McClatchy:

[A] small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. [. . .] "The economy is very weak right now. Raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who isn't seeking re-election.

[. . .] Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., represents the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, one of the nation's wealthiest districts. [. . .] "Sometimes we forget how we became the majority. We did it by winning some affluent districts," he said.

Bayh, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota — have signaled that they won't back a permanent repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy. [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) the article operates from an erroneous premise - that legislation is need to sunset the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Actually, doing nothing causes that to happen. However, to give a tax cut for working Americans, new legislation is necessary. So what Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Gerald Connolly are saying is that they will OPPOSE TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS unless there are also tax cuts for the rich. Well, if that's what they want to do - OPPOSE TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, more power to them. But progressives and the President do not have to play along with them. Put it to a vote and let Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Gerald Connolly explain that they OPPOSED TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS because their rich friends did not get a tax cut too.

Speaking for me only

Yesterday I wrote about liberal handwringing over Markos' book American Taliban. Meanwhile back at the reality ranch, David Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy writes about Anne Coulter's claim that President Obama is an atheist:

Ann Coulter’s column today argues that Obama is not a Muslim; rather, he “is obviously an atheist.” [. . .] I disagree with both the facts and the conclusion. Coulter is accurate in calling Jeremiah Wright “a racist nut.” However, that does not prove that Wright (and by extension Obama, to whatever extent Obama believes in Wright’s theology) is not a Christian. Some practitioners of “liberation theology” (including the black liberation theology variant) may simply be Marxists looking for some broadly-appealing rhetoric to add to their political program.

(Emphasis supplied.) This discussion of "liberation theology" of course is the new talking point delivered by Glenn Beck. Glenn Reynolds also writes about it:

Open Thread.

Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate (and Tea Party Fave) Dan Maes admitted today his claim that he worked undercover on a gambling and drug investigation while a police officer in Liberal, KS, which led to his firing, was either technically inaccurate or false. Here's what he wrote on his website:

"At one point in my 2 years there I was place (sic) undercover by the Kansas Bureau of Investigations (sic) to gather information inside a bookmaking ring that was also allegedly selling drugs. I got too close to some significant people in the community who were involved in these activities and abruptly was dismissed from my position. I was blindsided and stunned to say the least."

Normally, this wouldn't interest me much. But, the reason he was fired has not been disclosed and his personnel records are not public. And the KS law enforcement folks insist there's no record of Maes working on a gambling or drug investigation, undercover or otherwise. Nor can any who are still there recall him doing so. Plus, the former police chief of Liberal says his department never worked on such an investigation for the KS Bureau of Investigation. [More...]

Krugman:

Why do people like me feel the need to revisit the fateful decision to go for an underpowered stimulus right at the beginning of the Obama administration? It’s not about “I told you so”, or at least not mainly. It’s about the economic narrative, which will matter long after the current players are off the scene. [. . .] So I’m trying to keep the record straight here. It may not matter for the immediate political debate, but I think it does matter for the long game.

When you fight for the issues, and not the pols, that's what you do. If you are all in for Obama, then you pretend the stimulus was a "progressive triumph."

Speaking for me only

Irony alert - Fifth Column Sully has two guest posters at his site decrying mean discourse. Patrick Appel:

Calling political opponents terrorists is so disgusting and so obviously beyond the pale it hardly requires rebutting.

Oh really? How about calling your political opponents "fifth columnists" for the terrorists? Does that make the Sully Guests' Miss Manners guide? Conor Friedersdorf:

I really don't think my standards are particularly exacting. Don't compare ideological adversaries to murderous totalitarians. Refrain from rudely interrupting emotionally troubled black women if your planned interjection is the n-word. Don't tell callers to your show that they're so annoying their spouse should put a gun to their head. (Note to skeptical Web historians: yes, those are all actual examples!)

Here's another actual example that the Sully Guests forgot -- "decadent left enclaves on the coasts [that] may well mount a fifth column [for the terrorists]." Maybe they can add that one to their Miss Manners book. Sanctimonious hypocrites.

Speaking for me only

Case in point, via Digby, Jamelle Bouie of The American Prospect bemoaning Markos' new book American Taliban:

In another chapter, Moulitsas quotes a sermon by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: "Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity." And how does Moulitsas respond to that banal statement of exclusive truth, heard weekly by millions of law-abiding, patriotic Americans? With this comically reductionist conclusion: "For DeLay, only Christianity offers a methodology for daily life, whereas for Osama bin Laden, only Islam does." Also, Hitler was a vegetarian.

(Emphasis supplied.) What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Markos' point is that theocratic tendencies found in extremist movements and regimes around the world are also a part of the Extreme Right in the United States. This is a bit more than being a vegetarian, as any C student of world history could explain to you. A C student of American history could also tell you that religious freedom was one of the cornerstone ideals of our Founding Fathers. In any event, now we know -- liberals can be just as dumb as conservatives. Digby has more.

Speaking for me only

I'm getting confused - I thought the apologist story for the inadequate economic policies of the Obama Administration was that the Obama Administration saved the economy from hitting bottom. Now Jon Chait tells us that actually Obama had the bad luck of having the bottom hit after he became President:

[A] useful lesson for liberal[s] who compare President Obama with President Roosevelt [--] The latter's political success owed an enormous debt to the fact that he took power after the economy had hit bottom and begun to rebound. Indeed, Obama's situation is more like an election that took place in 1929, leaving him to take the oath of office in early 1930, just as the bottom was falling out.

So 2010 is 1932? Remember that Hoover was in the Presidency for only a matter of months when the Stock Market crashed, starting the Great Depression. In a way, Obama was lucky that the Financial Meltdown did not take place 6 months later - he could really be on his way to being considered a Hoover. Of course, these silly Obama apologias are not to the point - which is that the Obama Administration has done an inadequate job, to say the least, on the economy. Argue if you like that the GOP obstruction is why, but you have to accept the bare facts that the stimulus of February 2009 was inadequate to the task. FDR, perhaps because he could, provided bold leadership on the economy. Obama has not, maybe for good political reasons. But he hasn't.

Speaking for me only

At daily kos, Barbara Boxer's campaign is passing the hat. I'll be giving to the Boxer campaign and I urge that you do too.

She fights for progressive issues. Progressives should fight for her.

Speaking for me only

Krugman:

What Martin Wolf Said [--] Obama was too cautious in fearful times.

The bad decisions of January 2009 will cast a shadow on America for years, and quite possibly decades, to come. At this point, what more can those of us who feared this outcome, who tried desperately to get the White House to listen, say?

Indeed, we've said it all before, but it needs to be said again -- "The best hope for a short-term economic plan that can win bipartisan support is a tax cut[.]" Oy. Tax cuts won't get it done. We need to raise aggregate demand and job creation - through government spending. As Krugman also notes - "[P]olicy makers aren’t being let down by standard macro, they’re choosing to ignore it, making up new doctrines on the fly even though the world looks very much the way the textbooks say it should. And somehow, the new doctrines always give a reason not to take action."

Speaking for me only

Open Thread.

Reading and commenting about this Scott Lemieux article about baseball managers and how much they matter (not much generally imo), I started looking for Bill James' writings on managers (specifically on Casey Stengel), and ran across this Joe Posnanski piece:

So, last night, I was doing what I often do … I was reading some old Bill James stuff in his wonderfully written but somewhat awkwardly named This Time Let’s Not Eat the Bones. The book is a collection of excerpts and essays and thoughts from the Baseball Abstracts along with several other magazine articles he wrote.[. . . A]s often happens, I came across a paragraph that set my mind racing. In this case, the paragraph is about baseball managers and the general concept that nice guys finish last[:]

“Every good manager effectively threatens his players with professional extermination if they don’t give him the best effort they are capable of giving; Casey Stengel, Billy Martin, White Herzog and Earl Weaver are masters at it, as was Durocher. These are not nice people. They are manipulative, cunning SOBs, hard and crass and they drink too much. Nice guys finish last because a nice guy is not going to coldly exploit the insecurities of his players. Nice guys finish last because a nice guy is not going to kick an old friend out of his comfortable sinecure the minute that old friend becomes a milli-second too slow on the fastball.”

[MORE . . ]

Via CelebStoner: Canada's leading magazine for marijuana reform, Skunk, has devoted its current issue to "lady legalizers." Among the features: "The Top 100 Women of Weed."

Thanks to Skunk for including me in the list. The list is pretty impressive with some names that surprised me: Arianna Huffington, Barbra Streisand, actress Kate Hudson and clothing designer Stella McCartney.

The list is heavier on activists, actresses and singers than attorneys, which makes me even more appreciative to be included. Examples: [More....]

I missed it. How'd it go?

Glenn Greenwald highlights this strange article by the NYTimes John Burns:

Hindsight is a powerful thing, and there have been plenty of voices amid the tragedy that has unfolded since the invasion to say, in effect, “I told you so.” But among that band of reporters — men and women who thought we knew something about Iraq, and for the most part sympathized with the joy Iraqis felt at what many were unashamed then to call their “liberation” — there were few, if any, who foresaw the extent of the violence that would follow or the political convulsion it would cause in Iraq, America and elsewhere. We could not know then, though if we had been wiser we might have guessed[.]

(Emphasis supplied.) Foresight is a more powerful thing than hindsight. And many, many, many people had the foresight and wisdom that people like John Burns (and more importantly, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) lacked. Of course, as my headline indicates, our current President was one of them. But so did many other people - including Speaker Pelosi, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and hundreds of other Democrats (and also Ron Paul), who voted against the Iraq Debacle.

It is a strange thing when an allegedly objective reporter sets aside the record - in this case, the Congressional Record - in defending his own myopia. John Burns blew it. So did a lot of people. But John Burns needs to stop pretending "nobody could have known" - because the record is clear - many, many, many people did know and said so and voted so at the time.

Speaking for me only