Sarah Palin had posted this heinous map on her Facebook page during the November 2010 midterm elections and has now removed it from her Facebook site as a result of the shooting
Showing posts with label Midterm elections 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Midterm elections 2010. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
What Happened and Why: The 2010 Midterm Elections and the Future of Progressive Reform in the United States
All,
More than a huge political tsunami this vicious national beatdown of President Obama and the Democratic Party by one of the most demagogic and virulently racist/sexist/anti-labor/homophobic and openly corporate political parties in American history--The Republican/Tea Party of 2009 and 2010--is a devastating and deeply dismissive repudiation of the dire necessity for genuinely progressive political and economic reform in the United States. Coupled with the shocking ineptitude, hubris, timidity, cowardice, and strategic/tactical blunders of the Obama administration was the predictable venality, greed, hatred, hypocrisy, dishonesty, racism, and shameless fear mongering of the President's vile and thuggish rightwing opposition in both the so-called "mainstream" GOP and the corporate sponsored faux grassroots white nativist xenophobia and cultural/social psychosis of the "Tea Party." It was this deadly and highly disturbing combination of political, economic, and cultural tensions, forces, attitudes, values, postures, and ideological/intellectual stances that have made a gigantic mess of the first two years of President Obama's tenure in the White House and has left millions of poor, working, and middle class Americans drowning in an ocean of unemployment, debt, foreclosures, endless wars, and the ongoing rapacious exploitation of corporations, the banks, and Wall Street. I suppose one could pretend if they wished that Obama and the Democratic Party were ultimately not quite as "responsible" as the Republicans and the Tea Baggers for this catastrophe (after all Obama and his "team" DID inherit this mess from the absolute worst and most criminal President in U.S. history) but when all is said and done the ugly truth is that the current President must still find an independent and courageous way to govern no matter what and on that score it's clear to me as it is to many others (who like me ALSO supported and helped elect this President) that he has come up rather short in properly addressing many aspects of the current epic crisis. In addition the disorganized, faltering, and frankly very weak performance of the American left generally has also been a major contributing factor in the debacle we find ourselves shackled with at this point. So there is more than enough "blame" to go around--that's for sure...
That said however it is not enough that we merely point out what has gone so wrong and why-- or merely identify who is responsible-- but that any self respecting critique or analysis must also include a lucid, rational, and mature idea and vision of how we must proceed as we move forward. To say that there is a LOT of work to do in this regard is obviously a huge understatement at this point. However, in the days and weeks ahead I think it is paramount that we all precisely dedicate ourselves to doing just that...Clearly that is ultimately the only kind of (real) change that one can truly "believe in"...
Kofi
G.O.P. Captures House, but Not Senate
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
John A. Boehner, the House Republican leader, in an emotional moment during a victory gathering for the National Republican Congressional Committee in Washington. More Photos »
By JEFF ZELENY
November 2, 2010
New York Times
Republicans captured control of the House of Representatives on Tuesday and expanded their voice in the Senate, riding a wave of voter discontent as they dealt a setback to President Obama just two years after his triumphal victory.
A Republican resurgence, propelled by deep economic worries and a forceful opposition to the Democratic agenda of health care and government spending, delivered defeats to House Democrats from the Northeast to the South and across the Midwest. The tide swept aside dozens of lawmakers, regardless of their seniority or their voting records, upending the balance of power for the second half of Mr. Obama’s term.
But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, narrowly prevailed and his party hung onto control by winning hard-fought contests in California, Delaware, Connecticut and West Virginia. Republicans picked up at least six Democratic seats, including the one formerly held by Mr. Obama, and the party will welcome Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky to their ranks, two candidates who were initially shunned by the establishment but beloved by the Tea Party movement.
“The American people’s voice was heard at the ballot box,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, who is positioned to become the next speaker of the House. “We have real work to do, and this is not the time for celebration.”
The president, who watched the election returns with a small set of advisers at the White House, called Mr. Boehner shortly after midnight to offer his congratulations and to talk about the way forward as Washington prepares for divided government. Republicans won at least 58 seats, not including those from some Western states where ballots were still being counted, surpassing the 52 seats the party won in the sweep of 1994.
The most expensive midterm election campaign in the nation’s history, fueled by a raft of contributions from outside interest groups and millions in donations to candidates in both parties, played out across a wide battleground that stretched from Alaska to Maine. The Republican tide swept into statehouse races, too, with Democrats poised to lose the majority of governorships, particularly those in key presidential swing states, like Ohio, where Gov. Ted Strickland was defeated.
One after another, once-unassailable Democrats like Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Representatives Ike Skelton of Missouri, John Spratt of South Carolina, Rick Boucher of Virginia and Chet Edwards of Texas fell to little-known Republican challengers.
“Voters sent a message that change has not happened fast enough,” said Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Republicans did not achieve a perfect evening, losing races in several states they had once hoped to win, including the Senate contests in Delaware and Connecticut, because some candidates supported by the Tea Party movement knocked out establishment candidates to win their nominations. But they did score notable victories in some tight races, like Pat Toomey’s Senate run in Pennsylvania.
Senator Reid said in a speech that he was “more determined than ever” after his victory. “I know what it’s like to get back on your feet.”
The outcome on Tuesday was nothing short of a remarkable comeback for Republicans two years after they suffered a crushing defeat in the White House and four years after Democrats swept control of the House and Senate. It places the party back in the driver’s seat in terms of policy, posing new challenges to Mr. Obama as he faces a tough two years in his term, but also for Republicans — led by Mr. Boehner — as he suddenly finds himself in a position of responsibility, rather than being simply the outsider.
In the House, Republicans found victories in most corners of the country, including five seats in Pennsylvania, five in Ohio, at least three in Florida, Illinois and Virginia and two in Georgia. Democrats braced for the prospect of historic defeats, more than the 39 seats the Republicans needed to win control. Republicans reached their majority by taking seats east of the Mississippi even before late results flowed in from farther West.
Throughout the evening, in race after race, Republican challengers defeated Democratic incumbents, despite being at significant fund-raising disadvantages. Republican-oriented independent groups invariably came to the rescue, helping level of the playing field, including in Florida’s 24th Congressional District, in which Sandy Adams defeated Representative Suzanne Kosmas; Virginia’s 9th Congressional District, where Mr. Boucher, a 14-term incumbent, lost to Morgan Griffith; and Texas’s 17th Congressional District, in which Mr. Edwards, who was seeking his 11th term, succumbed to Bill Flores.
Democrats argued that the Republican triumph was far from complete, particularly in the Senate, pointing to the preservation of Mr. Reid and other races. In Delaware, Chris Coons defeated Christine O’Donnell, whose candidacy became a symbol of the unorthodox political candidates swept onto the ballot in Republican primary contests. In West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchin III, a Democrat, triumphed over an insurgent Republican rival to fill the seat held for a half-century by Senator Robert C. Byrd. And in California, Senator Barbara Boxer overcame a vigorous challenge from Carly Fiorina, a Republican.
But Democrats conceded that their plans to increase voter turnout did not meet expectations, party strategists said, and extraordinary efforts that Mr. Obama made in the final days of the campaign appeared to have borne little fruit.
The president flew to Charlottesville, Va., on Friday evening, for instance, in hopes of rallying Democrats to support Representative Tom Perriello, a freshman who supported every piece of the administration’s agenda, but he was defeated despite the president’s appeals to Democrats in a state that he carried two years ago.
In governors’ races, Republicans won several contests in the nation’s middle. They held onto governorships in Texas, Nebraska and South Dakota, and had seized seats now occupied by Democrats in Tennessee, Michigan and Kansas. Sam Brownback, a United States Senator and Republican, easily took the Kansas post that Mark Parkinson, a former Republican turned Democrat, is leaving behind.
Though Democrats, who before the election held 26 governors’ seats compared to 24 for the Republicans, were expected to face losses, there were also bright spots. In New York, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo easily defeated the Republican, Carl P. Paladino, even as Republicans were expected to pick up seats in the state legislature and the congressional delegation. In Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick won a second term.
As the election results rolled in, with Republicans picking up victories shortly after polls closed in states across the South, East and the Midwest, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other party leaders made urgent appeals through television interviews that there was still time for voters in other states to cast their ballots.
But the mood in Democratic quarters was glum, with few early signs of optimism in House or Senate races that were called early in the evening. Surveys that were conducted with voters across the country also provided little sense of hope for Democrats, with Republicans gaining a majority of independents, college-educated people and suburbanites — all groups that were part of the coalition of voters who supported Mr. Obama two years ago.
“We’ve come to take our government back,” Mr. Paul told cheering supporters who gathered in Bowling Green, Ky. “They say that the U.S. Senate is the world’s most deliberative body. I’m going to ask them to deliberate on this: The American people are unhappy with what’s going on in Washington.”
The election was a referendum on President Obama and the Democratic agenda, according to interviews with voters that were conducted for the National Election Pool, a consortium of television networks and The Associated Press, with a wide majority of the electorate saying that the country was seriously off track. Nearly nine in 10 voters said they were worried about the economy and about 4 in 10 said their family’s situation had worsened in the last two years.
The surveys found that voters were even more dissatisfied with Congress now than they were in 2006, when Democrats reclaimed control from the Republicans. Preliminary results also indicated an electorate far more conservative than four years ago, a sign of stronger turnout by people leaning toward Republicans.
Most voters said they believed Mr. Obama’s policies would hurt the country in the long run, rather than help it, and a large share of voters said they supported the Tea Party movement, which has backed insurgent candidates all across the country.
The Republican winds began blowing back in January when Democrats lost the seat long held by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, with the victory of Scott P. Brown serving as a motivating force for the budding Tea Party movement and a burst of inspiration for Republican candidates across the country to step forward and challenge Democrats everywhere.
On Tuesday, the president did not leave the grounds of the White House, taking a respite from days of campaigning across the country, so he could meet with a circle of top advisers to plot a way forward for his administration and his own looming re-election campaign. The White House said Mr. Obama would hold a news conference on Wednesday to address the governing challenges that await the new Congress.
“My hope is that I can cooperate with Republicans,” Mr. Obama said in a radio interview on Tuesday. “But obviously, the kinds of compromises that will be made depends on what Capitol Hill looks like — who’s in charge.”
But even as the president was poised to offer a fresh commitment to bipartisanship, he spent the final hours of the midterm campaign trying to persuade Democrats in key states to take time to vote. From the Oval Office, Mr. Obama conducted one radio interview after another, urging black voters in particular to help preserve the party’s majority and his agenda.
“How well I’m able to move my agenda forward over the next couple of years is going to depend on folks back home having my back,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with the Chicago radio station WGCI, in which he made an unsuccessful appeal for voters to keep his former Senate seat in Democratic hands.
There was little Democratic terrain across the country that seemed immune to Republican encroachment, with many of the most competitive races being waged in states that Mr. Obama carried strongly only two years ago. From the president’s home state of Illinois to neighboring Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio — all places that were kind to the Democratic ticket in 2008 — Republicans worked aggressively to find new opportunities.
For all the drama surrounding the final day of the midterm campaign, more than 19 million Americans had voted before Tuesday, a trend that has grown with each election cycle over the last decade, as 32 states now offer a way for voters to practice democracy in far more convenient ways than simply waiting in line on Election Day.
Megan Thee-Brenan, David M. Herszenhorn and Michael Luo contributed reporting.
(From January 25, 2010)
To Speak Truth To Power One Must Be Honest and Prepared To Deal With the Consequences Of Such Action
All,
The following New York Times op-ed article was originally posted in this magazine nearly 10 months ago and its content is truer and more accurate than ever. It's worth taking another look at now especially in light of the absolute political disaster and the ominous electoral rise of the demagogic far right in the midterm elections yesterday...
Kofi
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?th&emc=th
All,
This is an excellent and timely piece by Bob Herbert. The president seriously needs to read it...He might learn something important about himself...
Kofi
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Obama’s Credibility Gap
By BOB HERBERT
January 25, 2010
New York Times
Who is Barack Obama?
Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park.
Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.
Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.
Mr. Obama’s campaign mantra was “change” and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
“Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less,” said Mr. Obama in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. “More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.”
Voters watching the straight-arrow candidate delivering that speech, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, would not logically have thought that an obsessive focus on health insurance would trump job creation as the top domestic priority of an Obama administration.
But that’s what happened. Moreover, questions were raised about Mr. Obama’s candor when he spoke about health care. In his acceptance speech, for example, candidate Obama took a verbal shot at John McCain, sharply criticizing him for offering “a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits.”
Now Mr. Obama favors a plan that would tax at least some people’s benefits. Mr. Obama also repeatedly said that policyholders who were pleased with their plans and happy with their doctors would be able to keep both under his reform proposals.
Well, that wasn’t necessarily so, as the president eventually acknowledged. There would undoubtedly be changes in some people’s coverage as a result of “reform,” and some of those changes would be substantial. At a forum sponsored by ABC News last summer, Mr. Obama backed off of his frequent promise that no changes would occur, saying only that “if you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don’t want you to have to change.”
These less-than-candid instances are emblematic of much bigger problems. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on.
How can you look out for the interests of working people with Tim Geithner whispering in one ear and Larry Summers in the other?
Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats’ filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish, Mr. Obama is trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class. Suddenly, with the public appalled at the scandalous way the health care legislation was put together, and with Democrats facing a possible debacle in the fall, Mr. Obama is back in campaign mode. Every other utterance is about “fighting” for the middle class, “fighting” for jobs, “fighting” against the big bad banks.
The president who has been aloof and remote and a pushover for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who has been locked in the troubling embrace of the Geithners and Summers and Ben Bernankes of the world, all of a sudden is a man of the people. But even as he is promising to fight for jobs, a very expensive proposition, he’s proposing a spending freeze that can only hurt job-creating efforts.
Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.
They want to know who their president really is.
The following New York Times op-ed article was originally posted in this magazine nearly 10 months ago and its content is truer and more accurate than ever. It's worth taking another look at now especially in light of the absolute political disaster and the ominous electoral rise of the demagogic far right in the midterm elections yesterday...
Kofi
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?th&emc=th
All,
This is an excellent and timely piece by Bob Herbert. The president seriously needs to read it...He might learn something important about himself...
Kofi
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Obama’s Credibility Gap
By BOB HERBERT
January 25, 2010
New York Times
Who is Barack Obama?
Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park.
Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.
Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.
Mr. Obama’s campaign mantra was “change” and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
“Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less,” said Mr. Obama in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. “More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.”
Voters watching the straight-arrow candidate delivering that speech, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, would not logically have thought that an obsessive focus on health insurance would trump job creation as the top domestic priority of an Obama administration.
But that’s what happened. Moreover, questions were raised about Mr. Obama’s candor when he spoke about health care. In his acceptance speech, for example, candidate Obama took a verbal shot at John McCain, sharply criticizing him for offering “a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits.”
Now Mr. Obama favors a plan that would tax at least some people’s benefits. Mr. Obama also repeatedly said that policyholders who were pleased with their plans and happy with their doctors would be able to keep both under his reform proposals.
Well, that wasn’t necessarily so, as the president eventually acknowledged. There would undoubtedly be changes in some people’s coverage as a result of “reform,” and some of those changes would be substantial. At a forum sponsored by ABC News last summer, Mr. Obama backed off of his frequent promise that no changes would occur, saying only that “if you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don’t want you to have to change.”
These less-than-candid instances are emblematic of much bigger problems. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on.
How can you look out for the interests of working people with Tim Geithner whispering in one ear and Larry Summers in the other?
Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats’ filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish, Mr. Obama is trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class. Suddenly, with the public appalled at the scandalous way the health care legislation was put together, and with Democrats facing a possible debacle in the fall, Mr. Obama is back in campaign mode. Every other utterance is about “fighting” for the middle class, “fighting” for jobs, “fighting” against the big bad banks.
The president who has been aloof and remote and a pushover for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who has been locked in the troubling embrace of the Geithners and Summers and Ben Bernankes of the world, all of a sudden is a man of the people. But even as he is promising to fight for jobs, a very expensive proposition, he’s proposing a spending freeze that can only hurt job-creating efforts.
Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.
They want to know who their president really is.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Paul Krugman On the Failure of the President To Act More Decisively on Domestic Economic Policy--and the Severe Political Fallout
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/opinion/25krugman.html?src=me&ref=general
All,
As he consistently does the progressive economist Paul Krugman absolutely nails what is really at stake both politically and economically and what the President--and most importantly the rest of us--have so far failed to do to meet the severe challenges of the present social, economic, and ideological fiasco...
Kofi
October 24, 2010
Falling Into the Chasm
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
This is what happens when you need to leap over an economic chasm — but either can’t or won’t jump far enough, so that you only get part of the way across.
If Democrats do as badly as expected in next week’s elections, pundits will rush to interpret the results as a referendum on ideology. President Obama moved too far to the left, most will say, even though his actual program — a health care plan very similar to past Republican proposals, a fiscal stimulus that consisted mainly of tax cuts, help for the unemployed and aid to hard-pressed states — was more conservative than his election platform.
A few commentators will point out, with much more justice, that Mr. Obama never made a full-throated case for progressive policies, that he consistently stepped on his own message, that he was so worried about making bankers nervous that he ended up ceding populist anger to the right.
But the truth is that if the economic situation were better — if unemployment had fallen substantially over the past year — we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We would, instead, be talking about modest Democratic losses, no more than is usual in midterm elections.
The real story of this election, then, is that of an economic policy that failed to deliver. Why? Because it was greatly inadequate to the task.
When Mr. Obama took office, he inherited an economy in dire straits — more dire, it seems, than he or his top economic advisers realized. They knew that America was in the midst of a severe financial crisis. But they don’t seem to have taken on board the lesson of history, which is that major financial crises are normally followed by a protracted period of very high unemployment.
If you look back now at the economic forecast originally used to justify the Obama economic plan, what’s striking is that forecast’s optimism about the economy’s ability to heal itself. Even without their plan, Obama economists predicted, the unemployment rate would peak at 9 percent, then fall rapidly. Fiscal stimulus was needed only to mitigate the worst — as an “insurance package against catastrophic failure,” as Lawrence Summers, later the administration’s top economist, reportedly said in a memo to the president-elect.
But economies that have experienced a severe financial crisis generally don’t heal quickly. From the Panic of 1893, to the Swedish crisis of 1992, to Japan’s lost decade, financial crises have consistently been followed by long periods of economic distress. And that has been true even when, as in the case of Sweden, the government moved quickly and decisively to fix the banking system.
To avoid this fate, America needed a much stronger program than what it actually got — a modest rise in federal spending that was barely enough to offset cutbacks at the state and local level. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: the inadequacy of the stimulus was obvious from the beginning.
Could the administration have gotten a bigger stimulus through Congress? Even if it couldn’t, would it have been better off making the case for a bigger plan, rather than pretending that what it got was just right? We’ll never know.
What we do know is that the inadequacy of the stimulus has been a political catastrophe. Yes, things are better than they would have been without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: the unemployment rate would probably be close to 12 percent right now if the administration hadn’t passed its plan. But voters respond to facts, not counterfactuals, and the perception is that the administration’s policies have failed.
The tragedy here is that if voters do turn on Democrats, they will in effect be voting to make things even worse.
The resurgent Republicans have learned nothing from the economic crisis, except that doing everything they can to undermine Mr. Obama is a winning political strategy. Tax cuts and deregulation are still the alpha and omega of their economic vision.
And if they take one or both houses of Congress, complete policy paralysis — which will mean, among other things, a cutoff of desperately needed aid to the unemployed and a freeze on further help for state and local governments — is a given. The only question is whether we’ll have political chaos as well, with Republicans’ shutting down the government at some point over the next two years. And the odds are that we will.
Is there any hope for a better outcome? Maybe, just maybe, voters will have second thoughts about handing power back to the people who got us into this mess, and a weaker-than-expected Republican showing at the polls will give Mr. Obama a second chance to turn the economy around.
But right now it looks as if the too-cautious attempt to jump across that economic chasm has fallen short — and we’re about to hit rock bottom.
All,
As he consistently does the progressive economist Paul Krugman absolutely nails what is really at stake both politically and economically and what the President--and most importantly the rest of us--have so far failed to do to meet the severe challenges of the present social, economic, and ideological fiasco...
Kofi
October 24, 2010
Falling Into the Chasm
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
This is what happens when you need to leap over an economic chasm — but either can’t or won’t jump far enough, so that you only get part of the way across.
If Democrats do as badly as expected in next week’s elections, pundits will rush to interpret the results as a referendum on ideology. President Obama moved too far to the left, most will say, even though his actual program — a health care plan very similar to past Republican proposals, a fiscal stimulus that consisted mainly of tax cuts, help for the unemployed and aid to hard-pressed states — was more conservative than his election platform.
A few commentators will point out, with much more justice, that Mr. Obama never made a full-throated case for progressive policies, that he consistently stepped on his own message, that he was so worried about making bankers nervous that he ended up ceding populist anger to the right.
But the truth is that if the economic situation were better — if unemployment had fallen substantially over the past year — we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We would, instead, be talking about modest Democratic losses, no more than is usual in midterm elections.
The real story of this election, then, is that of an economic policy that failed to deliver. Why? Because it was greatly inadequate to the task.
When Mr. Obama took office, he inherited an economy in dire straits — more dire, it seems, than he or his top economic advisers realized. They knew that America was in the midst of a severe financial crisis. But they don’t seem to have taken on board the lesson of history, which is that major financial crises are normally followed by a protracted period of very high unemployment.
If you look back now at the economic forecast originally used to justify the Obama economic plan, what’s striking is that forecast’s optimism about the economy’s ability to heal itself. Even without their plan, Obama economists predicted, the unemployment rate would peak at 9 percent, then fall rapidly. Fiscal stimulus was needed only to mitigate the worst — as an “insurance package against catastrophic failure,” as Lawrence Summers, later the administration’s top economist, reportedly said in a memo to the president-elect.
But economies that have experienced a severe financial crisis generally don’t heal quickly. From the Panic of 1893, to the Swedish crisis of 1992, to Japan’s lost decade, financial crises have consistently been followed by long periods of economic distress. And that has been true even when, as in the case of Sweden, the government moved quickly and decisively to fix the banking system.
To avoid this fate, America needed a much stronger program than what it actually got — a modest rise in federal spending that was barely enough to offset cutbacks at the state and local level. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: the inadequacy of the stimulus was obvious from the beginning.
Could the administration have gotten a bigger stimulus through Congress? Even if it couldn’t, would it have been better off making the case for a bigger plan, rather than pretending that what it got was just right? We’ll never know.
What we do know is that the inadequacy of the stimulus has been a political catastrophe. Yes, things are better than they would have been without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: the unemployment rate would probably be close to 12 percent right now if the administration hadn’t passed its plan. But voters respond to facts, not counterfactuals, and the perception is that the administration’s policies have failed.
The tragedy here is that if voters do turn on Democrats, they will in effect be voting to make things even worse.
The resurgent Republicans have learned nothing from the economic crisis, except that doing everything they can to undermine Mr. Obama is a winning political strategy. Tax cuts and deregulation are still the alpha and omega of their economic vision.
And if they take one or both houses of Congress, complete policy paralysis — which will mean, among other things, a cutoff of desperately needed aid to the unemployed and a freeze on further help for state and local governments — is a given. The only question is whether we’ll have political chaos as well, with Republicans’ shutting down the government at some point over the next two years. And the odds are that we will.
Is there any hope for a better outcome? Maybe, just maybe, voters will have second thoughts about handing power back to the people who got us into this mess, and a weaker-than-expected Republican showing at the polls will give Mr. Obama a second chance to turn the economy around.
But right now it looks as if the too-cautious attempt to jump across that economic chasm has fallen short — and we’re about to hit rock bottom.
Following the MidTerm Elections in November We Must Continue to Fight and Defeat the Right No Matter What Inroads the Republicans Make in Congress
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/us/politics/25agenda.html?_r=1&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema4
All,
If, as this article clearly suggests he "should", all this President winds up doing in wake of the upcoming midterm elections is politically kissing the asses of such criminally rightwing reprobates, reactionaries, and demagogues as the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate over the next two years then everything Obama currently allegedly stands for will be completely destroyed (and surely not worth fighting for). In that case the very idea of national liberal/progressive "reform" will not only be nothing but a big sick, ugly joke but only we, the People will be the victims of such a massive capitulation. Either the President, the Democratic Party, and the general left in this country will now stand up to and thoroughly fight the congressional and independent right with all it has to offer or everything we "said" we stood for and would continue to fight for in electing this President in the first place will be completely lost and rendered worthless...for real...
Kofi
October 24, 2010
Obama’s Playbook After Nov. 2
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
New York Times
WASHINGTON — It took President Obama 18 months to invite the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, to the White House for a one-on-one chat. Their Aug. 4 session in the Oval Office — 30 minutes of private time, interrupted only when the president’s daughter Malia called from summer camp to wish her father a happy 49th birthday — was remarkable, not for what was said, but for what it took to make it happen.
Not long before the meeting, Trent Lott, the former Republican Senate leader, lamented to his onetime Democratic counterpart, Tom Daschle, that Mr. Obama would never get an important nuclear arms treaty with Russia ratified until he consulted top Republicans. Mr. Lott, who recounted the exchange in an interview, was counting on Mr. Daschle, a close Obama ally, to convey the message; lo and behold, Mr. McConnell soon had an audience with the president.
The White House says the meeting was about stalled judicial nominations, not arms control. But the fact that a former Senate leader found it necessary to work back channels to put Mr. Obama and Mr. McConnell in touch suggests the difficult road the president will face if Republicans win control of one or both houses of Congress on Election Day.
Before Mr. Obama and Republicans can secure each other’s cooperation, people in both parties say, they must first figure out a way to secure mutual trust.
After two years of operating at loggerheads with Republicans, Mr. Obama and his aides are planning a post-election agenda for a very different political climate. They see potential for bipartisan cooperation on reducing the deficit, passing stalled free-trade pacts and revamping the education bill known as No Child Left Behind — work that Arne Duncan, Mr. Obama’s education secretary, says could go a long way toward repairing “the current state of anger and animosity.”
“I’m a big believer in less of singing ‘Kumbaya’ together and going on retreats than in rolling up our sleeves and doing work together,” Mr. Duncan said in an interview. “That’s how you build respect, that’s how you build trust, that’s how you build relationships. I think it’s a way to move beyond some hurt feelings on both sides. Do it through the work.”
Mr. Obama came to office vowing to reach across the aisle and change the tone in Washington, a goal he quickly abandoned when Republicans stood in lockstep against his stimulus bill. Today, with each side blaming the other for their sorry state of relations, neither has “clean hands,” said Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia.
Yet even Democrats say that, as president, Mr. Obama has a special obligation to try to put an end to the vitriol — and that the future of his presidency may depend on it.
“Probably the biggest single promissory note he handed out during his campaign was the promise of trying to overcome Red America and Blue America into one America,” said Bill Galston, who worked as a domestic policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton. “I think the perception is that he didn’t work as hard as he could have to redeem that note, and I can’t believe that he wants to go down in history as the president who promised to overcome polarization and ended up intensifying it.”
Mr. Obama said during his State of the Union address that he wanted to hold “monthly meetings with both Republican and Democratic leadership.” He has not entirely lived up to that promise; there have been five such sessions, including his televised health care summit, in the nine months since. Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director, said the president had “repeatedly extended his hand” to Republicans, who “made a political decision” to oppose him at every turn.
“That was their choice,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “Hopefully, they will make a different one after the election.”
Publicly, senior advisers to Mr. Obama insist they are focused on keeping Democrats in the majority, and they will not detail their post-election strategy — either for legislation or mending fences. But privately, allies of the White House say Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, Pete Rouse, who had good relations with Republicans when he worked on Capitol Hill, is thinking about how Mr. Obama might reach out.
Much will depend on what happens Nov. 2, and some things will be beyond Mr. Obama’s control. If Tea Party candidates — who have spent the entire election season demonizing Mr. Obama — win big, Republican leaders who might be inclined to work with the president might have a difficult time persuading their members to do so. If Republicans take the House and Democrats keep the Senate, it could be difficult for Mr. Obama to bring the chambers together.
One question is what public posture Mr. Obama will take. If Democrats get trounced, will he emerge, sounding contrite, and take responsibility for their losses? Or will he insist the results were not a reflection on him? Will he follow the path of Mr. Clinton, who pursued a so-called triangulation strategy of moving to the center after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994?
“If he did turn to the center, as Bill Clinton did, I think there would be a lot of hope, but right now nobody knows what he is going to do,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. Mr. Hatch says the strategy was likely to have saved the Clinton presidency. “Bill Clinton wouldn’t have been elected the second time had he not awakened and started to work with both sides.”
Unlike Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama is not much of a schmoozer, and some Republicans say he might benefit from becoming more of one. Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said Mr. Obama has telephoned him just once, after he had lung surgery. “He needs to build friendships and he needs to build trust,” Mr. Johanns said.
Although Mr. Obama has hosted cocktail hours and parties at the White House for members of Congress, he is not the type to spend his free time socializing with lawmakers. While personal relationships cannot erase philosophical differences, they can help, which is one reason Mr. Lott, the former Republican leader, pushed privately for Mr. McConnell and Mr. Obama to meet.
“You know, Clinton, we used to talk to each other all the time, through back channels, middle of the day, middle of the night,” Mr. Lott said. “He’d call at 11 o’clock, 2 o’clock at night; I’d go up to the family quarters and have coffee with him at 9:15 in the morning. They’ve got to open up communications — and not for press purposes. They’ve got to talk quietly, privately. That’s Step 1 in Washington.”
All,
If, as this article clearly suggests he "should", all this President winds up doing in wake of the upcoming midterm elections is politically kissing the asses of such criminally rightwing reprobates, reactionaries, and demagogues as the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate over the next two years then everything Obama currently allegedly stands for will be completely destroyed (and surely not worth fighting for). In that case the very idea of national liberal/progressive "reform" will not only be nothing but a big sick, ugly joke but only we, the People will be the victims of such a massive capitulation. Either the President, the Democratic Party, and the general left in this country will now stand up to and thoroughly fight the congressional and independent right with all it has to offer or everything we "said" we stood for and would continue to fight for in electing this President in the first place will be completely lost and rendered worthless...for real...
Kofi
October 24, 2010
Obama’s Playbook After Nov. 2
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
New York Times
WASHINGTON — It took President Obama 18 months to invite the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, to the White House for a one-on-one chat. Their Aug. 4 session in the Oval Office — 30 minutes of private time, interrupted only when the president’s daughter Malia called from summer camp to wish her father a happy 49th birthday — was remarkable, not for what was said, but for what it took to make it happen.
Not long before the meeting, Trent Lott, the former Republican Senate leader, lamented to his onetime Democratic counterpart, Tom Daschle, that Mr. Obama would never get an important nuclear arms treaty with Russia ratified until he consulted top Republicans. Mr. Lott, who recounted the exchange in an interview, was counting on Mr. Daschle, a close Obama ally, to convey the message; lo and behold, Mr. McConnell soon had an audience with the president.
The White House says the meeting was about stalled judicial nominations, not arms control. But the fact that a former Senate leader found it necessary to work back channels to put Mr. Obama and Mr. McConnell in touch suggests the difficult road the president will face if Republicans win control of one or both houses of Congress on Election Day.
Before Mr. Obama and Republicans can secure each other’s cooperation, people in both parties say, they must first figure out a way to secure mutual trust.
After two years of operating at loggerheads with Republicans, Mr. Obama and his aides are planning a post-election agenda for a very different political climate. They see potential for bipartisan cooperation on reducing the deficit, passing stalled free-trade pacts and revamping the education bill known as No Child Left Behind — work that Arne Duncan, Mr. Obama’s education secretary, says could go a long way toward repairing “the current state of anger and animosity.”
“I’m a big believer in less of singing ‘Kumbaya’ together and going on retreats than in rolling up our sleeves and doing work together,” Mr. Duncan said in an interview. “That’s how you build respect, that’s how you build trust, that’s how you build relationships. I think it’s a way to move beyond some hurt feelings on both sides. Do it through the work.”
Mr. Obama came to office vowing to reach across the aisle and change the tone in Washington, a goal he quickly abandoned when Republicans stood in lockstep against his stimulus bill. Today, with each side blaming the other for their sorry state of relations, neither has “clean hands,” said Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia.
Yet even Democrats say that, as president, Mr. Obama has a special obligation to try to put an end to the vitriol — and that the future of his presidency may depend on it.
“Probably the biggest single promissory note he handed out during his campaign was the promise of trying to overcome Red America and Blue America into one America,” said Bill Galston, who worked as a domestic policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton. “I think the perception is that he didn’t work as hard as he could have to redeem that note, and I can’t believe that he wants to go down in history as the president who promised to overcome polarization and ended up intensifying it.”
Mr. Obama said during his State of the Union address that he wanted to hold “monthly meetings with both Republican and Democratic leadership.” He has not entirely lived up to that promise; there have been five such sessions, including his televised health care summit, in the nine months since. Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director, said the president had “repeatedly extended his hand” to Republicans, who “made a political decision” to oppose him at every turn.
“That was their choice,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “Hopefully, they will make a different one after the election.”
Publicly, senior advisers to Mr. Obama insist they are focused on keeping Democrats in the majority, and they will not detail their post-election strategy — either for legislation or mending fences. But privately, allies of the White House say Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, Pete Rouse, who had good relations with Republicans when he worked on Capitol Hill, is thinking about how Mr. Obama might reach out.
Much will depend on what happens Nov. 2, and some things will be beyond Mr. Obama’s control. If Tea Party candidates — who have spent the entire election season demonizing Mr. Obama — win big, Republican leaders who might be inclined to work with the president might have a difficult time persuading their members to do so. If Republicans take the House and Democrats keep the Senate, it could be difficult for Mr. Obama to bring the chambers together.
One question is what public posture Mr. Obama will take. If Democrats get trounced, will he emerge, sounding contrite, and take responsibility for their losses? Or will he insist the results were not a reflection on him? Will he follow the path of Mr. Clinton, who pursued a so-called triangulation strategy of moving to the center after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994?
“If he did turn to the center, as Bill Clinton did, I think there would be a lot of hope, but right now nobody knows what he is going to do,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. Mr. Hatch says the strategy was likely to have saved the Clinton presidency. “Bill Clinton wouldn’t have been elected the second time had he not awakened and started to work with both sides.”
Unlike Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama is not much of a schmoozer, and some Republicans say he might benefit from becoming more of one. Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said Mr. Obama has telephoned him just once, after he had lung surgery. “He needs to build friendships and he needs to build trust,” Mr. Johanns said.
Although Mr. Obama has hosted cocktail hours and parties at the White House for members of Congress, he is not the type to spend his free time socializing with lawmakers. While personal relationships cannot erase philosophical differences, they can help, which is one reason Mr. Lott, the former Republican leader, pushed privately for Mr. McConnell and Mr. Obama to meet.
“You know, Clinton, we used to talk to each other all the time, through back channels, middle of the day, middle of the night,” Mr. Lott said. “He’d call at 11 o’clock, 2 o’clock at night; I’d go up to the family quarters and have coffee with him at 9:15 in the morning. They’ve got to open up communications — and not for press purposes. They’ve got to talk quietly, privately. That’s Step 1 in Washington.”
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Dr. Cornel West Speaks Directly To President Obama via Video--January 20, 2010 -- (A Statement On the First Anniversary of Obama's Administration)
Dr. Cornel WestOn the cusp of the upcoming midterm elections on November 2, 2010--in what promises to be a crucial and historically pivotal ideological litmus test of President Obama's administration, agenda, and program--I thought it would be wise for us all to step back 10 months ago to the first anniversary of the President's ascension to power and reflect on the prescient remarks of an important leftist scholar and activist who in fact did strongly support the President's successful candidacy in 2008
All,
Profound and very necessary remarks by Cornel--as usual. If Obama wants to truly succeed as a "progressive reformer" he will listen very carefully to both the spirit and letter of Dr. West's plea and boldly act upon the substance of what he says--for his sake and ours...
Kofi
Click on Link below to view Video:
Cornel West's note to Obama - January 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
