Open Thread

Ted Haggard cleaned out the neighborhood before he was exposed as a hypocrite.

But my main source of information was a book I’d read seven years prior, Ted Haggard’s, Primary Purpose: Making It Hard for People to Go to Hell from Your City.[9] In it, I’d read the amazing story of how Haggard and his initially small band of followers had transformed the supposedly pagan, anti-Christian city into God’s own country. Through spiritual mapping (identifying the ruling demons in a given area) and systematic warfare-prayer walks through each neighborhood (in which those demons were expelled from the region, presumably to resettle in Washington state, California, New York and Massachusetts), Colorado Springs was now the godliest place in America: truly a city that was "hard to go to Hell from."

So that's what prayer walking is supposed to do? In the 1980s, my friend (east Indian atheist) was living in Colorado Springs when he was laid off and had to find work out of town (he settled in this significantly less holy city of Portland). Evidently Haggard's God caused my friend's company to lay off the infidels so he could clean up Colorado Springs. How utterly creepy that this is what they were trying to do.

CNN Joins The Washington Post In Legitimizing Extremism

I've said it before: if Republicans went flat-earther, Wolf Blitzer, David Broder and their ilk dutifully would report that a controversy had arisen over the shape of the Earth. To the corporatist media, there are no demonstrable facts. Everything is political and subject to debate. Every story has two legitimate sides. Even proven science. Even provable truths.

As many have discussed, the Washington Post recently hired McCarthyite torture apologist and proven liar Marc Thiessen, as an op-ed columnist. To the Post's editorial page, the use of war crimes is open to discussion. To the Post's editorial page, honesty, integrity, and basic human decency are irrelevant.

Now, CNN has joined the Post in legitimizing extremism. They have hired RedState editor Erick Erickson as commentator. This isn't about some myth of political balance. Erickson is not balanced. As explained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman:

Increasingly, public life has become a carnival, a circus, a freak show. Admittedly, it has always had those elements — that’s part of what made it interesting. From the days when speakers gave stump speeches from actual stumps, they knew they had to be entertaining and provocative to hold an audience long enough to get their message across. Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine, among many others, knew how to express themselves in ways that brought attention to their cause and to themselves.

But it’s a long way from Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” to Erickson’s description of Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a child molester who engages in sex with goats (although he phrased it much less delicately). Erickson also suggested that President Obama should be sentenced by a death panel and that he got his Nobel through affirmative action. He suggested that voters ought to drag state legislators out of their homes and beat them to a bloody pulp, and defines feminists as women who are too ugly to get a date. His track record of posting unsubstantiated allegations on his blogs also should have been of concern to CNN.

But the critical point is that Erickson wasn’t hired DESPITE those utterances. To the contrary, those utterances got him the job. He is providing what the modern marketplace demands. In that sense, to direct criticism at Erickson is to miss the point: he is not the cause of the illness affecting our public discourse, he is merely a symptom. Political media requires ever-higher levels of conflict, hype and hyperbole to draw eyeballs, and by virtue of personality and intellect, Erickson happens to fit the bill.

As Salon's Alex Koppelman succinctly explains:

Open Thread

You ever wonder why you see so much false information in the New York Times about climate change? Joe Romm posits that the science writers either have been bamboozled by the rhetoric of the deniers or they just don't know much science. It must have been hard to find so many science writers with such talent. They must have been recruiting from the same schools that produced Judith Miller.

A Bill Barely Worth Passing, A Process Well Worth Deploring

Ezra Klein often is quoted by supporters of the health insurance bill. He's the type of safe, left-centrist that in the Beltway comfortably passes for a liberal. In the past year, he hasn't been much of a fan of a public option, and he's often been found rationalizing the compromises that have whittled the bill down to where its value is so hotly debated. It's instructive, therefore, to review his description of the bill, from just a few weeks ago:

The Senate bill is almost identical to the legislation supported by moderate Republicans in 1993.

Got that?

He then draws contrasts with the "far, far more conservative (and useless)" Boehner plan, and admits that the current bill "doesn't look anything like" the 1993 Clinton plan or more liberal efforts such as Medicare for all. And we should be celebrating this?

A year ago, we had a Democratic president elected by the largest majority in a generation. No Democratic president had been elected by such a large majority in a couple generations. We had large Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, and by summer we had sixty members of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. We also had a nation still politically shellshocked from the worst administration in history, and yearning for transformational change. And the result, on the most important item on the domestic agenda, is, essentially, a 1993 plan put forth by moderate Republicans. And we should be celebrating this?

Hoover and the Depression Live

I was born only 34 years after the Great Depression, yet growing up the era was treated as if it was in the Cambrian epoch of human development, a world in black and white film far, far away in the past, the methods of market and society as stilted and clumsily jerky as human figures in the grainy images. The smug hubris of our very wealthy and educated is remarkable to behold, how very sure, we were told so many times, the Depression could never happen again, we had come so far, learned so much and put so much in place.

Right about when the global casino called the “financial market” blew up on a number of fronts--$400 billion in bailout money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac alone in a howling maelstrom of desperately fucked up moves with little people money to keep Depression II behind the dikes--in the last two years California became ever more dysfunctional in its broken revenue streams. We collect taxes poorly, and when we need the money the most in a recession we get precisely the worst performance, we’re god-awful broke on the State books.

Open Thread

A few things to read regarding the Israeli/US dispute, because there seem to be a lot of hidden forces which drove the incident and the response creating the current rift. The following pieces help put this incident in context and perhaps answer some of the questions about what the heck happened?

Onward Healthcare Soldiers

I have been ill again, I’m afraid, and to say I’m discouraged in the matter on this cold late winter morning wouldn’t come remotely close to the utter despair I feel. I have a few things I feel are absolutely necessary to say and then I’m going to resist crawling into a deep dark hole for the rest of the day.

This is the week—in however these things get decided—when healthcare legislation at last reaches the holy nirvana zone of accomplished, passed, the law. Best of luck to my earnest Democratic brothers and sisters in baking in the best of tiny details as the deed is finally done, truly, I think it’s been the worst fucking political nightmare outside of election evolutions I’ve ever experienced but, it’s just me, of course, please celebrate a victory richly earned.

Open Thread

Paul Krugman advises that the US take a tough stand on the China unvalued currency which is major factor in keeping the global economy in the dumps.

Open Thread

So what makes someone (the) anti-Christ? Perhaps a wee bit of anti-social justice. 'Cause according to the religion of Beck, if you read the Bible you must believe the poor and the weak brought their condition onto themselves and it ain't anyone's problem but their own.

Three Cheers for the Upcoming Huge, Massive, Unprecedented, Historic, Deeply Progressive Victory!

Forgive me for being a bit late to the advance celebrations, but I wanted to highlight some recent posts that have celebrated the accomplishments of progressives when it comes to the Senate/White House version of Health Reform.^TM

First, Ezra Klein's post on March 8, 2010 (emphasis mine, throughout this post):

Reading Chris Bowers's excellent list of the progressive priorities fulfilled or partially fulfilled by the health-care bill's sidecar amendments is a reminder of how peculiar the framing of this debate has been. There's no doubt that progressives have suffered some real losses in the legislative process. The public option, for one. But along the way, a lot of progressives have lost sight of the fact that the very existence of this legislative process is a huge [italics in original] progressive victory.

[...Ezra's brief commentary on why this bill is super...]

I don't want to suggest this bill is all progressive victories. It isn't. It isn't single-payer and there's no public option, and though I think the excise tax is a progressive tax, I grant that reasonable people disagree on this matter. But the fact of it is that this bill represents an enormous leftward shift for American social policy. It is not, in my view, a sufficient leftward shift, but it is unmatched by anything that has passed into law in recent decades. Progressives have lost some very hard battles but are on the cusp of winning an incredibly important war. For all its imperfections, health-care reform itself is deeply, deeply progressive. And if you don't believe me, just ask the conservatives who have made opposing it their top priority.

Actually, I'd rather not ask conservatives since they are generally likely to call any bill from Democrats "liberal" and "socialist". Rather, I think the best person to ask about Ezra's gushing post about the Deeply, Deeply Progressive^TM victory that the current bill reflects, would be his namesake, Ezra Klein on February 24, 2010:

When Democrats become Republicans and Republicans become conservatives

To put a finer point on my earlier post about the compromises in the health-care bill, check out this Kaiser News Network table comparing the Senate bill, Boehner's bill, and the bill that moderate Republican Lincoln Chafee developed as an alternative to Bill Clinton's legislation in 1993.

The Senate bill is almost identical to the legislation supported by moderate Republicans in 1993. Boehner's bill, by contrast, is far, far more conservative (and useless) than what moderate Republicans developed in 1993. Conversely, the Senate bill doesn't look anything like the Clinton plan itself, much less like the more liberal efforts to expand Medicare to all Americans. We've got a situation in which Democrats are essentially pushing moderate Republican ideas while Republicans push extremely conservative ideas, but because neither the press nor the voters know very much about health-care policy, the fact that Republicans refuse to admit that Democrats have massively compromised their vision is enough to convince people that Democrats aren't compromising.

So, as of February 24, 2010, according to a guy called Ezra Klein, the Democrats' version of Health Reform^TM (i.e., the bill that both the Senate and the Obama White House are behind) is basically almost identical to the 1993 Dole-Chafee Republican bill - that was offered as a conservative counter-proposal to a more liberal bill from then President Bill Clinton (also read this post by Seth Ackerman at Tiny Revolution). Per Ezra, this represented a massive compromise of the Democratic vision - a compromise that the Mean Ol' Republicans refused to recognize but all well informed and highly intelligent Democrats clearly understood. Two weeks later, according to a guy called Ezra Klein (who happens to coincidentally write at the same Washington Post blog as the first Ezra Klein, as the Foremost Liberal Expert on Health Care^TM!) the Democrats' version of Health Reform^TM (i.e., the bill that both the Senate and the Obama White House are behind) is deeply, deeply progressive. I suppose that means the Dole-Chafee Republican bill from 1993 was basically Deeply, Deeply Progressive^TM. Should we therefore send some epithets by way of then-President Clinton for discarding the Deeply, Deeply Progressive^TM 1993 Dole-Chafee bill? Hmmm, I wonder.

On Feb 24, Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, excitedly recommended Ezra Klein's Feb 24 post, and concluded:

The Votes are There to Fix it Later! Yay!

I guess I had to force myself to come back from oblivion to post this because the arguments from the Pass Health "Reform" and Fix It Later (PHRFIL^TM) crowd are becoming more and more hilarious by the day.

The latest entry in this drama is from Steve Benen at Washington Monthly (emphasis mine, throughout this post):

But this observation, related to the public option, was even more striking.

Kucinich says he doesn't buy Obama's latest argument to progressives that there will be other opportunities to improve upon the legislation once they help him pass this bill.

"Fix it later, are you kidding?" he said. "If you don't get it in the bill up front, it's not going to happen."

Now, the president really has told progressive lawmakers that Congress can return to the public option later, and incorporate the idea into this reform framework. The notion that improvements like the public option are gone forever if they don't pass immediately is foolish.

The fun starts with that passage, where we learn that since The President Has Said It, It Must Therefore Be True. That's just great!

Steve then goes on to explain using the examples of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security how all those programs were improved with time. There are some problems with this argument, including the one small detail he left out - namely, that it is much easier to enhance programs that are explicitly Government-run (like Medicare or Social Security, for example) once the Government actually starts running them and delivers benefits to people. The problem with applying this argument to the current bill is that the option of a Government-run health insurance program is being explicitly rejected in the current bill, with the excision of the already watered down "public option" from the bill. So, this argument is rather misleading to say the least.

Steve digs a much deeper hole for himself by using Nate Silver's recent post - Obama's No F.D.R. -- Nor Does He Have F.D.R.'s Majority - to seemingly bolster his case:

What is Repo 105?

(h/t The Big Picture)

For 2010, It Needs To Be About Jobs

Any time you see a Democrat or any Republican rant about federal spending and the deficit, and not offer full-throated support for an immediate and strong jobs bill, ingore that person. They don't care about Main Street, and only want to give the appearance of caring about the problems of families when in fact all they care about is creating a false narrative that we're about to become a banana republic if we don't tighten spending and worry about deficits and higher interest rates.

Yes, we can argue that Obama was too timid with the first stimulus package, and gave too much ground on tax cuts and didn't insist enough on more direct spending on infrastructure. He didn't, and he and Larry Summers were wrong on that and the likes of Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and Joseph Stiglitz were right. But as James Carville said two decades ago, it's the economy stupid, and kitchen table issues are the best guide on how the party in power can stay in power. For the GOP, they lure voters with tax cuts that never produce jobs, but the misdirection keeps working anyway. For Democrats, it has and always should be about jobs and rebuilding communities here at home, and not offshoring the middle class into poverty.

Gallup's latest poll only proves this point, and every Democrat running this fall, and the White House need to plaster this on their War Room walls.

Unemployment now stands alone as the top issue in Gallup's latest update on the most important problem facing the country. Thirty-one percent of Americans mention jobs or unemployment, significantly more than say the economy in general (24%), healthcare (20%), or dissatisfaction with government (10%).

Note from this poll that concern over unemployment has doubled since last August. In fact, specific concerns over unemployment and more general concerns about the economy dwarf everything else. Only eight (8) percent of respondents named the deficit as their biggest concern now, but it was so far down the list as to be an afterthought for most Americans at this time.

Let the GOP rant about spending; Democrats should immediately pin them down on what their plan is on jobs, and then force them to offer up more deficit-inducing tax cuts, which do nothing to create demand and only enrich the usual suspects. Any candidate who prioritizes cutting spending instead of a second stimulus bill is more in touch with their donors than Main Street, and any media outlet or think tank that does so isn't in the real world. For Democrats, no matter what happens on health care, the path to success in 2010 runs through job creation and putting Main Street ahead of Wall Street.

Toxic Talk Radio

Digby links to an article by Eric Alterman and Danny Goldman discussing the toxic nature of talk radio and how broad of an audience is following the shock jocks.

One way to follow the poison is to track the creepy lies and propaganda on Media Matters where they have a running clip of what's being said. Here is what they caught Glenn Beck saying today in under three hours. Just think of the impact on our politics when you consider that the 48 million people are listening to this every day.

Durbin: If The House Passes A Public Option, He Will Whip FOR It

Senator Dick Durbin’s office now is saying that if House Dems pass a public option as part of their reconciliation fix, he will whip for it in the Senate. Greg Sargent has Durbin's response to critics who have lambasted him for saying he would oppose a public option reconciliation fix:

But Durbin’s spokesman, Joe Shoemaker, emails to clarify:

Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Leadership will be aggressively whipping FOR the public option if it is included in the reconciliation bill the House sends over.

Here’s how the chronology would unfold: House passes Senate bill. It becomes law. House then initiates reconciliation fix, including public option. Senate leadership whips to pass reconciliation fix in Senate. Reconciliation fix — including public option — becomes law.

Seems pretty straightforward.

Sam Stein: