. . . about the weenie Beltway Left:

Ta-Nehesi Coates and Matt Yglesias (both of whom I have great respect and even affection for) are being bizarrely literal about [Markos' book American Taliban. . . .] Since only one person in this exchange has actually read the book I'm guessing writing is not the real source of this argument. It feels remarkably like the many old arguments we've had over the years about whether or not "the left" is embarrassing everyone by acting out and breaking the rules of polite political discourse. And that argument's been going on as long as I can remember.

(Emphasis supplied.) Indeed. This is merely the continuing battle about Fighting Dems and Conciliatory Dems. When I was at Daily Kos (from 2003 through 2006) this was the never ending daily battle. This is more of the same, with the added bit of uninformed personal smears against Markos as good as the vintage smears by The New Republic against Markos. Digby writes:

I have to say that it's remarkably uncharitable for so many people to make the unsupported assertion that Markos wrote this book to gain attention, traffic or whatever.

Digby is remarkably charitable to call it "uncharitable." It is typical Beltway Left behavior from folks who have spent a lot of time defending the likes of Jeff Goldberg and Andrew Sullivan.

Speaking for me only

Earlier today, I wrote about Matt Yglesias' critique of a book he has not read. Yglesias urged that the truth matters. Earlier, Yglesias wrote "the truth is that whatever the failings of the White House’s approach to fiscal policy, they have been out there consistently pushing for somewhat more to be done." Well, it turns out that's not true - from The Hill:

"Some big, new stimulus plan is not in the offing," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.


How about a little truth telling about that?

Speaking for me only

It's finally here - the opiate I have been waiting for to take me away from my mundane concerns - COLLEGE FOOTBALL! the first game of the year is Wake Forest versus . . . Presbyterian! I like the Blue Hose(+44.5)! Just kidding. Here are my actual first picks of the 2010 college football season - Rhode Island (+24) over Buffalo, Southern Miss (+14) over South Carolina (also Under 46), Middle Tenn St (+1) over Minnesota, Pitt (+3) over Utah and the Rainbow Warriors of Hawaii (+21.5) over the USC Kiffins.

Go Gators!

Open Thread.

Time magazine's false report that Congressional liberal lions called the shots on the stimulus is belied by this January 7, 2009 CNBC interview with then President-elect Obama:

[JOHN] HARWOOD: Tomorrow you're going to give a speech and talk about your economic stimulus package. [. . .] It looks like it's going to be at the high end of your range, around $775 billion.

Pres.-elect OBAMA: That's correct.

HARWOOD: If it's correct that, as your aides have said, the danger is doing too little rather than doing too much [. . .] why stop at $775 billion? Why not go to the $1.2 trillion that some economists have recommended? Is that because you think that the political figure of a trillion dollars is too politically charged to get over? Is it because you think more spending would be pork rather than stimulus? Or do you think you've figured out exactly the right amount of stimulus that's needed?

Pres.-elect OBAMA: [. . .] We've seen ranges from 800 to 1.3 trillion and our attitude was that given the legislative process, if we start towards the low end of that, we'll see how it develops. [. . . MORE . . .]

Below I wrote about the Beltway (and White House?) narrative that Obama's failures are all the progressives' fault. That's why, as Atrios noted, Paul Krugman's points on the stimulus are critical:

The way the right [I would say the Beltway myself] wants to tell the story — and, I’m afraid, the way it will play in November — is that the Obama team went all out for Keynesian policies, and they failed. So back to supply-side economics! [. . . T]hat is not at all what happened. A straight Keynesian analysis implied the need for a much bigger program, more oriented toward spending, than the administration proposed. And people like me said that at the time — we’re not talking about hindsight.

[. . .] 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.

There will be a predictable lynching of progressives by the Beltway after the coming crushing defeat for Dems in November, possibly led by the White House itself.

Speaking for me only

"Explaining" President Obama's fall from grace, Time's Michael Scherer finds the Beltway's favorite villain:

[E]ven as Obama aides were aware of a growing disconnect, it didn't seem to worry their boss. Instead, the ambitious legislative goals usually trumped other priorities. Both in the original stimulus package and then in the health care and energy measures, the White House ceded most of its clout to the liberal lions who controlled the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. That maneuver helped assure passage of reforms, but it also confirmed some of the worst fears about how Washington works.

(Emphasis supplied.) It was those evil "liberal lions'" fault! Yes, the Beltway's predictable rewriting of history in order to blame progressivism is on its way. You think The American Prospect or Matt Yglesias might protest this mendacious account? Me neither. Telling lies about progressivism is always "civil discourse" in the Beltway. Cuz this is always what the Beltway believes:

Most experts from both parties say Obama will have to rebalance his politics in 2011 to be re-elected in '12.

Down with the DFH!

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum on How To Learn To Stop Worrying and Whistle Past the GraveYard:

Parties rarely move to the center immediately after a big defeat. Usually it takes two or three before they finally get the message, and on that metric Republicans aren't due for a move to the center until sometime after 2012.

As for the tea parties, they're nothing new. We've seen similar conservative movements flower like clockwork during previous Democratic administrations, and they always burn themselves out after a few years. The tea party movement has ascended faster than its ancestors, partly because of lousy economic conditions and partly because of the power of modern media, and my guess is that their fall will be equally swift when it comes. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin simply aren't the kind of people who wear well. Their fifteen minutes aren't up yet, but they will be within a year or two.

(Emphasis supplied.) Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the Dems are on their way to a crushing defeat in November. Apparently, people like the current crop of Dems "did not wear well" and their fall looks like it will be swift. But at least our discourse is civil. They can't take that away from us.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias on Markos' American Taliban:

I tend to think that this is one of the areas where progressives aren’t just doing the right thing, but have a smarter tactical approach to politics. There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don’t see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic “my enemies are totalitarian madmen” strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections. [. . .] This stuff doesn’t win votes anyone because, after all, it’s a form of preaching to the choir. [. . .] Political movements need to adapt to the actual situation, and that means having an accurate understanding of your foes. You need to see them as they actually are so that you know the right way to respond. Either underestimating or overestimating their level of viciousness and evil can lead to serious miscalculations. Which is just to say that getting this stuff right is more important than coming up with funny put-downs.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yglesias of course has no actual examples of inaccuracies in Markos' book, but what the hell, smearing fellow Dems is always good for the career in the Beltway. As for his political analysis, such as it is, how obtuse can you get? Does he really think the Dems' problem is "overestimating" the level of viciousness the Extreme Right is capable of? Seriously? That's the problem? And of course, firing up the base is not something Dems would want to do with the only political weapon available given the crappy result from the policies people like Yglesias have advocated for. After all, like Jon Cohn, Yglesias seems to believe that if he is happy, every progressive should be happy.

This is why the Dems will get creamed in November. Because this is how they think. See also Tristero.

Speaking for me only

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...]