2 weeks till the Friday before college football starts its season.

Go Gators!

Open thread.

Kevin Drum:

The plain, boring fact is that Obama, like all presidents, is constrained by circumstances and by Congress, and he just hasn't had the Congress to do much more than he's done. FDR and LBJ won landslide victories and enjoyed enormous congressional majorities. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Obama won solid victories and had sizeable congressional majorities (though only in the Senate for Reagan). That's who he should be compared to, and on that score he shapes up pretty well: clearly better than Carter and Clinton and quite possibly the equal of Reagan.

I take this to mean that Drum thinks Obama's "achievements" in the first two years (funny how they are the "President's achievements" when you want to give him credit, and it is the "Congress' fault" when you want to let the President off the hook) are as "transformative" as Reagan's and more transformative than Clinton and Carter's. A matter of opinion I suppose, but I am curious why Reagan's "achievements" are rated higher than Clinton's by Drum? Reagan's big achievement was cutting taxes for the rich and corporations. Clinton's big achievement was raising taxes on the rich and corporations and cutting them for the working poor. How is one "achievement" more transformative than the other?

Speaking for me only

Think Progress:

When Roll Call asked Tom Ganley, a Republican running for a House seat from Ohio, for his thoughts on the matter, Ganley proclaimed that he doesn’t “have a position on whether he’s a Muslim.” Ganley quickly tried to walk back his comments, but only barely:

“During an interview earlier today, I was asked a question about President Obama’s religion that I felt irrelevant to the story being written about my campaign for Congress,” he said. “I do not believe President Obama’s religion has any impact on the need for jobs in Ohio’s 13th district. According to the White House, our President is a Christian and I have no reason to believe otherwise.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Again, we all see the game the GOP is playing here, but isn't it true that President Obama's denomination SHOULD BE irrelevant? Why isn't it? I refer you to my previous post on the subject.

Speaking for me only

Joe Sestak is not the ideal candidate for the Dems in the Pennsylvania Senate race (I still believe Specter had the better shot), and Sestak is trailing, but his political team is doing a heck of a job I think. Chris Bowers trots out the new Sestak line on his GOP opponent Pat Toomey:

Think Progress makes a useful catch about Social Security, and all Democrats running for federal office should take notice. Even Pat Toomey, who ran the Club for Growth, is too afraid to say in public that he wants to turn over Social Security to Wall Street[.]

There is blood in the water on Social Security privatizing for Republicans. It would be wise for Pat Toomey’s opponent, Admiral Joe Sestak, to sniff it out. It would be just as smart for every Democrat in the country running for federal office to do the same. Publicly oppose all cuts, and start attacking Republicans for wanting to hand over Social Security to Wall Street. Doing so could really help Democratic candidates in an otherwise difficult electoral environment, not to mention possibly save Social Security itself.

(Emphasis supplied.) I especially like the Admiral Sestak touch. The only thing Chris missed was the Sestak's campaign usage for Toomey - they call him Congressman Toomey (Toomey is a former congressman.) Again, Sestak is probably going to lose, but not because his political shop is not doing its job.

Speaking for me only

Discussing this Byron York article, TPM has the following headline on a Josh Marshall blog:

The bitch Prez Brought It on Herself Himself

Josh Marshall

Straight men who've ever listened to a Judy Garland album beware. Byron York explains why President Obama has only himself to blame for many people believing he's a Muslim.

I think we all know what York is up to, but Marshall's reaction is telling (and ironic given his own sexist statements during the 2008 primary fight) -- people thinking Obama is Muslim is not a good thing politically. It's obviously evidence of bigotry against Muslims in the United States. But notice what is not happening on this score - no one is standing up to this bigotry and saying 'so what if he is?' Instead, from the White House on down, the meme is being fought against. And the reason is obvious - it is politically damaging.

Given the huzzahs provided to President Obama's statements on the Cordoba Center - the "pols must fight bigotry everywhere they see it" idea, even if it is counterproductive - I ask myself why more people do not make the argument I posit above - the 'so what if he is?' point. More . . .

Booman is right:

This has the benefit of being true:

"This is a 'rip your opponent's face off' election for us," said one Democratic campaign manager. "It's clear from polling that Americans don't like the policies that got us into this mess and they do not blame Obama for what started it. They blame him for not doing more about it, which they have every right to do. That means we have to make the other choice unbearable.[. . .] If [the Dems] use [their] money edge not only to make the election a choice, but to make it a choice in which the Republican is an unacceptable option, Democrats will save seats."

That's what's left in the political kit.

Speaking for me only

Eugene Robinson:

This is a radical break from journalistic convention, I realize, but today I'd like to give credit where it's due -- specifically, to President Obama. Quiet as it's kept, he's on a genuine winning streak.

No, he is not joking. But let's examine his argument. What constitutes "Obama's winning streak" to Robinson:

(1) Last U.S. combat troops leave Iraq. Robinson argues that "Obama did as well as anyone could have with the situation he inherited." Note that argument. Cuz it's going to be the key to defending Obama on every issue in 2012. It's sort of true as far as it goes on this issue. But the inverse is also true - not many would have done anything different. The Iraq Debacle happened and we'll be reaping the consequences for some time to come. More . . .

Open Thread.

Matt Yglesias writes:

Th[e] decline in private health insurance coverage has, however, been entirely offset by an increase in the number of working age people on Medicaid, which stood at 13 percent in 2008. Among the under-18 set, private insurance is even rarer and public coverage even more common, since children are both poorer-than-average and politically easier to cover. In terms of causation, my understanding is that this is a blend of Medicaid “crowding out” private coverage and Medicaid filling a gap in private insurance’s affordability. The Affordable Care Act is going to continue this trend by substantially expanding Medicaid coverage.

Rising unemployment and reduction in employment benefits likely explains the decline in private health insurance and the attendant rise in Medicaid coverage. I am an advocate for public insurance programs over the market based regulatory model of ObamaCare, but I hope we don;t get the increase in public insurance participation at the cost of people's jobs. But, you never know, the Exchanges might not even be an issue come 2014 the way things are going in the economy.

Speaking for me only

NYTimes:

A federal grand jury has indicted Roger Clemens on charges of making false statements to Congress about his use of performance-enhancing drugs. The 19-page indictment charges Clemens with three counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury in connection with his February 2008 testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. According to the United States attorney’s office, Clemens faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, but under the current sentencing guidelines, a conviction would likely bring 15-21 months.

Clemens’s allegedly false testimony came in a public hearing in which Clemens and his former trainer Brian McNamee, testifying under oath, directly contradicted each other about whether Clemens had used the banned substances.

A crime is a crime (Indictment (PDF), but the real issue to me is what in blazes was Congress doing asking stupid questions about issues that have nothing to do with their jobs? I mean is Congress going to pass laws on PEDs in sports? Really? When does the big Lance Armstrong investigation start? Just stupid.

Speaking for me only

Sam Stein:

[Robin] Carnahan (D-MO)] isn't the first Democratic Senate candidate to call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway [[D)] has said that he favors keeping the current rates for "five, eight, maybe ten" additional years. Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), who is running for Sen. Evan Bayh's soon to be vacated seat, also has said he would support extending the entire package of Bush tax cuts[.]

(Emphasis supplied.) Like Heath Shuler and Travis Childers (to name just 2) before them, these Dems are not progressives on most issues. Are they preferable to the Republicans? Of course. But why progressives lift a finger or spend a dime on trying to elect people who fundamentally disagree with them is beyond me. But by all means, join the voices trying to run Charlie Rangel out of office. After all, all Rangel does is fight for the issues progressives care about.

Speaking for me only

Open Thread.