Skip to content

Mixed Messages

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Today ‘s New London Day opines that we should “Stop the Politics” when it comes to the issue of end of life counseling, which Republicans transmogrified into “death panels” during the health care debate. I agree entirely. It’s good to see the Day take such a position, couched as it is with proper obeisance to the right wingers before whom its editorial board trembles.

But, what’s this. Right below the editorial is an otherwise incoherent editorial cartoon that reinforces the “death panel” meme. A bit like someone condemning arsonists while adding fuel to one of their fires.


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Two crystal balls

Saturday, January 1, 2011

The following post has a bit of history to it. A person quite near and dear to me has suggested that I have, of late, become somewhat negative in my attitude toward just about everything. I insist that I am merely stating the facts and responding to reality, but she insists that I am far too much of a glass half empty type of guy. Thus, this post, which has gone through two major editions, the second positing a glass literally brimming over. I told her to take her pick, and she suggested I post them both. I have therefore decided to merge them, and give my readers their choice of which set of predictions seems most probable to come to fruition. Pardon the repetition, but that is just an artifact of the piece’s evolution. I will, by the way, be checking myself, and should both this blog and this writer still exist on December 31 of 2011, I will duly report the results.

Post One: The Pessimist

Chris Hayes recently suggested, via Twitter, that we bloggers write year end posts listing the things we were wrong about in the past year. This would be a salutary exercise, I admit, but one I decline to undertake, for a number of very good reasons. First, it would require me to re-read my posts from last year, a form of torture I would not wish on anyone, even myself. (Being lazy doesn’t help either.)Second, the post would go on far too long. Third…well, there must be a third.

I have therefore decided to follow Hayes’ advice next year, with a caveat. This post will contain my predictions for the coming year. Next year, if this blog survives, I will check on my prognostications, and duly acknowledge whatever errors I may make. I sincerely hope that I make quite a few, since the future doesn’t look good, so far as I can see.

Let’s start with local stuff:

1. The Connecticut legislature will suddenly discover that it has the ability to buck the governor, and will do so whenever Malloy wants to do anything that is in the long term best interests of the state.

Okay, that’s it. My interest in state politics, never very high, has now waned. Now, on to the nation at large.

1. The United States Senate will make a gesture toward reforming its rules, but will do nothing meaningful. To the extent anything meaningful is proposed, it will be defeated in response to cries of unfairness from the same Republicans, including the Fox News people, who condemned filibusters when Democrats threatened to use them (and didn’t because they were intimidated).

2. Republicans will make unreasonable demands in exchange for increasing the debt limit, most likely cuts in programs such as Medicaid. Unlike Clinton, Obama will be unable or unwilling to make the Republicans look like petty obstructionists bent on damaging the middle class. The Republicans will get what they want, with a fig leaf for Obama, who will proclaim that the deal was great for the country, thus undercutting any Democrat who comes out against it. Obama will earn beltway credibility for “bi-partisanship”. The deal will contain the seeds of yet another such “crisis”. Pundits on the left will therefore warn that we are being set up for another betrayal, but they will be ignored.

3. Obama will propose cuts to social security. In this context, the term “cut” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, direct cuts in present benefits, raising the retirement age, or changing the way benefit amounts are determined so that, over time, the real value of benefits declines. Republicans will go along with his suggestions, and then successfully accuse Democrats of trying to destroy Social Security. Economists who know what they are talking about will point out that there is no economic need to cut Social Security, and that lifting the payroll tax limit, a relatively painless step, would assure benefits far into the future (assuming, of course, that we avoid economic or environmental collapse). These economists will be ignored, due to the fact that they have been right about economic issues in the past, thus disqualifying them from any participation in the national discourse.

4. Republicans will demand cuts in all manner of public programs (over and above those they extort in exchange for increasing the debt limit). They will do so on the grounds that the deficit is out of control. Many Democrats will join the chorus. No one within the Beltway will note that the programs being attacked involve sums that are insignificant in comparison to the amount given to the rich by way of the tax cuts the Republicans extorted in 2010.

5. The media will continue to portray the Republican party as the party of fiscal responsibility.

6. We will continue mired in Afghanistan. The Republicans will hold war funding hostage to some horrible demand. No one will accuse them of not supporting the troops, and they will continue to be acknowledged to be the stronger party when it comes to foreign policy and “fighting terrorism”, the massive evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. By the way, they will get whatever they are demanding.

7. Congress will do nothing about global warming. In fact, the entire country will continue to pretend that nothing is happening, even while we suffer through one of the hottest summers on record.

8. China will open up an even bigger lead in green technology.

9. Unemployment will remain high. Republicans will blame Obama, while continuing to prevent him from doing anything about it.

Alright, I know what you’re thinking. These are all slam dunks. There’s not a chance in the world I could be wrong on any of these. Well, one can hope, can’t one, and is it my fault that 2011 comes with its history pre-written?

Okay, I’ll go out on a limb. This is one I’m not totally sure about:

Joe Liberman will announce he will run as an Independent, finally giving us liberals something to smile about. National Democrats will come to terms with the fact that one good vote is not enough to restore Liberman to favor and that the people of Connecticut are ready to kick him out of the club, and that they don’t really care what the Beltway crowd thinks.

Okay, now for the optimistic predictions, shorn of the introductory paragraphs, which remained the same in both incarnations.

Let’s start with local stuff:

1. The Connecticut legislature will continue to cave to the governor, thus allowing Malloy to effectively govern. At no time will the legislative leadership frustrate his initiatives due to petty intra-party strife.

Okay, that’s it. Once again, I grow bored. Lets get on to the nation at large.

1. Immediately after reconvening, The United States Senate, under the energized leadership of Harry Reid, will completely reform its rules. No longer will Tom Coburn get to hold up legislation forever. No longer will a minority be able to impose its will on the majority. While it is true that no meaningful legislation will pass the House, at least Obama will be able to get his appointees confirmed. To the surprise of everyone, Senate Democrats will totally ignore the cries of unfairness from the same Republicans, including the Fox News people, who condemned filibusters when Democrats threatened to use them.

2. Republicans will make unreasonable demands in exchange for increasing the debt limit, most likely cuts in programs such as Medicaid. Obama will stand firm, and like Bill Clinton before him, make the Republican leadership objects of ridicule. Obama will earn beltway credibility for “standing up to the Republicans”. Not only will the Republicans back down, but they will agree not to engage in obstructionist tactics in the future.

3. Obama will strongly defend Social Security and expose the Republican disinformation campaign for what it is. Like Clinton, who got a minimum wage increase through a Republican Congress, he will manipulate the Republicans into voting to abolish the ceiling on the payroll tax, thereby solving Social Security’s out year problems.

4. Republicans will demand cuts in all manner of public programs (over and above those they attempt to extort in exchange for increasing the debt limit). They will do so on the grounds that the deficit is out of control. Not a single Democrat will join them. The entire Beltway pundit class will express disgust and dismay that the programs being attacked involve sums that are insignificant in comparison to the amount given to the rich by way of the tax cuts the Republicans extorted this year. Exposed for what they are, the Republicans will back down.

5. The media will stop portraying the Republican party as the party of fiscal responsibility.

6. We will get out of Afghanistan. The Republicans will attempt to hold the necessary funding hostage to some horrible demand. Everyone will accuse them of not supporting the troops and they will forever lose their reputation as the stronger party when it comes to foreign policy and “fighting terrorism”. In the face of massive outrage, particularly from the media, they will back down and fund the withdrawal.

7. Congress will take meaningful and effective action to combat global warming. The entire country will join the rest of the civilized world and stop pretending that nothing is happening. While next summer will be the hottest on record, it will represent the peak of the problem, as the U.S. leads the world toward a cooler tomorrow.

8. The U.S. will overtake China in green technology.

9. Unemployment will remain high. Republicans will blame Obama, while continuing to prevent him from doing anything about it, but the nation will see through the pretense, and the Republicans’ approval will plummet, with all polls showing them set to be massively “refudiated” at the polls in 2012.

10. Joe Lieberman will announce he will run as an Independent, finally giving us liberals something to smile about. National Democrats will come to terms with the fact that one good vote is not enough to restore Liberman to favor, that the people of Connecticut are ready to kick him out of the club, and that they don’t really care what the Beltway crowd thinks.

So, it’s going to be a wonderful year. I can’t see how I could be wrong on any of these, providing, of course, that there is a seismic shift in American discourse, or our brains are taken over by some benevolent alien race (I have been watching too much Dr. Who – see below).

To each of these posts I appended some apolitical predictions which were more or less the same. You might quibble with some of my political predictions, but I’d bet real money on these:

1. The Ipad will be updated, and I will find a reason why I absolutely need one, but Lon Seidman will get one first.

2. Lindsey Lohan, whoever she may be, will continue to self destruct, but people will cease to care, as some other celebrity will blaze new trails of tabloid documented self destruction.

3. I will work my way through all of this century’s episodes of Dr. Who.

4. The entire world will continue to marvel at how much all of our lives have changed now that you can download Beatles songs from Itunes.

5. The Red Sox will have a good year. And in the end, isn’t any year a good year in which Red Sox fans can chant “Yankees Suck” with full throated enthusiasm and some measure of truth?

So that’s it. Next year, I’m bound to score in the 90th percentile on one of these sets of predictions. Anyone care to place bets on which one?


Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Music-New Year’s Eve

Friday, December 31, 2010

There’s a lot of Christmas Music out there, and by the time Christmas actually comes around you get nauseous whenever the stuff is inflicted on you.

New Years, or more to the point, New Year’s Eve is a different story. The Music is pretty thin on the ground once you get past Auld Lang Syne, unless you want to branch into classical and play some cuts from the Fledermaus or the Blue Danube. The alternative is to play something by someone who died in the waning year, but that can be a bit of a downer, so I’m leaving Captain Beefheart until next week. (By the way, any Beefheart fans out there? Suggestions for best songs welcome.)

In any event, I have chosen a third way, a song that could at least be considered suggestive of New Years. After all, it’s the night that everyone else goes to parties, particularly the folks in high hats and Arrow collars. This being the year when the rich have really established their dominance, it seems only fitting that we leave it with a paean to their predecessors of the last Depression.

Fred Astaire Puttin’ on the Ritz.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

What’s this all about?

Friday, December 31, 2010

Today’s Times has a hit piece on Lanny Davis (Lobbyist’s Client List Puts Him on the Defensive) , the lawyer turned lobbyist who helped defend Bill Clinton during the latter’s impeachment. The article is reprinted in the Day, and, I imagine, in papers throughout the country.

Now I have no brief for Davis or the squalid clients he represents. But he is one of hundreds, if not thousands, of Washington lobbyists that represent reprehensible people or corporations. So, why Davis and only Davis?

Despite the article’s title, which implies that Davis is being attacked on multiple fronts, there is nothing concrete in the text that proves that he is “suddenly scrambling to defend himself” from anyone but the Times. Whose agenda are they pushing?

The only person quoted by name (besides an administration official who takes issue with Davis’ position on behalf of an African dictator) is Meredith McGehee, a lobbyist for the California WIC Association, who was trying to prevent one of Davis’ clients from adding certain additives to baby formula. No doubt she is doing good work, but in Washington that is usually a reason to ignore someone. In any event, on that particular issue, as the article concedes, the jury appears to be out as to whether Davis’ client is right or wrong.

Besides that one quote, we have this:

Many lobbying firms have clients with checkered records. Indeed, those are the people who need help the most in Washington. But many activists — and even some government officials — said the list of clients in Mr. Davis’s firm stood out.

Besides McGehee, and the government official to whom I alluded, the activists go unnamed, as do the other government officials. And again, since when do the views of “activists” mean anything to the Times? Half a million of them can show up in Washington in support of progressive causes without rating a mention. Additionally, the article fails to establish that, in fact, Davis’ client list does stand out. The fact that “some people” are making that statement (if, in fact, the allegation is being made on the widespread basis the Times implies) does not make it so. Who knows how many Washington lobbyists are feeling aggrieved today, their pride wounded by the claim that Davis’ client list is more vile than their own.

The article is oddly reminiscent of the hit piece on Blumenthal, in which the Times alleged that Blumenthal had constructed a personal narrative with his Vietnam service at the center. One senses some presence lurking in the background. In the case of Blumenthal we immediately knew who it was, since Linda’s folks, the amateurs that they were, immediately took credit. Presumably whoever has it in for Davis will remain behind the scenes. At least in the Blumenthal case there was a context: he was running for the Senate. Davis has not been in the news, and the issue of baby formula additives has not been front and center. There is no context to this article. Yesterday Davis plied his sordid trade in relative anonymity, today we find that he is under attack from multiple unnamed sources and that he has been forced to “defend himself”.

Davis calls himself a Democrat, and perhaps that’s his unforgivable sin. If this article is followed up by similar pieces about Republican lobbyists one might draw a different conclusion, but perhaps the Times would take the position that it is entirely natural, and therefore not newsworthy, that Republicans advocate for reprehensible positions.


Filed in Media | | Comments (1)

State of the Nation

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

The Holidays (or at least the Christmas part) are officially over at the CTBlue household; our last guest having departed this morning. Time for me to ease back into the world of blogging, spreading the gift of my punditry far and wide, like Santa spreading presents, or Republicans spreading lies.

So I take this opportunity to start again, by sharing something my wife found at a Northampton bookstore yesterday. Now, I have been known to be somewhat critical of our current president, but I think it only fair to acknowledge that this postcard accurately depicts the country that somehow managed to elect him president, and with which he must deal each and every day:


So, we must acknowledge that the Dumbfuckistanis do make it difficult to govern, though pandering to them doesn’t seem to help.

This postcard engendered some debate at our household this morning as to the extent to which we here in America should aggressively point out to the citizens of our neighboring country exactly what dumb fucks the majority of them really are. My position is that we should be as aggressive at calling out their ignorance as they are about heaping scorn on us. I acknowledge, of course, that there are pockets of blue in all that red, but that doesn’t change the facts on the ground much. I also acknowledge that parts of Dumbfuckistan, such as Ohio and (I know it sounds crazy) Texas are primed to flip. We shall welcome them when they do, but until that happy time, we must both fear and loathe them.

The Mencken quote, by the way, should give those of us hoping for a Palin nomination, some pause. She may be just the moron America has been waiting for.

The flip side of the postcard suggests that the founding principle of Dumbfuckistan is not hard of find.


Somewhat unfair to the Western states, since we hadn’t finished slaughtering the Indians there, so they hadn’t really had a chance to weigh in on the slavery issue. Still, for the rest of the country, it certainly appears that racism and stupidity go hand in hand.

Filed in American Life | | Comments (0)

A Brilliant Idea

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

This is the best idea I’ve heard in a long time. Brad Lander from District 39 on the New York City Council:

Here in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed laying off over 4,000 public school teachers, closing 20 fire companies at night, closing dozens of child care centers, eliminating over 2,000 summer youth jobs and leaving more runaway homeless youth to sleep on the streets.

So it is time for cities and states to step up. That’s why the New York City Council’s Progressive Caucus, which I co-chair, has introduced a plan to place a temporary city/state income tax surcharge on the wealthiest New Yorkers—precisely the amount of the tax windfall they are getting from incoming Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

We are encouraging other legislators around the U.S. to do the same. We will repeal the surcharge the minute that Congress and the President end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest and restore some tax fairness to the federal tax system.

Our proposal would raise over $8 billion annually. For that amount, we can keep the child care center open. We can avoid laying off thousands of school teachers. We can keep the fire companies open at night. We can keep shelter beds in place for homeless teens who are sleeping on the street. We can keep our libraries open 6 days a week (the Mayor’s proposal would likely reduce some branches to just 2 or 3 days next year). And we could still reduce the City’s budget deficit.

Every state should do this. Of course, any state, any part of which is controlled by Republicans, will not do it, meaning that those states like Connecticut, which will be Republican free in a couple of weeks, have a golden opportunity to improve their economies relative to their afflicted-with-Republicans neighbors. From an economic point of view this is a no-brainer. Circulating this money, which would be stashed away rather than spent, back into the economies of the taxpayer’s home state could do nothing but good. In addition, for states like Connecticut, this would be a double bonus, since we are normally net exporters of federal tax dollars. If the federal government doesn’t want to send our money down South to the Yahoos, we can use it here, to help solve our budget problems without putting people out of work.

We could also, particularly if several states adopted similar laws, demonstrate that Obama’s original plan made more sense than the compromise.


Filed in Economics, Politics | | Comments (2)

Jon Stewart breaks the filibuster, why couldn’t Obama.

Monday, December 20, 2010

According to today’s Times, the First Responders in New York may have Jon Stewart to thank if the bill to provide medical care for them makes it through our dysfunctional Senate. Why? Because Stewart shone a light on a particularly nasty piece of Republican obstructionism, and he put a human face on it to boot. As he pointed out, the Republicans voted to deprive the first responders of medical care, after wrapping themselves in 9/11 for almost 10 years, not to mention that they constantly tried to appropriate the heroism of those New Yorkers for themselves.

Which raises the question. Why did Jon Stewart have to do this? How hard would it have been for Obama to get in front of the cameras with the same New Yorkers that Stewart had on his show, and call the Republicans out? Part of what comes with the presidency is the bully pulpit, but Obama seems to have a great deal of difficulty getting into that pulpit, never mind preaching effectively. Sure he can still give vapid campaign speeches, but when it comes to actually pushing an issue, he’s AWOL.

If the thinking was that they had more important priorities than these hapless New Yorkers, it is still the case that they missed an opportunity. You don’t stop them from obstructing by sweet reason. You make them look bad, one filibuster at a time, and where best to start but with the sacred memory of the day that changed everything (except, of course, all the things it really didn’t change). Stewart has apparently done, in about 12 minutes of airtime, what the Democrats in the White House and Senate couldn’t bother to do: call the Republicans out on what must be one of the most cynical political maneuvers of all time. (This, of course, assumes that the White House might want to stop the obstructionism, something we now have reason to doubt.)

The media, by the way, despite Stewart’s prodding, is not, even now, exactly covering itself in glory on this story. Witness Time magazine, which repeats without comment this Republican BS:

The bill passed the House but has been stalled in the Senate due to GOP concerns that it would, in essence, create a new — albeit relatively tiny — entitlement.

As Stewart reported, not a single Republican stepped forward to justify the filibuster, leaving us to conclude, correctly, that as with all the other bills they filibustered, this was all about extorting a tax cut for the rich. It is journalistic malpractice of the highest order for Time to report this after the fact cover story without even a suggestion that it might be a tad disingenuous.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Obama and Liberals

Monday, December 20, 2010

The Washington Post reports on how the White House has kept in touch with its base:

Much of the White House’s interaction with liberal groups has taken place at a weekly meeting at a downtown Washington hotel. The “common purpose” gatherings are closed-door sessions between top Obama aides and officials from dozens of left-leaning interest groups such as unions, youth voting groups, women’s organizations, gay rights advocates and civil rights activists. Attendees are required to keep all proceedings secret and off the record.

This, it seems to me, is where Obama differs from Clinton, who had an almost intuitive ability to understand the mood outside the beltway. Obama is beltway all the way, even in how he chooses to communicate with the people that elected him.

Of course, I don’t know what goes on in those meetings, and presumably never will until it no longer matters, but it strikes me that it raises the same kinds of issues as does so much of beltway journalism. The price of getting access to people in the know is to report only what those in the know want you to report. Stray from the reservation, and you lose that precious access, which is all some of those journalists live for. The representatives from the “dozens of left-leaning interest groups”, Washington denizens by definition, will, wittingly or unwittingly, trade their principles for continued access to the “closed-door sessions” that marks them out as being special. That’s good for Obama, in that those same folks will go back to their organizations and run interference for him, but if anyone thinks that liberals won’t think these things through for themselves, they are sadly mistaken. It’s easier to herd cats than liberals.

There will be nowhere to go for the left in 2012. As a practical matter, we can do nothing other than re-nominate Obama. He’ll have no problem raising money either, since the corporate money he absorbs will more than make up for the grassroots money that won’t be forthcoming. While he’s working hard at throwing the election away, I still think he’ll win, as the Republicans seem hell bent on nominating someone that not even this country can stomach.

But for the candidates down the line, especially the Democrats running for Congress in the districts in which Republicans might otherwise be vulnerable, things might be a little more difficult. They are the ones who rely on the money from activists, as well as their shoe leather. The fact is, it’s those who feel strongly that donate money and time, and Obama has been working hard to curb their enthusiasm. If, as seems likely, Obama leads an assault on social security (see the Post article on that issue), it’s going to be hard for those folks to see the use in getting a Democratic Congress for him, particularly in light of his passive acceptance of obstructionism in the U.S. Senate. The conclusion seems inescapable that the only priority of the Administration is re-election. Beyond that, well, let’s just say their principles, if you can find them, are truly flexible.

Filed in Obama | | Comments (0)

A refreshing piece of work

Friday, December 17, 2010

There is one news organization that makes it a habit to actually get at the facts, and ignore the right wing spin that everyone else reports in, at best, a “he said, she said” style, assuming that they don’t buy it hook, line and sinker. Not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, and certainly not any of the television networks. It is lonely little McClatchey. McClatchey purchased Knight Ridder, which was the sole news outlet actually looking for the truth before the benighted adventure began in Iraq.

Recently, the Republican members of the “bi-partisan commission” tasked with figuring out the reason for the economic collapse (which as Paul Krugman points out, are painfully obvious to any sentient non-Republican) decided to break with the commission, which had just refused their request that the terms “Wall Street”, “deregulation” and “shadow banking” be left out of the groups report. The Republicans, never letting the facts get in the way, intend to issue their own report, blaming the collapse on Freddie and Fannie Mae, a pet delusion of the right. Note that one reading the article at the link, from Bloomberg’s this time, would never know just how intellectually dishonest that assertion is.

But if you read McClatchy here is what you get:

As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that’s what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They’ve specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

See! Is that so very hard? No on the one hand and on the other hand. Just the facts, just like Joe Friday.

Starting in January we will see Congressional investigations that will prove beyond doubt that the private banks were blameless for the mess they caused. With some honorable exceptions they will be accorded respect in the media and treated as if they should be taken seriously. As a result, and at best, we will lay the groundwork for an repetition of the crisis that has left everyone but the bankers far poorer than they were. It’s the way it is in America. If the Republicans said it, the media would report without quibble that shit doesn’t stink. Come to think of it, with this story, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Thanks to Matt Berger for picking up on the McClatchy story in his ongoing coverage of the mortgage mess. (Unfortunately, no link to Matt, his stuff comes via an email newsletter)


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music, Christmas Again

Friday, December 17, 2010

I’ve probably done this before, but it’s one of the better rock and roll Christmas songs, and anyway, Christmas is a time for traditions.

This is likely the last music post before Christmas, inasmuch as a week from tonight is Christmas Eve and I’ll be otherwise engaged, so to anyone reading this, have a Happy Holiday.

This is not to say, of course, that I won’t be doing a bit of ranting next week. The last few weeks have gotten me discouraged, I’ll allow, but sooner or later I always bounce back. Hope springs eternal.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)