THE SPINE DECEMBER 7, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Scott Brown, whose election this past January to the the U.S. Senate seat of Ted Kennedy, began the Democratic tsunami in American politics. It continued during the November balloting in local and congressional elections and in gubernatorial and legislative races. Sorry to say, everything bode ill for the Democrats. Which is is say that the news for the Republicans was all good...except for the fact that Democrats won big and Republicans lost big in both California and New York.
Actually, even in Senator Brown's state of Massachusetts, the Republicans lost everything in the November election, including the kitchen sink. Deval Patrick, the the Democrat incumbent governor running despairingly for a while for re-election, won quite handsomely. Every congressional seat went Democratic (including the 10th congressional district on Cape Cod, which plausibly was going the other way for a while.) For a few days, there was even some shock and awe that Barney Frank, the smartest and funniest person in the Congress, might lose. And, mirabili dictu, Martha Oakley, a real bore and a real hack, won re-election as state attorney-general by a staggering 27% although she lost ignominiously to Brown in the senatorial bi-election.
So what was thought to be the dawn of the Tea Party revolution in the state that fathered both versions of it over two centuries simply petered out. And the truth is that Scott Brown is no reactionary. Moreover, he has more wit and much more charm than his dreary opponent.
I knew from the beginning that the Democrats who'd begun to imagine Brown as some neanderthal were repeating the same mistake they made when they launched a hysterical campaign against George H.W. Bush's nomination of David Souter to the Supreme Court. I suppose you might say to me "Q.E.D.," and you'd be roughly right. But Brown does know what state he hopes to represent ad infinitum or until his party's national convention designates him as its vice presidential nominee.
He's no dummy, as I've written a few times. And he is not for "Don't ask, don't tell." You can't win if you are. But in the end he may have gotten a twofer. He (and his Republican colleagues) got from the president the administration's commitment to leave the reactionary and oh, so latitudinarian revenue tables--that is, very low tax rates on very high incomes--as they were when George II was president. Some "progressives" are threatening a revolt against Obama's renomination as a consequence of his betrayal. (I suggest Newark mayor Cory A. Booker as his opponent.)
Anyway, Brown has won his wager on low, low taxes And he will now be able to vote against John McCain, his party's last presidential nominee, who now reveals his true self as a homophobe...along with a smattering of the top brass in the military.
Now, it's true that Obama hasn't been at all brave on this issue either, leaving the hard political work in the Congress to Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, and Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Brown is far ahead of the president on this one.
40 comments
I am of two minds about this taxt deal. On the one hand I wanted the Democrats to sent up to the Republicans and not agree to an extension of the taxcuts to people making more than say half a million a year. On the other hand, I wouldn't wish to see unemployed people be cut off from unemployment insurance. Obama did what he had to do given the number of Republicans in Congress. Still, it feels to me as if he caved in a little too early.
- jdyer
December 7, 2010 at 9:35pm
"Now, it's true that Obama hasn't been at all brave on this issue either, leaving the hard political work in the Congress to Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, and Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Brown is far ahead of the president on this one." Maybe, maybe not. But nothing is as bad as the UN on the issues of gays (as well as Jews): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thor-halvorssen/united-nations-its-okay-t_b_787024.html "United Nations: It's Okay to Kill the Gay" Can this organization sink any lower? One wonders how Icarus (who has two strikes against him---as a gay man and as a Jew ) can stand working for this this hate filled club? Must be why he gets so angry at Peretz. He uses him as a scapegoat.
- jdyer
December 7, 2010 at 10:12pm
Jackson, I skimmed through your link. It shocks me, though it shouldn't, that each country's vote is weighted the same. Why should the Bahamas count just as much as, say Germany? One can dream, can't one?
- MOLLYSIMON
December 7, 2010 at 11:19pm
"Why should the Bahamas count just as much as, say Germany? One can dream, can't one?" I think the UN is broken and is beyond repair; the General Assembly, and its various committees, while powerless to enforce decrees, does legitimate bigotry by passing these resolutions.
- jdyer
December 7, 2010 at 11:29pm
The Democrats should have dealt with the irresponsible Bush43 tax cuts in 2009, perhaps tied in with the Stimulus, and before health insurance reform. The deal is not yet done. Lots of herding cats on both sides...both Bernie Sanders and Jim DeMint are threatening filibusters, for different reasons. I confess the single biggest surprise of the press conferences today was seeing John Thune (R, SD) tower over everyone. 6'4", but he looked like a giant next to McConnell, Kyl, Alexander, and Barrasso. Cory Booker challenging Obama? What is Peretz smoking tonight? Republicans did not lose as big in New York as they did in California. They just regained their slender majority in the NY State Senate, ending the one-party 'whatever' of the last two years. And regained six of the congressional seats lost in 2006 and 2008, with NY1 still undecided, and three more (NY4, 22, and 23) where incumbent Democrats were forced to call in Bill Clinton and seriously campaign - ripe targets for 2012 if the NY GOP can end it's dysfunction. What if Greg Edwards challenges Kirsten Gillibrand for the U.S. Senate in 2012? What if Steve Levy decides to challenge Steve Israel in NY2? Scott Brown has the rare opportunity to remind his caucus they have to be responsible and responsive in the next two years (someone has to!). Deval Patrick would not have won re-election so easily against a less tainted GOP Baker less 3rd party Cahill.
- K2K
December 8, 2010 at 12:49am
"One wonders how Icarus (who has two strikes against him---as a gay man and as a Jew ) can stand working for this this hate filled club?" icarus is not a Jew, as he clarified a few times here. He once spoke of Jewish cousins. I have Muslim cousins. That doesn't make me a Muslim.
- noga1
December 8, 2010 at 7:27am
Problem at the UN is the OIC, Organization of Islamic Countries. There are 57 of them! They not only want to kill gays, they want to ban blasphemy. Need I say more?
- amidut
December 8, 2010 at 7:46am
"they want to ban blasphemy." They have a very low standard for what counts as "blasphemy". And they don't accept that "blasphemy" can only apply to adherents of the religion that is being blasphemed. Apparently, all religions and non-religions are covered by their rule of "blasphemy".
- noga1
December 8, 2010 at 8:23am
"legitimate bigotry"--I like.
- MOLLYSIMON
December 8, 2010 at 11:09am
You mean republican tsunami, right?
- miceelf
December 8, 2010 at 11:43am
amidut "Problem at the UN is the OIC, Organization of Islamic Countries. There are 57 of them! They not only want to kill gays, they want to ban blasphemy. Need I say more?" Yes, that and the fact that every scummy tyrannical dictatorship, such as Chevez, has allied itself with them while democratic countries look the other way, makes the problem much worse. Is there a country at the UN that has stood up to them?
- jdyer
December 8, 2010 at 11:53am
hopefully repeal of dadt, the dream act, and start all pass during the recess congress. Lets face it long term these three things will do more for Progressives since the last thing Obama and the Democratic congress has done (like health care reform, school loan reform, financial reform, etc.) Without Obama "caving" on this, none of this would happen. And if DADT is repealed, how long until the military recognizes domestic partners of gays? And when that happens how long can society hold out against gay marriage? Look, eventually the profligacy of the Bush years will have to be repaid, Congress can only get the money two ways, take it from the Middle class or take it from the rich. I can't wait for the Republicans to claim how we have to take it from the middle class.
- blackton
December 8, 2010 at 4:40pm
blackton: the Pelosi/Reid Dems should not be attaching repeal of DADT to the DoDef appropriations bill. It should be a standalone vote. Pelosi has used this trick many times - today I watched some of the House debate over why the Food Safety Act should be a standalone vote instead of attached to the Continuing Resolution to fund part of the government (another Dem tactic instead of passing an actual budget). Seems the Senate took more than a year to vote on FSA, with many changes, and it is no longer what a genuine bipartisan effort and vote in the House had sent to the Senate in June 2009. NFW is Obama's grand bargain with the GOP going to survive these procedural tricks.
- K2K
December 8, 2010 at 9:31pm
So K2K: are you against DADT or against Pelosi's tactics. Me, I don't care how they repeal DADT, just as long as it's repealed.
- MOLLYSIMON
December 8, 2010 at 9:45pm
This is surprising: “Most Americans Say They're Worse Off Under Obama: Poll” “More than 50 percent of Americans say they are worse off now than they were two years ago when President Barack Obama took office, and two-thirds believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. The survey, conducted Dec. 4-7, finds that 51 percent of respondents think their situation has deteriorated, compared with 35 percent who say they’re doing better. The balance isn’t sure. Americans have grown more downbeat about the country’s future in just the last couple of months, the poll shows. The pessimism cuts across political parties and age groups, and is common to both sexes.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/most-americans-say-they-re-worse-off-under-obama-poll-shows.html
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 7:12am
Why does that surprise you, jdyer?
- AaronW
December 9, 2010 at 7:28am
Didn't the economy start going South under Bush? Isn't that why people voted for Obama? And didn't the Republicans obstruct the efforts at recovery?
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 9:32am
"And didn't the Republicans obstruct the efforts at recovery? Didn't the economy start going South under Bush? Isn't that why people voted for Obama? And didn't the Republicans obstruct the efforts at recovery?" By now, it's the height of hackitude to say, "It's the economy, stupid." (Though "stupid" I would never call you.) But it's (probably) the economy. I don't think it's a huge mystery. People were naive if they thought he could get the economy up in two years. The mess he inherited was way to big for a quick recovery. Though many say his recovery act prevented a depression.
- MOLLYSIMON
December 9, 2010 at 12:00pm
MOLLYSIMON: "So K2K: are you against DADT or against Pelosi's tactics." I have zero opinion on DADT - perhaps an issue the military should figure out and then ask Congress for the enabling legislation? I usually oppose the tactic of forcing a contorted vote by inserting anything that deserves a standalone vote into an appropriations bill, an especially political tactic for a lame duck congress that failed to pass a real budget for FY 2011. The dilemma of a jobless recovery should have been apparent by January 20, 2009. Something like 75% of jobs created 2000-2007 were related to the housing bubble, from construction to finance. Those jobs are not coming back while the housing collapse is still unfolding. Before anyone falsely accuses me of homophobia, I generally believe sexual preference is a private matter. Alas, when I was gerrymandering for Paterson, the mapping computer was in the same office with his 'gay rights advocate', whose very loud phone calls revealed the ugly side of blackmail-politics. All about threats, nothing about equal rights. Forgive my cynicism :)
- K2K
December 9, 2010 at 12:47pm
MOLLYSIMON “By now, it's the height of hackitude to say, "It's the economy, stupid." Why so? Most people are still concerned with their economic well being. The biggest problem I had with the poll was the conclusion they drew from some of the data. From the link above: “The negative sentiment may cast a pall over the holiday shopping season, according to the poll. A plurality of those surveyed -- 46 percent -- expects to spend less this year than last; only 12 percent anticipate spending more. Holiday sales rose by just under a half percent last year after falling by almost 4 percent in 2008. “ This is at odds with recent data on jobs and consumer spending: “Consumers will be “a significant contributor to the growth outlook,” Greenlaw, the most accurate forecaster of household spending over the past two years according to data compiled by Bloomberg, said in an interview. More jobs “mean we will see incomes grow by about 2.5 percent. You’ll get gains very similar to that on the spending side.”” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/greenlaw-as-top-spending-forecaster-sees-u-s-consumer-pickup.html I would also like to see how the poll questions were framed.
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 1:10pm
Jack, I made a few, brief general comments on Grossman's book where you set up the link.
- basman
December 9, 2010 at 3:02pm
ok, I'll take a look, Itzik.
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 3:23pm
"Didn't the economy start going South under Bush? Isn't that why people voted for Obama? And didn't the Republicans obstruct the efforts at recovery?" Here is your answer: http://www.slate.com/id/2277303/
- icarusr
December 9, 2010 at 4:45pm
The article was too cynical.
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 5:19pm
"too"? With poll results like this: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/nov10/ForeignAid_Nov10_quaire.pdf is it possible to be "too cynical"?
- icarusr
December 9, 2010 at 5:27pm
I said the article was cynical because Lowrey's conclusion: "Taking the long view, the polled American remains worried. She believes China has the world's strongest economy now. But despite her fears, the polled American remains characteristically sunny. Things are bad now, she says. But she believes the American Dream exists. She thinks she might even be living it. One way or another, she definitely thinks it is possible, with hard work more so than luck. Just don't ask her how to do it." that an "average" American would know how to fix the economy when professional economists are still arguing about how to do so. How would Lowrey fix the economy if axed?
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 6:12pm
"With poll results like this: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/nov10/ForeignAid_Nov10_quaire... is it possible to be "too cynical"?" Come on, Icarus, do you think people in other countries would do that much better? “What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the federal budget to go to foreign aid, if any? Mean.....................................................................13% Median...................................................................10 Of course the numbers given to the question were way too high; the real numbers are far less than that (between 2 and 5 percent depending on how one computes it.) However, that the average respondent thought that 13 percent of the federal budget ought to go to foreign aid is impressive. Of course, it’s possible that the average respondent didn’t know what 10 percent of the federal budget was.
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 6:13pm
"Of course, it’s possible that the average respondent didn’t know what 10 percent of the federal budget was." I think there is something in that. "that an "average" American would know how to fix the economy when professional economists are still arguing about how to do so." I don't think he meant it as cynically as it all sounds. The challenge in the US is not so much the average Joe's ignorance of the amount of foreign aid, or any other item in the article, but the elevation of average Joe, and his ignorance, to the level of a mythical and oracular guide to policy making by certain enablers of populism in the US media and the even more cynical ruling elites of the Republican Party. Joe the Plumber does not have the answer and one ought not expect one from him; there may well be no answer, but the article notes that at a minimum, Joe the Plumber does not have the big enough picture in his head to be expected to provide a simple solution to our economic woes. This may sound "elitist", and it probably is; it might even be cynical; it is not, however, an incorrect observation. And, of course, I posted the article in response to your question: why is it that the People do not identify the correct source of the problem? Well, they do not because they do not know, and they do not seek to know, and they do not want to know. Not much point in lamenting it - but the fact must at least be recognised.
- icarusr
December 9, 2010 at 6:40pm
icarusr “I don't think he meant it as cynically as it all sounds. The challenge in the US is not so much the average Joe's ignorance of the amount of foreign aid, or any other item in the article, but the elevation of average Joe, and his ignorance, to the level of a mythical and oracular guide to policy making by certain enablers of populism in the US media and the even more cynical ruling elites of the Republican Party. Joe the Plumber does not have the answer and one ought not expect one from him; there may well be no answer, but the article notes that at a minimum, Joe the Plumber does not have the big enough picture in his head to be expected to provide a simple solution to our economic woes. This may sound "elitist", and it probably is; it might even be cynical; it is not, however, an incorrect observation.” I believe the Slate article’s author is a woman. (There was no author’s name give on the “world’s public opinion” polls post.) In any case, you are pointing to a complex phenomenon. IT used to be left and the Democratic Party that spoke to and for the “average man.” Roosevelt came from an “aristocratic family,” yet “the people” listened to him. Ditto John Kennedy. It was sometime in the late 60’s and 70’s that Democrats gave up on the average Joe and started talking about creating coalitions with Blacks other minorities, women, and ‘young people.” They alienated the Joes and Janes and the Conservative moved into the vacuum and started to court the “average voter.” Of course it was cynical, but the question is why they succeeded in alienating these voters that they started voting against their best interests. I don’t believe that Republican propaganda by itself was the reason. I have my hunches, but this is not the place to write about it.
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 9:10pm
Looks like "Don't Ask Don't Tell" failed in the Senate. "Senate delivers potentially fatal blow to 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal efforts" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120906555.html "Two key supporters - Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) - said they plan to introduce a separate piece of legislation, but with time winding down on the congressional calendar and a more conservative tilt coming to Capitol Hill next year, passage seems unlikely. Obama, who spent time in recent days phoning lawmakers about the ban, urged senators to reconsider the defense bill before the end of the lame-duck session. "Despite having the bipartisan support of a clear majority of senators, a minority of senators are standing in the way of the funding upon which our troops, veterans and military families depend," the president said in a statement. "This annual bill has been enacted each of the past 48 years, and our armed forces deserve nothing less this year.""
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 10:30pm
Ron Paul's choice to oversee the Central Bank is a big mistake: "Fed critic to take reins of House oversight panel" By Mark Felsenthal "WASHINGTON, Dec 9 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday picked Ron Paul, an inveterate critic of the Federal Reserve, to head a panel that oversees the central bank, paving the way for challenges to the Fed's authority and secrecy." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0925748020101209
- jdyer
December 9, 2010 at 10:39pm
"This annual bill has been enacted each of the past 48 years, and our armed forces deserve nothing less this year."" This is depressing. I guess the politicians against will be long dead when this reaches the status of, "I can't believe people were once like that."
- MOLLYSIMON
December 10, 2010 at 12:05am
"This annual bill has been enacted each of the past 48 years, and our armed forces deserve nothing less this year."" refers to the annual DoDefense appropriation funding bill. Inserting DADT into an annual appropriations bill did not work. DADT should have been a standalone bill. I would think DoD would want it standalone. Ron Paul wants to delete the Fed. Way beyond "inveterate critic". Very dangerous to politicize the Fed. Central banks have to be independent, as far away from politicians as possible.
- K2K
December 10, 2010 at 6:37pm
"Very dangerous to politicize the Fed. Central banks have to be independent, as far away from politicians as possible." Absolutely.
- jdyer
December 10, 2010 at 6:43pm
Wrong as usual.
- mlottman
December 11, 2010 at 12:55am
have emergency rooms been flooded by liberals in shock after seeing Bill Clinton take over a WH press conference from Obama? just asking as even I am not sure what happened with that, except maybe Bill is now de facto and de jure leader of the Democratic Party, or the new WH press secretary...
- K2K
December 11, 2010 at 11:31am
"Very dangerous to politicize the Fed. Central banks have to be independent, as far away from politicians as possible." Yes, Greenspan played his part in this mess. I remember Krugman did a column. Why, K, should DADT been a stand-alone bill? If that's the easiest way to get it repealed, I see no harm. The law is an affront to American values. It is despicable. And such compromises are hardly rare. So it seems to me that you're either against the repeal. Which is it, K?
- MOLLYSIMON
December 11, 2010 at 10:20pm
Should have read: It seems to me you're either for or against appeal. Which is it for you, K?
- MOLLYSIMON
December 12, 2010 at 1:06pm
"Why, K, should DADT been a stand-alone bill?" It could be added (or should have been if it already passed) to the defense appropriations bill since it concerns issues dealing with the military.
- jdyer
December 12, 2010 at 8:46pm
Not long ago Marty had a post on Said and his view of art that had the orient as its subject. Here is another article on the same issue which has a similar view: “Orientalism after Edward Said” by Jackie Wullschlager http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d3ee6122-0316-11e0-80eb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz17v8l09Tv
- jdyer
December 12, 2010 at 8:49pm