I usually do not write much about the Tea Party "movement" because, well, it is stupid, ignorant, and in my view, not particularly relevant. But digby pulls a Tea Partier quote from a Greenberg report on the Tea Partiers that is stunning in its "up is downism" --

We don’t need any fresh ideas. It is fresh ideas that have gotten into this mess. All the ideas we need can be found in an 8 page document, it’s the Constitution; if you need to go beyond that just look at the Federalist papers. We don’t need any fresh ideas.

The ignorance of how the Constitutional Convention came to be, what it did and what the Federalist Papers and the Founding Fathers achieved is truly amazing. The real heroes of the Tea Partiers from the Founding Era should be the anti-Federalists, not the Federalists, who argued for the views now espoused by the Tea Partiers. The Tea Partiers should abhor the Federalist Papers, and, especially, one of its principal authors, Alexander Hamilton. Consider Hamilton's famous defense of the First Bank of the United States:

Paul Krugman writes about the topic de jour - why are Obama and Dems in political trouble? The answer is, as Krugman notes, as it always is, the economy. But Krugman repeats a point that has been made by him, by Matt Yglesias, by me and many others, that the best politics is good governance. And here is where Obama and the Democrats failed in the first hundred days of the Obama Administration - their policies were inadequate to the problem. Krugman explains:

The best way for Mr. Obama to have avoided an electoral setback this fall would have been enacting a stimulus that matched the scale of the economic crisis. Obviously, he didn’t do that. Maybe he couldn’t have passed an adequate-sized plan, but the fact is that he didn’t even try. True, senior economic officials reportedly downplayed the need for a really big effort, in effect overruling their staff; but it’s also clear that political advisers believed that a smaller package would get more friendly headlines, and that the administration would look better if it won its first big Congressional test.

In short, it looks as if the administration itself was taken in by the pundit delusion, focusing on how its policies would play in the news rather than on their actual impact on the economy.

The seeds of the Democrats' political problems next November were sown by their timid action in the first hundred days of the Obama Administration. The price will be high - probably the loss of the Congress. It may have been different if bolder economic policies had been enacted. The election day poll, the one that matters, would have been better for Dems.

Speaking for me only

WaPo:

House Democrats are lashing out at the White House, venting long-suppressed anger over what they see as President Obama's lukewarm efforts to help them win reelection -- and accusing administration officials of undermining the party's chances of retaining the majority in November's midterm elections.

The White House in turn, seems ready to blame "liberal bloggers".

The message to take from all this is that the Dems are going to get their clocks cleaned in November. The fight to avoid the blame appears to be the big story of the moment.

Speaking for me only

Attorney General Eric Holder was at the Aspen Ideas Festival this week, where he was interviewed by CBS's Bob Schieffer for a segment of CBS Face the Nation that aired today.

There's not much new in his interviews. Basically, he said that the Arizona lawsuit is based on the pre-emption argument -- that the state law violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The racial profiling argument was weaker because there's no evidence of it yet. He said down the road, should evidence develop that the law is resulting in racial profiling, the Government will have the tools to make the challenge. [More...]

The Portland Police Bureau has announced:

The Portland Police Bureau has made the decision to re-open the case regarding the allegations brought forward against Mr. Al Gore. Consistent with our policy regarding open investigations, the Police Bureau will not be commenting on any additional specifics regarding this case at this time.

Earlier today, I predicted no one would want to hear more from the accuser, who has now come forward, identified herself and said she's willing to file a police report.

No reason has been given for the Portland police department's decision. It could just mean they will hear her out, and then make the same decision: No probable cause a crime was committed by Gore. Or, maybe they will let her make a statement and then charge her with false reporting. Or, maybe they will decide there is a prosecutable case. Seems doubtful to me. [More...]

It always amazes me that people care what politicians "really" want. Kevin Drum writes:

I never expected to like everything [Obama] did. The reason I'm schizophrenic [about Obama] is that it's almost impossible to get a handle on what he really wants. Did he want a bigger stimulus bill but compromised down because $800 billion was all he could get? Or did he not really want more than that in the first place? Ditto for the public option. Ditto for DADT, which he had to be pushed into supporting this year. And ditto again on financial reform, which is worth passing only because of numerous amendments to the original bill. On all of these issues and more, I don't feel like I ever knew what Obama's real position was. There's a big difference between compromising because politics is what it is and you have no choice, and compromising because the more centrist position is the one you genuinely hold. But Obama never gives me a good sense of which it is with him.

(Emphasis supplied.) Actually, there is no difference between compromising because of perceived political constraints or because you prefer the compromised position. The outcome is the same. It is the insatiable desire, that I simply do not understand, to believe a politician agrees with you on policy, even if he does nothing that actually enacts the policies you prefer. [More...]

Senator Russ Feingold has refused to sign on to the FinReg conference compromise and Susan Collins has pulled the ball away yet again. Maria Cantwell, who voted against FinReg before, has not stated her position yet.

I want to take a look at Feingold's position for a moment and consider whether he is engaged in political bargaining and whether his use of the filibuster procedure is a good idea. (For background, see my previous writing on political bargaining.) Feingold said:

As I have indicated for some time now, my test for the financial regulatory reform bill is whether it will prevent another crisis. The conference committee’s proposal fails that test and for that reason I will not vote to advance it. During debate on the bill, I supported several efforts to break up ‘too big to fail’ Wall Street banks and restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression separating Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms, among other issues. Unfortunately, these crucial reforms were rejected. While there are some positive provisions in the final measure, the lack of strong reforms is clear confirmation that Wall Street lobbyists and their allies in Washington continue to wield significant influence on the process.

Is this bargaining or a position? If it is bargaining, it is late in the day for this. What does Feingold want and what would be the process for getting it in? Let's discuss this on the flip.

Sen. Byrd has passed away:

Robert C. Byrd, who used his record tenure as a United States senator to fight for the primacy of the legislative branch of government and to build a modern West Virginia with vast amounts of federal money, died at about 3 a.m. Monday, his office said. He was 92. He had been in failing health for several years.

Mr. Byrd’s death comes as Senate Democrats are working to pass the final version of the financial overhaul bill and win other procedural battles in the week before the Independence Day recess. In the polarized atmosphere of Washington, President Obama’s agenda seemed to hinge on Mr. Byrd’s health. Earlier this year, in the final days of the health care debate, the ailing senator was pushed onto the Senate floor in his plaid wheelchair so he could cast his votes.

Mr. Byrd served 51 years in the Senate, longer than anyone in American history, and with his six years in the House, he was the longest-serving member of Congress. He held a number of Senate offices, including majority and minority leader and president pro tem.

Sen. Robert Byrd was hospitalized last week, and his office says he is in now "serious condition."

Sen. Byrd is 92 and the longest-serving member of Congress.

I watched with some amusement a rehash of the Impotent President debate of last year during the health bill debate. This time it was the New Beltway (the former JournOListers) repeating their arguments in response to Glenn Greenwald's complaints about President Obama's performance regarding civil liberties. The not so new mantra emanated from Jonathan Bernstein:

The Presidency Is Weak. Really.

[Greenwald's piece [. . .] is ignorant nonsense that betrays a deep lack of understanding of how the government of the United States works. Is the idea of an "Impotent, Helpless President" a joke? No, it's basic American politics.

(Emphasis supplied.) One of Glenn's responses here. I always thought this line of defense would have a short shelf life because, honestly, calling Obama weak and impotent is not a very good political strategy for Democrats, even of the Beltway variety. And lo and behold, not a week later Obama is now FDR. In this recommended dkos diary, Rachel Maddow is toasted for finally seeing the light. And this morning, dkos' DemfromCt favorably links to this Economic Times piece:

Via DougJ, CEO of the Peter J. Peterson Foundation (Broder's favorite) pining for the return of debtors prisons:

Listening to to the elites in our country makes me pine for a return of Bastille Day - and not just because the Tour de France starts in a week.

See also Digby on the Peterson Foundation's crusade to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Speaking for me only

Update: WaPO reports the Enquirer says the woman asked for $1 million for her story, through her lawyer, but it decided not to pay her anything. Instead, it talked to her for a few minutes and relied on police reports for the rest.

****

The Enquirer strikes again. This time Al Gore is the target. The 73 page police report (available here) includes the alleged victim's 2009 statement about a massage she gave to Al Gore at a hotel in Portland Oregon in 2006. The Oregonian account is here.

The woman claims he had been drinking. There's a funny part where he asked her to go into the bedroom part of the suite and listen to Pink on his iPod singing "Dear Mr. President," a song about Bush.

She claims he "bellowed" at her when rebuffed. Alternately, he went New Age:[More...]