Last Night's primary results highlighted the strength of the Tea Party in the Republican Party. Will this be a positive development for the Republican Party and/or the ideals, such as they are, of the Tea Party? Most folks think not. We'll see. But to me it highlights the state of flux of the political debate. The old order of Beltway politics seems to be in some danger.

Many thought the ascension of Barack Obama to the Presidency was a transforming change (and in terms of race, obviously it was) in our politics. Nearly two years later, this obviously is not true. And this fact creates an interesting and possibly dynamic opportunity for progressives to change the course of the political debate. I'll explain why I think so on the flip.

Greg Sargent:

Obama has passed the most ambitious domestic agenda since FDR[.]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This strikes me as one of the most ridiculous opinions I have seen. Sargent writes this in the context of discussing another article on "why the 'Left' is disappointed with Obama." Suffice it to say that these psychological profiles of why "the Left" is disappointed are condescending at best, insulting at worst. And Sargent goes along for the ride.

For some reason, it is impossible for some to fathom that most on "the Left" do not agree that "Obama has passed the most ambitious domestic agenda since FDR." "The Left" appears to believe that "Obama's agenda" has been pretty tepid. On the economy, does anyone think "Obama's agenda" has been bold and progressive? I don't. The health bill had a very progressive element, the expansion of Medicaid. The rest of the bill is neither progressive nor, imo, is it likely to be effective. The financial reform bill is a joke, imo. Could someone explain to me, beyond listing the title of bills, what "the most ambitious domestic agenda since FDR" actually consists of? Or does that require actually dealing with the POLICY complaints of "The Left" and is thus not allowed?

Speaking for me only

John Cole writes:

[T]he reason Democrats are going to lose seats is the simple fact that the economy sucks and really, even if we were to have another stimulus, it looks like it is going to suck for a long time. If unemployment were at 5% and the DOW was humming along and we could still fool ourselves into thinking we had it good because we were using our houses as ATM’s, we wouldn’t be talking about messaging and the Obama economic team. As it is, there is really nothing that government can do to bring that back, and we’re dealing with a day of reckoning that was a long time coming.

(Emphasis supplied.) So "nothing could be done" seems to be the latest defense of Democratic governance the past 2 years. I suppose that's possible, but it is not a winning message. If "everyone" knew "nothing could be done," the Dems should have spent the past 2 years making the GOP block everything, so they could blame this all on the GOP. Things were pretty "post-partisany" for 2009 at least. Some one messed up, either on policy, or politics, or both.

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum:

The plain, boring fact is that Obama, like all presidents, is constrained by circumstances and by Congress, and he just hasn't had the Congress to do much more than he's done. FDR and LBJ won landslide victories and enjoyed enormous congressional majorities. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Obama won solid victories and had sizeable congressional majorities (though only in the Senate for Reagan). That's who he should be compared to, and on that score he shapes up pretty well: clearly better than Carter and Clinton and quite possibly the equal of Reagan.

I take this to mean that Drum thinks Obama's "achievements" in the first two years (funny how they are the "President's achievements" when you want to give him credit, and it is the "Congress' fault" when you want to let the President off the hook) are as "transformative" as Reagan's and more transformative than Clinton and Carter's. A matter of opinion I suppose, but I am curious why Reagan's "achievements" are rated higher than Clinton's by Drum? Reagan's big achievement was cutting taxes for the rich and corporations. Clinton's big achievement was raising taxes on the rich and corporations and cutting them for the working poor. How is one "achievement" more transformative than the other?

Speaking for me only

Think Progress:

When Roll Call asked Tom Ganley, a Republican running for a House seat from Ohio, for his thoughts on the matter, Ganley proclaimed that he doesn’t “have a position on whether he’s a Muslim.” Ganley quickly tried to walk back his comments, but only barely:

“During an interview earlier today, I was asked a question about President Obama’s religion that I felt irrelevant to the story being written about my campaign for Congress,” he said. “I do not believe President Obama’s religion has any impact on the need for jobs in Ohio’s 13th district. According to the White House, our President is a Christian and I have no reason to believe otherwise.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Again, we all see the game the GOP is playing here, but isn't it true that President Obama's denomination SHOULD BE irrelevant? Why isn't it? I refer you to my previous post on the subject.

Speaking for me only

Joe Sestak is not the ideal candidate for the Dems in the Pennsylvania Senate race (I still believe Specter had the better shot), and Sestak is trailing, but his political team is doing a heck of a job I think. Chris Bowers trots out the new Sestak line on his GOP opponent Pat Toomey:

Think Progress makes a useful catch about Social Security, and all Democrats running for federal office should take notice. Even Pat Toomey, who ran the Club for Growth, is too afraid to say in public that he wants to turn over Social Security to Wall Street[.]

There is blood in the water on Social Security privatizing for Republicans. It would be wise for Pat Toomey’s opponent, Admiral Joe Sestak, to sniff it out. It would be just as smart for every Democrat in the country running for federal office to do the same. Publicly oppose all cuts, and start attacking Republicans for wanting to hand over Social Security to Wall Street. Doing so could really help Democratic candidates in an otherwise difficult electoral environment, not to mention possibly save Social Security itself.

(Emphasis supplied.) I especially like the Admiral Sestak touch. The only thing Chris missed was the Sestak's campaign usage for Toomey - they call him Congressman Toomey (Toomey is a former congressman.) Again, Sestak is probably going to lose, but not because his political shop is not doing its job.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias writes:

Th[e] decline in private health insurance coverage has, however, been entirely offset by an increase in the number of working age people on Medicaid, which stood at 13 percent in 2008. Among the under-18 set, private insurance is even rarer and public coverage even more common, since children are both poorer-than-average and politically easier to cover. In terms of causation, my understanding is that this is a blend of Medicaid “crowding out” private coverage and Medicaid filling a gap in private insurance’s affordability. The Affordable Care Act is going to continue this trend by substantially expanding Medicaid coverage.

Rising unemployment and reduction in employment benefits likely explains the decline in private health insurance and the attendant rise in Medicaid coverage. I am an advocate for public insurance programs over the market based regulatory model of ObamaCare, but I hope we don;t get the increase in public insurance participation at the cost of people's jobs. But, you never know, the Exchanges might not even be an issue come 2014 the way things are going in the economy.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein on midterm elections in the first term of a Presidency:

The pattern here is obvious: Losses, and big ones. Except for FDR's first midterm and George W. Bush's post-9/11 victory, there've been no gains at all.

(Emphasis supplied.) A commenter responds:

But the relevant comparison is FDR.

This isn't just a "slump." And he had a *massive* mandate to address it, huge majorities, huge public trust. 70 million voted for hope and change. Millions of us are having our hearts broken or watching those we love have their hearts broken by this economy. If we had any reason to think it would be much better in 5 years, maybe you'd have a point. But we don't.

Yep.

Speaking for me only

Greg Sargent wrote:

I totally agree that the political impact [of the "Ground Zero Mosque" debate] is overstated -- which is why Dems should stop running away from the project. But it's not impossible that this controversy could have a substantive effect: It could end up forcing the center to move. [. . .] What's more, this is about insisting that Dems show spine at politically difficult moments. It's an important story on many levels.

(Emphasis supplied.) That's simply not true. The "debate" can not force a move of the Cordoba Center. Does anyone believe in the Constitution anymore? As for Dems showing spine, I am for Dems showing spine on issues they have INFLUENCE over - like the health bill, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gay rights, immigration, and, oh yes, THE ECONOMY.

No politician has any effect on the right of the Corodoba Center to be built. Nothing any pol has said, or any person has said, effects that. That was sort of the point of what President Obama said last Friday. Which is why he did not need to say it.

Speaking for me only

I've spent a week saying this, but Josh Marshall seems to finally get it:

Delicious new Fox News controversy:

Confronted with the Port Authority's verdict, Father Mark Arey, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, said it's the first he's heard that. "Negotiations did break off last year. We were expecting to hear from their lawyers -- we never did. We're still expecting to hear from them," he told Fox News. "We're disappointed. ... 130 Liberty Street was promised to us."

[. . . ] The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild the church -- in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath. Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended -- apparently for good, according to the Port Authority.

[. . .] The Port Authority has previously claimed the church was making additional demands -- like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes. [. . .] "The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building," a spokesperson with the Port Authority told Fox News.

See? They let them build a mosque but not a Christian church! Sharia Law! The Terrorists Win! Except for the fact that the Cordoba Center is not asking for any money from anyone and wants to build on the site they own. And that the Christian Church can do exactly the same thing. More . .

Harold Meyerson writes:

Not to be difficult, mind you, but what is it that the Democrats see themselves running on in the next 75 days -- or, for that matter, the next two years? Health-care reform? Since many of its benefits don't kick in until 2014, it exists in the minds of millions of Americans chiefly as a nebulous threat.

Jacob Hacker writes:

Sen. Tom Harkin put the point well when he described the health bill as a "starter home." What Harkin neglected to mention is that the home isn't built yet, and the construction zone is in the path of a hurricane -- the fast-approaching storm of runaway health costs and hard-core conservative opposition. In the face of these challenges, reformers have three great priorities: implementing the law, protecting and defending it from the already-mounting attacks, and renovating and improving Harkin's "starter home" to make it a sustainable structure. The next health-care battle will require organization, narrative, and strategy at least as much as the last did. And this time, reformers will need to call plainly for a greater government role -- armed, if they take their three big tests seriously, with concrete examples of government getting things right.

Atrios comments: