Ugly, Too

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent believes critics have been too hard on Senator Tom Coburn for his remarks explaining Barack Obama's rise to the top. He maintains

I think what Coburn means here is that African Americans are more likely to need such programs than whites are, and by his own lights, Coburn actually thinks he’s being charitable to Obama here. He’s essentially saying that Obama’s life experience quite naturally dictated that he would view the safety net as a good thing, because it helped poor African Americans.

Sargent contacted the fellow who wrote the story in the Tulsa World and printed the transcript so that Coburn's message, so benevolent, could be seen in context: The Senator stated

No, I don’t... He’s a very bright man. But think about his life. And think about what he was exposed to and what he saw in America. He’s only relating what his experience in life was...“His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.

“As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them. I just don’t believe they work overall and in the long run they don’t help our country. But he doesn’t know that because his life experience is something different. So it’s very important not to get mad at the man. And I understand, his philosophy — there’s nothing wrong with his philosophy other than it’s goofy and wrong [laughter] — but that doesn’t make him a bad person.”

Oh, but this makes it so much better! Viewing Sargent's analysis, Salon's Joan Walsh realizes"the remarks are a little bit more awful because it's clear the Oklahoma doctor can't see Obama for what he is." In fact, Coburn does not specify what "dependency" it was which "worked so well" for a young Obama. Nor does he identify "a lot of these programs" (food stamp program, home mortgage deduction, student loan system?) actually were. He is, hence, asserting a black man who became President of the United States must have benefited from the programs he stereotypes. It wouldn't have been quite so bad if the Senator had made a principled, conservative argument against such programs, nor if he had argued that Barack Obama advanced only because he took advantage of government programs.

But he did neither. Coburn sees these programs, assumes they are directed to the underclass, and hence assumes, "because (of) his life experience," the President couldn't have gotten where he has without them. Moreover, if the Senator "actually think(s) he's being charitable to Obama," he would have found it unnecessary to add (of Obama being aided by 'dependency') "I don't say that critically."

Sargent's analysis, though, is not merely wrong. It is ugly. At the recent Repub presidential debate in Ames, Iowa, ten of ten GOP candidates declared their opposition to a tax increase even if they could get in spending reduction ten times the amount of revenue increase. Yet, polls have shown a majority of Republican voters in favor of somewhat increasing taxes to aid deficit reduction, as well as most opposing cuts in Social Security benefits. The problem, it would appear, is not on the street but in the suites.

Still, Sargent contends

What’s funny to me about this whole episode is that it reveals how challenging it is for the saner variety of Republicans to reason with some of their constituents about the President. Coburn is struggling to talk a constituent out of his anxiety that Obama actively wants to destroy the country. He needs to find a way of defending Obama’s motives that a constituent inclined to believe the worst about Obama might be able to listen to and even tolerate. So Coburn hit on this way of defending Obama while still keeping his argument confined within a world view that this constituent might find acceptable. It’s not easy being a Republican official these days.

Coburn cleverly "hit on this way" by stereotyping black males and by making assumptions about Obama's rise. The problem, in Sargent's view, is not a wealthy, educated pol pandering- no, he's only valiantly "struggling to talk a constituent out of his anxiety." Unfortunately, while the citizen is "inclined to believe the worst about Obama," a United States Senator is trying to reinforce these instincts- about both the President and a whole group of Americans. "It's not easy being a Republican official these days," Sargent argues, though on Social Security, tax cuts, and probably other issues, those same individuals the journalist finds intolerant are way ahead of, and more reasonable than, their elected representatives. Perhaps Sargent feared also that an angry mob of the great unwashed awaited any GOP candidate who would emerge from the presidential debate after being unwilling to commit himself/herself to a "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.

While Walsh believes Sargent may have been prompted by being "an always generous person," another explanation can emerge from her recognition that

Coburn is right about one thing. Our president does have a dependency problem. He's overly dependent on the nonexistent goodwill of Republicans who are out to destroy not only his presidency, but the entire system of social opportunity built by the Democratic Party, belatedly and briefly supported by Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, over the last 80 years. Obama's dependency on the notion that he's the lone man who can reason with implacable enemies and lure them to compromise is deeply debilitating, for him and for his party.

Greg Sargent never has lost his faith in the Man of Hope and Change and, Walsh notes, Coburn

is supposed to be one of the president's few "friends" on the other side of the aisle. Obama has repeatedly touted his "unlikely friendship" with Coburn, calling him his friend and his "brother in Christ" at this year's "National Prayer Breakfast." He's a member of the deficit-hawk "Gang of Six" much praised by the president. Coburn has called Obama a "wonderful man."

Perhaps Greg Sargent would be uncomfortable criticizing someone whom he believes is reasonable and open-minded and whom Obama is counting on to bring other Republicans around. Or he could be taking a more hard-headed, realistic approach, possibly needing to open a line of communication with an influential Senator who has a relationship with the President. Quite likely, the Washington Post journalist has far less need of establishing contacts with ordinary Oklahomans, in need of care and feeding by those "saner variety of Republicans."

Share|

Silence

Don't waste your breath. Don't call him an "a_ _ _ _ _ _" or "nuts," as Digby does, nor racist.

Tulsaworld.com reports that Senator Tom Coburn was home campaigning in the state in which John McCain got the greatest percentage of his vote in 2008. When

Responding to a man in Langley who asked if Obama "wants to destroy," Coburn said the president is "very bright" and loves his country but has a political philosophy that is "goofy and wrong."

Obama's "intent is not to destroy, but his intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him," he said.

"As an African-American make," Coburn said, Obama received "tremendous advantage from a lot of these programs."

It seems, though, that Coburn and Obama have a history. Three days after Obama was inaugurated president, The Wall Street Journal explained

Yet the new president has identified the Oklahoma Republican as a conservative he can work with, which says much about the president’s style and strategy. The relationship also illustrates some of the limits of Mr. Obama’s oft-professed desire to find common ground with political opponents....

The two found common cause by uniting to push through a bill designed to stem the spread of earmarks, those legislative provisions that funnel money to lawmakers’ specific pet projects. Their bill aimed to reduce the use of earmarks by casting a harsher spotlight on them, creating a public, searchable online database listing the recipients of all federal spending....

A tie was formed, and Mr. Obama kept it alive by reaching out to Mr. Coburn during the transition. “We have a little talk about spiritual things, and then we’ll talk about other things, things he wants to talk about,” including the use of those financial-market rescue funds, Mr. Coburn says.

A good judge of character, that President of ours. More significantly, The WSJ wrote "Mr. Coburn thinks the new president will be able, in particular, to work with him and other conservatives on measures to make government more transparent and to eliminate programs." No word on whether that included those pesky programs, like Social Security and Medicare, that the President finds wasteful.

It has been two-and-a-half days and nothing- nothing- from the Obama camp on whether he has succeeded only because of programs that "create dependency. Presumably, the White House wants to let stand remarks by a United States Senator, who is accorded attention and respect because of his office and accomplishments, that suggests black men have it so darned easy in the U.S.

So don't get down on Tom Coburn; apparently Barack Obama still believes he is just swell. Instead, ask Coburn: what is that political philosophy is you're referring to, anyway?

Next up: Greg Sargent has a different perspective. An ugly perspective.

Share|

Michelle Obama, R-IL

President Obama continually gets fleeced by the GOP, sometimes seeming to enjoy it a little too much. He may be simply a terrible negotiator- giving up half the loaf practically before he gets started- or might actually prefer governing from the center right.

This past week, the former view got a boost from the President's bus tour of the Midwest. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reports that in Cannon Falls, Minnesota Obama stated

In my house, if I said, "You know, Michelle, honey, we got to cut back, so we're going to have you stop shopping completely, You can't but shoes, you can't buy dresses, but I'm keeping my golf clubs." You know, that wouldn't go over so well.

In Decorah, Iowa, he elaborated

Everybody cannot get 100 percent of what they want. Now, for those of you who are married, there is an analogy here. I basically let Michelle have 90 percent of what she wants. But, at a certain point, I have to draw the line and say "Give me my little 10 percent."

Poor, little Barack, having to settle for 10 percent when he is by far the most powerful political figure in the most powerful nation on earth. A real victim who has to put his foot down to get ten percent.

No one cares whether Barack gets his way or Michelle gets everything, a domestic issue that is theirs and theirs alone. And it's even acceptable if in President Obama's world, every husband plays golf and every wife is a clothes horse. If you were the first black President, beset by opponents who only grudgingly concede that you were born in this country and are a Christian, and attack you for a tenuous connection to the big, bad urban machine in Chicago, you, too, would remind everyone that you prefer golf to basketball.

But really..... a President of the United States has to be satisfied with 10%? Why would he even admit he is so pitiful?

The analogy to the nation's business is not weak, but non-existent. Presumably, Michelle loves Barack and wants the best- if not for him personally, at least for the family. While the GOP's primary objective is to bring down President Obama, it's secondary objective is not the betterment of the country. Or its tertiary objective. Nor its quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary, or denary objective. Conceding to Michelle might advance the cause of the Obama family; conceding to the GOP would.... well, we see what it has done.

The Obama statements, moreover, reflect a disquieting tendency on the part of the President, what Paul Krugman terms "the false government-family equivalence." "Government has to start living within its means," Obama remarked on July 2, "just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford...." That's because families, apparently, never ever go into debt and just hate to borrow when those interest rates are low.

Next up for the Administration? The President promises a jobs program in September when, no doubt, he again can settle for 10%, then declare victory. He really knows where to draw the line.

Share|

Of The President's Boosters

On August 9, the American Dream movement, inspired by union activism in Wisconsin and elsewhere, put out a ten-point manifesto for economic justice. Its founder, Van Jones tells author and Daily Beast columnist Michelle Goldberg he is building a progressive version of the tea party with MoveOn.org, whose Executive Director explains “If the American Dream Movement is the Tea Party, then Rebuild the Dream is Americans for Prosperity or the Tea Party Express."

The former White House special adviser for green jobs, canned when he became politically toxic to Barack Obama, contrasted the role of the president to that of activists such as himself, who have "the job of creating an independent movement that brings out the best in the American people." He argues "People forgot that our slogan was not ‘Yes he can.’ It was ‘Yes we can.’ The minute we have a vehicle to be ‘we’ again, a lot of this stuff goes away."

Jones might want to reassess. Promptly after passage of the bill lifting the debt ceiling Obama for America (OFA) New Mexico State Director Ray Sandoval sent to supporters an email (text, here) reading in part

Paul Krugman is a political rookie. At least he is when compared to President Obama. That's why he unleashed a screed as soon as word came about the debt ceiling compromise between President Obama and Congressional leaders - to, you know, avert an economic 9/11. Joining the ideologue spheres' pure, fanatic, indomitable hysteria, Krugman declares the deal a disaster - both political and economic - of course providing no evidence for the latter, which I find curious for this Nobel winning economist. He rides the coattails of the simplistic argument that spending cuts - any spending cuts - are bad for a fragile economy, ignoring wholeheartedly his own previous cheerleading for cutting, say, defense spending. But that was back in the day - all the way back in April of this year.

But as I said, Paul Krugman is a political rookie compared to Barack Obama. He is either unwilling or unable to actually look at the deal that was announced and realize what just happened: Barack Obama ate John Boehner's lunch, and then he turned Boehner out to go preach to his conservative colleagues that this eating of the lunch by Obama is actually politically good for them....

Now let's get to the fun part: the triggers. The more than half-a-trillion in defense and security spending cut "trigger" for the Republicans will hardly earn a mention on the Firebagger Lefty blogosphere. Hell, it's a trigger supposedly for the Republicans, and of course, there's always It'sNotEnough-ism to cover it.

No, the loudest screeching noise you hear coming from Krugman and the ideologue Left is, of course, Medicare. Oh, no, the President is agreeing to a Medicare trigger!!! Oh noes!!! Everybody freak out right now!

It's understandable if the Obama Administration is peeved at the Nobel Prize-winning economist, a frequent critic of the President. Ironically, if Obama had followed Krugman's long-ago advice and substantially increased the size of the economic stimulus, the President probably would be in fat city politically now, with a recovering economy (rather than 9.1% unemployment) to boast of.

Whether this is part of a concerted strategy by the White House- which has attacked the "professional left" on other occasions- or mere personal pique by one entranced Obamite has not been determined. Obama apologist Jones told Goldberg "some people forgot that our slogan was not 'Yes he can.' It was 'Yes we can.'" Now, at least one well-known and highly accomplished blogger has called for Sandoval to be fired and a public apology given to Krugman, It presents a golden opportunity for Barack Obama to demonstrate a distaste for attacks upon liberal activists, still generally supportive of his re-election bid and the embodiment of "yes, we can."

This should provide insight into the character of Jones, who became an early victim of the President's fetish to avoid controversy, cater to the noisy right, and capture support of independents in campaign 2012. If Barack Obama continues to target Van Jones' fellow activists and Jones maintains his unquestioning support of the President, the effectiveness of the progressive movement may be undermined by a leader with fealty to an individual over principle.

Share|

Dreaming On A Summer's Afternoon

Appearing on the Sunday talk shows, Representative Michele Bachmann was asked about her intransigent position against raising the debt ceiling. She took it as an opportunity to makeclear her undying support for members of the armed services.

That's why I say we need to pay the interest on the debt, that's how you don't default. We tell our military men and women, under no circumstances will you not get a paycheck. It was irresponsible of the president to suggest they wouldn't. (Fox News Sunday)

Remember, I introduced a bill that would not have had the United States default. The president did not. Let me tell you what the president did. President Obama went out and, and effectively said through his administration, "We don't know if we're going to pay our military men and women in uniform." This was--this comment was made overseas to our men and women while they're serving our country. (Meet The Press)

This was more than just another example of the Minnesota congresswoman staring ahead and repeating her talking points ad nauseum. No politician ever lost a vote by declaring his or her allegiance to "our brave fighting men" or, nowaday, men and women, and serving the needs of a uniquely courageous segment of the population usually is good policy, also.

So it was surprising at first glance to read Brian Beutler report

In a rare joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the National Defense University Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confirmed a CBS News report that the Pentagon is considering a dramatic plan to overhaul the military's once sacrosanct retirement plan.

According to CBS, the plan "would eliminate the familiar system under which anyone who serves 20 years is eligible for retirement at half their salary. Instead, they'd get a 401K- style plan with government contributions."

Panetta largely confirmed the report with a key caveat....

"That report came as a result of an advisory group that was asked (sic) by my predecessor Bob Gates to look at the retirement issue," he said....

Under the plan, drafted by the Defense Business Board, retired service members would have to wait until standard retirement age before touching their pensions. It would reportedly save $250 billion over two decades.

Surprise! On August 4 Panetta had argued "We're already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough. I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense." Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be cut, the Defense Secretary maintains, while big weapons systems must go on.

But the pensions of veterans are on the chopping block, according to the Secretary of Defense, appearing with that other 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful (Obama or Clinton? Clinton or Obama? Now, that's a Hobson's choice.) This, in turn, gives an opening to one of the three leading Repub presidential candidates, last heard practically demanding the President promise military personnel "under no circumstances will you not get a paycheck." Bachmann could defend the interests of our fighting men and women and argue that as a Christian, she believes that a promise made is a promise to be kept. Sure, she will.

Michele Bachmann to the rescue!

Share|

Ron Paul Snubbed

Politico's Roger "Don't Call Me Paul" Simon has noticed what few others have. U.S. House of Representatives member Michelle Bachman barely edged out Ron Paul in what Simon has recognized as the "organized bribery" of the Iowa straw poll. As his reward, he has received: silence.

To Jill Lawrence of The Daily Beast/Newsweek, Simon points out, it is "the new top tier of Bachmann, Perry and Romney." The Washington Post reported "A Republican presidential campaign that has been slow to take shape suddenly snapped into focus Sunday, with an unlikely three-person top tier of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and the newest entry, Texas Gov. Rick Perry." The Associated Press calls it "a three- way race" among the three. CNN sums up "Conventional wisdom is that Perry joins former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's making his second bid for the GOP nomination, and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, as the top tier in the Republican fight. “ Repub pols and pundits have joined in the conventional wisdom.

There is one clue to the disregard shown the Ames second-place finisher in the breezy dismissal of the Texas congressman noted by Simon. "Libertarian Ron Paul," the editors commented (within parentheses, even), " who has no chance to win the nomination, finished a close second."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, unlike the news departments of AP, the Washington Post, and others, has a motive for relegating Paul to the ranks of also-rans. Responding to Mitt Romney's recent remark "corporations are people," Paul the following day had told Center for American Progress writer Scott Keyes

People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.

Yikes. A year and a half after the landmark Citizens United decision decreeing corporate personhood, Ron Paul does not stray from the reservation, but rides off into the sunset Asked what he would "make of Mitt Romney’s statement that 'corporations are people' yesterday," Paul replies "obviously they're not."

The Texas congressman holds extremely conservative views and couches his opposition to Romney's statement in the rights and responsibilities of the individual, a traditional conservative stance (though not extending to the responsibilities of the individual to the community). But this is not Eisenhower's GOP or even Reagan's GOP. Heck, it's not even the GOP of Newt Gingrich, the darling of the 1994 Republican revolution, who in March slammed Paul Ryan's effort to rescind Medicare as "social engineering." Gingrich, as his words made clear, preferred to eliminate it gradually, through the back door. Not good enough for Nikki Haley, governor of the most important state in a GOP presidential race, nor for The Wall Street Journal.

This Repub Party embraces social engineering (though, disingenuously, not the term) and recognizes the Citizens United ruling as a boon for it, as well as a boondoggle for Democrats. It will not abide by the likes of a presidential candidate who believes corporations are not people, anathema to a party which, with all its cries and complaints, ultimately voted to raise the debt ceiling as demanded by its corporate base.

Share|

Cimate Curse?

Two Midwestern Republicans, Michele Bachman of Minnesota and John Shimkus of Illinois, may be right- up to a point.

In March of 2009 Representative Shimkus remarked

I believe that's the infallible word of God, and that's the way it's going to be for his creation. The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood. I do believe that God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.

Shimkus was referring to Genesis 9:11 (ESV), in which God vowed "I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."

Unfortunately, Shimkus was denying the reality of climate change while criticizing pending cap-and-trade legislation. Asserting God destroyed the world by flood, the congressman clearly asserted that He wouldn't intervene to harm His own creation.

On Meet The Press Sunday, Representative Bachmann, asked by David Gregory whether God would "guide your decisions as President," stated

I'm extremely grateful to, to have a faith in God. I, I see that God has so blessed this country. His--you know, we heard that song that he's "shed his grace" on the United States. I believe it. He's been very good to our country. And I think that it's important for us to seek his guidance and to pray and to listen to his voice.

Bachmann, a cap-and-trade opponent and global warming denier, has not been listening, lest she hear "There were 42 all-time record high temperature records set in the first week of August. That is over 5 times the number of all-time low temperature records set in all 3 months of last winter." Or that in the 67,152 months (roughly 17,000 months of summer) since temperature records have been kept in the contiguous United States, the hottest month of all was July in Oklahoma. Or that July, 2011- since the advent of records in 1910- was the most extreme July "due to extreme warm minimum temperatures across the country, wet northern Plains and Great Lakes, extreme warm maximum temperatures, and the severe drought across the South and Gulf Coast."

Bachmann seems to believe God has blessed this country with unparalleled freedom, affluence, and the military power to defend it. And he did, if Scriptures are to be believed, promise no flood will ever destroy the entire earth. But if He has the power to bless the United States, he also possesses the power to judge nations, the ancient Egyptians coming to mind. And he need not do so by flood, with Bloomberg reporting Friday

Corn, soybean and spring-wheat harvests in the U.S., the world's largest exporter, will be smaller than the government forecast last month after a damaging heat wave that may signal higher costs for food and biofuel.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture cut its corn-crop estimate by 4.1 percent, reduced the soybean forecast by 5.2 percent, and said spring-wheat production will be 5.2 percent below what it predicted in July. The harvests for all three crops would be less than expected by analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Parts of the Midwest, the main growing region, were the hottest since 1955 last month. Smaller supplies of corn may increase costs for ethanol refiners such as Poet LLC, Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Valero Energy Corp. and meat producers Tyson Foods Inc. and Smithfield Foods Inc., which buy the grain for feed. The price of corn, the biggest U.S. crop, jumped 68 percent in the past year before today.

Unlike with the Great Flood that had Shimkus' attention, climate change will not destroy the world all at once and may only make life virtually unbearable for the people who escape disease and starvation. Nor is it certain that the precipitating factor will be the rise in the oceans or anything reminiscent of a flood. But the impact of global warming is coming to a town near you- and really, has affected everyone already. The likes of Shimkus and Bachmann may attribute America's greatness to the God of the Old and New Testaments. But there is a reason the Lord is referred to as the Almighty- He can choose to bless, or to go the other way.

He can have it both ways. The right cannot.

Share|