Via Atrios, Dean Baker on Applebees' David Brooks:

[Brooks:]"the public's real anxiety is about values, not economics: the gnawing sense that Americans have become debt-addicted and self-indulgent."

This is really priceless. There are more than 25 million people unemployed, underemployed or who have given up looking for work altogether, but they are not concerned about economics. They are worried about values.

Sadly, this attitude is not limited to conservatives like Brooks. Too many "elite" progressive pundits also have this world view. They argue that since President Obama shares "progressive values" (set aside the question if that is actually true), progressives are crazy for not being enthused about Obama and the Dems. In the world of elites, the little people should be happy when THEY are happy. Life does not work that way.

Speaking for me only

After 58 hours of deliberation, the jury in the trial of Howard K. Stern, boyfriend/manager of Anna Nicole Smith, acquitted him on 7 of the 9 counts he was facing, most of which charged him with providing drugs to "an addict."

He was convicted of two counts, for using a false name on a prescription and conspiring to obtain controlled substances by fraud. (His name instead of Anna's were on some of the prescriptions.)

Bottom line: The jury did not find anyone prescribed or delivered drugs to "an addict."

"The whole case here was based on the idea that Anna was some drug-seeking, drug-crazed addict ... for that part of the people's case, Howard was acquitted across the board," said Stern's attorney, Steve Sadow, who emphasized that his client was convicted only of using false names to obtain medication, which he contended was for Smith's privacy.

[More...]

FTR, this story is irresponsible and sexist. It is also boring and pointless. It is another example of the acceptance of sexism and misogyny in our culture. On the specifics, it is unimportant in that the the candidate smeared is not viable. On the larger issue, it is reprehensible.

This is an Open Thread.

Will Republican control of th House (and maybe the Senate) lead to catastrophe? Paul Krugman says yes:

[The] era of partial cooperation in the 1990s came only after Republicans had tried all-out confrontation, actually shutting down the federal government in an effort to force President Bill Clinton to give in to their demands for big cuts in Medicare. [. . . T]he lesson current Republicans seem to have drawn from 1995 isn’t that they were too confrontational, it’s that they weren’t confrontational enough.

Will President Obama show the same resolve? It's an open question I think. This is crucial for, as Krugman points out, the policy challenges, especially on the economy, are much more daunting now:

As a Centrist, it disturbs me that right wing organizations like The Third Way are trying to misappropriate my label. In a memo to Congress (why does Third Way write memos to Congress? To be able to leak it to The New York Times), The Third Way writes:

Both politically and substantively, liberals need moderates. By rejecting the big-tent coalition that brought them power in the first place, the only things Democrats will accomplish are permanent minority status and the frustration of their legislative priorities. Here are three reasons liberals need moderates:

1. Liberal members need the votes of moderate colleagues to make legislative progress.
2. Liberal members need moderate voters to win and keep their seats.
3. Liberals need moderates — from both parties — to forge good policy.

The first two "reasons" are about labels and ridiculous. "Moderate" is a meaningless term (Pssst, so is my preferred term "centrist.") Here is an idea - how about we start calling progressives moderates. Then we'll win! And in fact, that is precisely what I have argued for for years:

It's 3rd and long for the Democrats and some are already planning the 4th down play, punt:

With the enemy at the gates, and facing heavy casualties, Democrats in Congress are preparing to do what any beleaguered army does: head for the hills and leave booby-traps behind. The bigger the margin Republicans pile up next Tuesday, the less likely it is that the Democrats will be able to - or want to - do much when Congress reconvenes for a lame-duck session on November 15.

[. . .] Come January, the new Tea Party-infused GOP then would have to quickly confront the real-world consequences of its tax-cutting, budget-cutting, debt-reducing, anti-government rhetoric. "Some of our liberals are arguing that we have to do what we can in the lame-duck if it's going to be our last chance, but that is unrealistic if the numbers next week are bad," a top Democratic aide told me. "If we lose big, we'll punt. We'll have to."

Sounds like a Steny Hoyer aide to me. And I think he's right. Nothing worth doing will come out of the lame duck Congress and anything good that is done will redound to the credit of a GOP Congress. I think a mostly do nothing lame duck session (other than extending unemployment benefits) sounds like the right approach. Of course they can't say that publically. And I think a lot of hearings on the foreclosure crisis would be smart too. But no legislation, other than extending unemployment benefits.

Speaking for me only

Steve Benen and Jed Lewison highlight this comment from John Boehner:

"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles," Boehner said during an appearance on conservative Sean Hannity's radio show.

Their Broderesque reaction: Benen - "I know I keep harping on this, but I think it matters. One of the angles I emphasized yesterday related to the perception that the American mainstream has a visceral dislike for this kind GOP rhetoric. [. . .] We'll see how that turns out for them." Lewison - "For the next two years, the only thing these guys want is paralysis. And that's exactly what they are promising to deliver."

Like David Broder, they seem to believe that "compromise" is what the electorate demands. If that were so, then Republicans would get wiped out in November. Instead they are headed to a historic victory. Like Broder, Benen and Lewison are seemingly unaware of reality regarding the public's attitude regarding "compromise" and getting along. The public does not care about that. They want a better economy and better policies. They do not care how it gets done. Indeed, they do not care if legislation gets passed. To the public, legislation is not "accomplishments." They just want things to get better.

Speaking for me only

Jeralyn pointed out that President Obama praised Larry Summers for "doing a heckuva job." More such praise is due to his team working on the foreclosure crisis:

Revelations about paperwork shortcuts and so-called robo-signed affidavits, as well as the likelihood of protracted legal battles by homeowners and inquiries by state and federal officials, will hinder foreclosure proceedings and discourage prospective buyers, a Treasury Department official said. “Together, these two factors may exert downward pressure on overall housing prices both in the short and long run,” said the official, Phyllis R. Caldwell, chief of the homeownership preservation office at the Treasury.

[More...]

Obama and the Dems are polling badly, and people wonder why. It's the economy, stupid. Consider this:

In a follow-up interview, one poll respondent, Judy Berg, an independent from Morton Grove, Ill., said she voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 because she was “looking for a change,” adding, “the change that ensued was not the change I was looking for but something totally out of left field.” This year, Ms. Berg, a registered nurse, expressed a preference for Republicans because “I’m pro-life and I’m also looking at the immigration issues and the tax issues.” She added, “I like the Republican agenda on these issues better than the Democratic agenda.”

(Emphasis added.) If Ms. Berg voted for Obama and Dems because of the issues of choice, immigration and taxes, then she would never vote for a Republican. There is a clear difference between the parties on these issues and always has been. If you are anti-choice, anti-immigrant and anti-taxes on the wealthy, then you should vote for Republicans every time. How did Ms. Berg come to vote for Obama and the Dems? It was the economy I surmise. There is nothing Obama and the Dems could say to this person that could persuade her on the issues. Only one thing could - good governance and economic performance. The "issues" for Ms. Berg clearly are not important - how the economy is doing is. Most American "swing voters" are like this. Most "swing voters" don't care about issues. Most Americans "swing voters" almost exclusively care about how they are doing personally. More . . .

President Obama appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show Wednesday night. The show's website says video will be up shortly. But HuffPo already has it, in three parts, here.

WaPo's Dana Milbank has all the details and lots of quotes. Stewart actually called Obama "Dude."

The Daily Show host was giving Obama a tough time about hiring the conventional and Clintonian Larry Summers as his top economic advisor. "In fairness," the president replied defensively, "Larry Summers did a heckuva job."

"You don't want to use that phrase, dude," Stewart recommended with a laugh.

Milbank says Obama was "serious and defensive", even pointing his finger at Stewart when he said something he disagreed with. The LA Times report on the interview is here.

Atrios (and other bloggers) met with President Obama today. Hopefully he asked him about HAMP:

Every [HAMP] trial modification payment reads as a default to the credit reporting companies. The Treasury Department could have set it up so that didn’t happen; they chose not to intervene in that reality. All of the money between the trial modification and the original payment that borrowers don’t pay during their trial period gets tacked on as part of the unpaid principal balance at the end. The servicers also tack on late fees. Treasury could have banned that. They chose not to intervene. The servicers can proceed with foreclosure operations during the trial period, arguing that the borrower is in default. They can’t actually foreclose (also in some cases they have). But they can go through the legal process. Treasury could have put a stop to that. They didn’t. Borrowers keep getting told they have to miss a payment to be eligible for HAMP. Treasury actually didn’t put that into the design. But they haven’t sanctioned a single servicer for this or any other violation of the program guidelines. They could have done something. They didn’t.

(Emphasis supplied.) Speaking for me only