By now, we are all familiar with the almost certainly apocryphal story about FDR -- ""I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." And indeed, President Obama himself said "hold me accountable" just a few weeks ago in a video to Netroots Nation.

Obviously, Robert Gibbs disagrees with this approach. Matt Yglesias writes:

[W]e’re seeing a serious confusion here on the role of political activists in the system. [. . . I]t’s not the job of activists to be “satisfied” with compromises premised on the current boundaries of political feasibility.

Whatever your view of how the Obama Administration and Dems have performed, it seems to me that Yglesias' point is inarguable - surely it is not the role of activists to be satisfied with half loaves or crumbs. The role of the activist is, in the words of Frederick Douglass, to "agitate, agitate, agitate." On this issue, I think the wisdom of Frederick Douglass exceeds that of Robert Gibbs.

Speaking for me only

Via blackwaterdog at daily kos, President Obama said:

"We have spent the last 20 months governing. They spent the last 20 months politicking. Now we've got three months to go, and so we've decided, well, we can politick for three months. They’ve forgotten I know how to politick pretty good."

I have a couple of reactions to this. First, there is no doubt that President Obama is a terrific politician when it comes to gathering votes for himself. And when he is on the ballot, that also becomes "politicking" for Dems, because President Obama on the ballot brings out irregular voters who lean Democratic (this is a perennial problem for Dems.) But President Obama is not on the ballot, and whatever you think of his 20 months of governing (my review is mixed) it is not unvarnished win politically.

The second thought I had was the President should never have said what he said. One of the President's strengths has been that he is viewed as being less of a politician than most.The whole PPUS. I never cared for it, in governing or politics, but President Obama took that road. Why toss it out now overtly? In other words, the President could have done the 3 months of politicking without announcing he was doing that. I suppose some will argue this will energize the base. Perhaps. But I think the actual politicking would do that. This seems part of the bad Dem habit of discussing the politics of issues, instead of just doing the politics.

One final thought - at least the President seems to understand that he will not escape responsibility for the election results this November. For a while, there seemed to be the attitude in the White House that the 2010 elections had nothing to do with them. Good to see that silliness has gone away.

Speaking for me only

Via digby:

Digby says that AZ SB 1070 is basically in effect. Not really. From the federal court decision (PDF):

Via Markos and Glenn Greenwald, The Not So Tolerant Museum of Tolerance:

The new Museum of Tolerance New York opened in the heart of Manhattan this week, citing an ambitious mission to help enlighten city residents and tourists on issues of discrimination, prejudice and social inequality. But the museum's financial backer, the Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles, says it cannot tolerate the planned location near Ground Zero for a mosque and Islamic community center.

I'm sorry, but that's kind of funny. It's wrong of course, but also funny. Not so funny:

In Jerusalem, Israel—where the Wiesenthal Center plans to open its next Museum of Tolerance—construction of the proposed tolerance museum has “resulted in digging up the remains of people who had been buried in a Muslim cemetery for generations,” M[arnia] Lazreg[, a professor at City University of New York Hunter College] said. “I am not sure that I would have chosen a site close to Ground Zero for building a mosque and cultural center, although there is no law against doing so,” she said. “But we have to be fair …. The mosque-center promoters have not engaged in acts of physical desecration of the victims of 9/11 attacks.”

That's DIFFERENT the "tolerant" folks would say no doubt. The differences of course, are all too obvious. Nice kickoff for the "Tolerance" Museum.

Speaking for me only

This would be a great move:

Main Street may be about to get its own gigantic bailout. Rumors are running wild from Washington to Wall Street that the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth. An estimated 15 million U.S. mortgages – one in five – are underwater with negative equity of some $800 billion. Recall that on Christmas Eve 2009, the Treasury Department waived a $400 billion limit on financial assistance to Fannie and Freddie, pledging unlimited help. The actual vehicle for the bailout could be the Bush-era Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, a sister program to Obama’s loan modification effort. HARP was just extended through June 30, 2011.

The move, if it happens, would be a stunning political and economic bombshell less than 100 days before a midterm election in which Democrats are currently expected to suffer massive, if not historic losses. The key date to watch is August 17 when the Treasury Department holds a much-hyped meeting on the future of Fannie and Freddie.

Good policy and good politics. Let's hope this happens and the GOP whines about the government helping middle class homeowners while insisting on tax cuts for the rich.

Speaking for me only

TPM, February 2009:

A Win is a Win

Longtime reader commenting on the stimulus deal:

Like everyone else, I'm waiting for the details. But from what I've heard so far, this seems to be a remarkable triumph for the new president. A month ago, Obama economists Romer and Bernstein released job-creation projections that "assumed a package just slightly over the $775 billion currently under discussion." Lo and behold, the final bill comes in at $789 billion. It reportedly includes Obama's proposed tax cuts, comprising almost exactly the same proportion of the overall package. For the past month, media attention has focused on all the changes to the package, and on the controversies it has engendered. Obama has been criticized for failing to forge a bipartisan consensus, for not safeguarding his priorities, and for not taking a sufficiently aggressive role in the negotiations on the Hill. So it's worth stepping back to take note of the fact that the final package looks remarkably like what Obama has wanted all along. In fact, it's closer to that original proposal than to either the House or Senate versions of the bill. Remarkable.

FTR, TalkLeft in February 2009. Now, Josh Marshall today:

In answer to Ezra Klein's (and the media in general's) strange fawning over GOP representative Paul Ryan, Paul Krugman takes him apart:

[Ryan]’s often described with phrases like “intellectually audacious.” But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.

[. . .] The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center['s analysis] indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion. [. . . T] Roadmap wouldn’t reduce the deficit. All it would do is cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich.

[. . .] The Tax Policy Center finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan’s total tax cuts. That’s not a misprint. Even as it slashed taxes at the top, the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population.

[. . .] After 2020, the main alleged saving would come from sharp cuts in Medicare, achieved by dismantling Medicare as we know it, and instead giving seniors vouchers and telling them to buy their own insurance. Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s the same plan Newt Gingrich tried to sell in 1995.

(Emphasis supplied.) The new Newt Gingrich is the new "thinker" for the GOP.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias:

[T]he message seems to be—calm down. Be more patient. Be less critical. [. . .] I [. . .] disagree with that. The recession has already been a long one. If it takes us three more years to achieve full employment, that will be a long time. If it takes us six more years, that will also be a long time. But in terms of actual human beings’ lives, it makes a great deal of difference which one happens. So given that “it’s not that governments are powerless” it’s important to focus attention on the need to use those powers.

(Emphasis supplied.) Hear! Hear! Reminds me of this:

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.

Speaking for me only

See my previous posts here and here. Two post on the subject caught my eye this morning. First, David Waldman takes apart Senator Chris Dodd's rather ludicrous defense of the filibuster. As David points out, the constitutional structure of the Senate is not to obstruct legislation, but rather it was to protect smaller states from the dominance of the larger states. See, ironically considering Dodd is the Senator from Connecticut, the Connecticut Compromise.

Dodd has a better point when he says "people who haven't been here in the minority [. . .] don't understand how the rules, if intelligently used, can help protect against the tyranny of the majority and cause things to slow down[.] Now that is bad for small-d democracy, but as I have argued before, not necessarily bad for Democratic policies. Which brings me to the second post I want to highlight - Matt Yglesias' point that extreme conservatives and libertarians are also stymied by the filibuster. Matt writes:

TPM:

[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid (D-NV) quoted extensively from a column written by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson on Friday. Reid read this portion from the podium of his press conference:

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States" for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice.

They purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship -- birth -- that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don't have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.

Then Reid said of Republicans pushing the issue, "They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles."

Well played Mr. Leader.

Speaking for me only

Last week I wrote about the factually inaccurate assumption underlying Chris Bowers questioning of Dem opposition to the GOP's 2005 Nuclear Option.

My first point was that Bowers was just wrong on his facts. And now no one, not even Chris himself, disputes that.

The second point argued is that the filibuster is more harmful to progressive policy than to "conservative" policy. See Scott Lemieux and Kevin Drum. I think that is largely wrong. For the past 30 years, the essential progressive fight has been the preservation of progressive policy achievement. The filibuster has been very useful in this fight. But I think there is a larger point being missed (that actually cuts both ways in this discussion.) Kevin Drum writes:

The Multnomah County Oregon District Attorney's office says no charges will be filed against Al Gore as a result of the allegations of the masseuse who filed a complaint against him.

"Ms. Hagerty’s detailed statement however, is insufficient to support a criminal charge given other contradictory evidence, conflicting witness statements, credibility issues, lack of forensic evidence and denials by Mr. Gore."

Here's the DA's memo. The deficiencies in the case: [More...]