approve it for the country. If they know it would work in their districts, that means it would work in other districts, too.

Say yes -- just start there. Don`t call it a stimulus. Don`t call it anything. If you call it anything, they`ll say they are against the thing.

Just start creating jobs and use what they asked for as the reason to do it. If the Republican opposition is the problem, this is the way around it.

Then Rachel chatted with the "genius" inventor, after which she maintained "You can flummox them by saying, yes -- I suppose, which I think is the basic idea here."

Definitions of "flummox" include "baffle, confuse, bewilder." Rest assured Republicans would respond to this approach with nothing approaching despair or confusion. President Obama's re-election strategy is geared toward securing the support of moderate and independent-minded voters. We cannot "win the future," the President has determined, by antagonizing the GOP or its wealthy base. If someone needs to suffer, to go without, it's going to be liberals, who will have nowhere else to go in November 2012.

Republicans have been through two years of getting most of what they want from the other party, culminating in House Speaker Boehner observing that the debt deal included 98% of what the GOP wanted. They wouldn't be baffled, but pleased, by funding for their pet projects . And then they'll demand more.

Give money to Republican districts, Rachel says, because surely they'll be "flummoxed." Then, with limited funds available and deficit mania sweeping Washington, we can get to projects in districts represented by Democrats. Or not. Because, surely, those Republicans then will admit they were wrong. Or stop promoting "shared sacrifice," sacrifice solely by those without yachts and corporate jets. Or stop calling Democrats socialists and accusing liberals of "class warfare." They will be just oh, so grateful that, having battered and condemned stimulus spending and big government, they will throw in the towel,wve the white flag, and lavishly praise the Administration for its generosity.

There would be no need to set up an infrastructure bank to fund construction projects nationwide. Instead, Rachel Maddow and Steve Benen can establish the GOP Congressional Bank with an ATM earmarked to fund Republican re-election campaigns. Send the money to Michele Bachmann's district and, once she has been eliminated from the presidential race, she can coast to re-election while bragging to her constituents about the jobs she has created. Or, if the Benen-Maddow program has been applied on a wide scale, Republican candidates can boast about the decline in unemployment in GOP-represented districts compared to those represented by Democrats.

Surely, though, congressional Republicans will feel guilty about all of this- they possess, as they have demonstrated, such an acute sense of shame.

Share|

Accomplishments Of Some Sort

Wow, really?

The folks at Politico have discovered that an unpopular President facing off against the candidate of an extremely unpopular party will try to turn the next presidential election on its head. Obama's team will attempt to portray the election as a choice, rather than a referendum.

They will, Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin report, attack Mitt Romney on personal grounds and on ideological grounds. (What a novel concept!) The President's team already has spoken of Romney's "weirdness" and will emphasize "his record as CEO of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that was responsible for both creating and eliminating jobs. Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession — a sort of political Gordon Gekko."

Cynically- though realistically- Obama critic Taylor Marsh thus observes

Let’s also not kid ourselves that Obama and Romney are all that different. Neither are ideologues. Both believe in nothing but their own fortunes and futures. Either would sell their soul to make a deal that makes them look good. And both are willing to do anything to get to live in the White House. They’re craven egotists who believe in their own persona and the preciousness of their own man self.

If only. If only "either would sell their soul to make a deal that makes them look good." With contact(s) inside the Administration, Robert Reich is "told"

So rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it’s politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama – to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington’s paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it. They hope all this will distract the public’s attention from the President’s failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia.

Marsh would be embarrassed to realize that she is being generous. Far from demanding "a deal that makes (him) look good," President Obama will, as he has the past two years, "claim victory over whatever outcome emerges." It's not quality, but quantity, that counts, for then the President can maintain that he got it done. Whatever "it" is.

Share|