Supporters of President Obama get very upset when he is called a "corporatist" Dem or argue that he is triangulating a la Bill Clinton. Last week, Ezra Klein attempted to demonstrate thus it always is for Democratic Presidents - progressives are always disappointed. I agree. But what struck me was Klein's example - Bill Clinton blowup with William Greider in the 1990s:

One of the strange conceits of the proponents of The Deal on taxes is that GOP tax cutting somehow ends with The Deal. While making fun of the silly Dana Milbank and his rewriting of the health bill process history, Paul Krugman misses the larger mythmaking - that The Deal ends the tax policy debate. Milbank writes:

The alternative to a deal, administration officials say, was to waste the next few months fighting over taxes [. . .] only to wind up with a deal that likely would be worse with Republicans controlling the House.

Apparently, Milbank and the White House believe that the Republicans will be finished with the tax issue now that The Deal is struck. How utterly idiotic. First, The Deal will be the dominating factor in shaping the budget for the next two years - the GOP will slash the budget. Second, The Deal ends in 2012 which is, if the White House has not noticed, just around the corner. Today, David Axelrod said "we'll have that debate in 2012." That's nice, but who exactly is going to be persuaded? Not Republicans. Even if the Dems win the 2012 elections (and the likelihood is even if Obama wins, the House and the Senate will be Republican after the 2012 election), there will be LESS Dems in Congress than there are today. How exactly is the situation going to change favorably in 2012?

Milbank call this "strategy." I call it idiocy.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein writes:

The story that the White House tells about [The Deal] is this: We have a shaky economy that can't afford a large tax increase. [. . .] Newly empowered Republicans refused to extend the tax cuts for income under $250,000 unless they also got the tax cuts for income over $250,000. [. . . G]iven the choice between letting the cuts expire and potentially harm the recovery and negotiating a compromise which pumps hundreds of billions in extra stimulus into the economy over the next two years, the White House chose the latter.

In 2012, they say, things will be different. [. . .] If you're going to say that the cuts for the rich will definitely be extended, you have to ask [what] the White House is wrong/lying about.

I've not seen the White House say anything publically about tax policy After The Deal at all. The President did not say anything today about it. Therein lies the problem with this vapid analysis from Klein. More . . .

Elizabeth Edwards has passed away. Her family released this statement:

Elizabeth Anania Edwards, mother, author, advocate died today at her home in Chapel Hill, surrounded by her family.

Today we have lost the comfort of Elizabeth's presence but she remains the heart of this family. We love her and will never know anyone more inspiring or full of life.

On behalf of Elizabeth we want to express our gratitude to the thousands of kindred spirits who moved and inspired her along the way. Your support and prayers touched our entire family.

In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the Wade Edwards Foundation which benefits the Wade Edwards Learning Lab.

[More...]

Elizabeth Edwards is losing her battle with cancer. The family is gathered around her in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and released a statement saying that doctors have said further treatment would not be productive.

Edwards' estranged husband, former presidential candidate John Edwards, and their three children were at her side at the Chapel Hill home, the friend reported. Her sister, brother, nieces, nephews, former campaign advisers and other friends were also there. The friend said Elizabeth Edwards is not in pain and in good spirits despite the seriousness of her condition.

Elizabeth posted a message on Facebook that reads like a "goodbye" note: [More...]

President Obama announced today that the Administration and Republicans have reached an agreement on tax cuts.

Under the compromise agreement, the Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthy, would be extended for two years. Unemployment benefits for those unemployed more than six months would be extended for 13 months. The employee payroll tax would be cut by 2% for 2011. The estate tax will apply only to those inheriting more than $5 million and would be capped at 35%. And the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and American Opportunity Tax Credit will be extended.

Ezra Klein says the deal is imperfect but not that bad.

Is this another compromise where no one is happy?

Bump and Update: Four relatives of Bunny Mellon are at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, NC where the grand jury investigating John Edwards' campaign finances is meeting:

Sources told WRAL News that Stacy Lloyd III, the son of heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon; his two sons, Stacy Lloyd IV and Thomas Lloyd; and Thomas Lloyd's wife, Ricki Lloyd, were called to testify before the grand jury.

The FBI has already spoken to Bunny Mellon, having made two trips to her farm. Her lawyer, Alexander Forger, said months ago he testified before the grand jury and said Edwards did nothing wrong.

Why is this heating up now? Perhaps because Republican U.S. Attorney George Holding, who reportedly is not leaving the office to make way for Obama's nominee Thomas Walker, until he's done with Edwards' investigation, has more time on his hands having finally concluded the investigation of former Gov. Mike Easley (which ended with a whimper rather than a bang). [More..]

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. - Grover Norquist

This December, the federal government is preparing to extend the Bush tax cuts and take up recommendations to reduce the deficit by way of the Catfood Commission.

This only makes sense if you ascribe to the views of Grover Norquist and want to eventually drown the government in a bathtub. The failure to connect fiscal policy with tax policy has been a glaring failure of the Beltway and its bloggers.

An amazing end to the first two years of the Obama Presidency.

Speaking for me only

[Democrats want to] raise taxes on just a small number of people, most of whom live on Wall Street in New York. - Republican Senator Lamar Alexander

Via atrios, Media Matters captures GOP Senator Lamar Alexander accusing Dem New York Senator Charles Schumer of blocking tax cuts for Wall Street:

If the Democratic Party was competent, they would run with this. They aren't and they won't.

Speaking for me only

Silly topic (silly in discussing it now) - can the GOP win the Presidency in 2012? Let's take President Obama's election in 2008 as the baseline and see how it goes.

In 2008, President Obama won with 365 electoral votes, thus with 95 electoral votes to spare. In other words, the GOP would have to pick up 97 EVs to win. What states did Obama win that can go GOP in 2012? Colorado (9 EVs), Florida (projected 29 EVs in 2012), Indiana (11 EVs), Iowa (projected 6 EVs in 2012), Michigan (17 EVs), Nevada (projected 6 EVs in 2012), North Carolina (15 EVs), Ohio (projected 18 EVs in 2012), Pennsylvania (projected 19 EVs in 2012), Virginia (13 EVs) and Wisconsin (10 EVs). In addition, GOP states Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and Utah will add a projected 7 EVs will GOP states Missouri and Louisiana will lose a projected 2 EVs for a net gain of 5 for the GOP. Adding these up we get a total of 154 electoral votes, which would easily put a GOP candidate over the top (195 + 154 = 349.) More . .

Here is how Markos puts it -- GOP Continues to make fool of Obama:

This is how the GOP responds to Obama's good-faith cave-in to their agenda.

Officials say Senate Republicans intend to block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending in the current post election session of Congress.

They wrote a letter. The President has become a punchline.

Speaking for me only

David Kurtz makes a good point regarding David Leonhardt's wrongheaded column regarding Dems and taxes. I wrote about it earlier. Kurtz writes:

[Leonhardt's article] has an internal logic to it, but it rests on a series of premises that I would argue still go back to the core issue of the Democrats not being tough enough -- and I don't mean tough in simply a hardheaded, muscular way but in a savvy, persistent, opportunistic sense. Let me put it this way: If the roles we're reversed and Democrats were on the opposite side of the issue, wouldn't the analysis be that Democrats were running a huge political risk by blocking middle class tax cuts and getting blamed for raising everyone's taxes? MORE . . .]