Read Their Lips

No new taxes ever, for any reason whatsoever, except on working people and businesses looking to hire Americans.

[P]ayroll-tax cuts are the sort of tax break most likely to "get the economy moving again" during a recession. (Because they put money in the hands of people most likely to spend it and therefore boost other businesses. And on balance they lower the cost of adding new workers.) Income-tax breaks at the top end are least likely to create new demand or jobs. (Because they go to people who have a lower "marginal propensity to spend" and are more likely to park the money in the bank.)

Makes sense to me. I'd reckon that, if they made this a really big issue, Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives might start cracking the false narrative of Republican Tax Relief, kneecap support for the Bush Tax Cuts, gain some desperately needed political capital, and hammer the GOP on a fundamental economic vision for America. This situation, after all, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama cut taxes so that working people and small businesses were the primary beneficiary. It also demonstrates that Republicans, who have literally picked "not raising taxes" as their hill to die on in the Debt Ceiling debates, are actually willing to raise taxes whenever it is politically convenient to do so.



And by "raise taxes," I'm using the GOP definition which includes: letting certain tax cuts expire, closing loopholes, ending subsidies, and the spectre of raising taxes at some future time.



So now that we've determined what kind of tax opponnents Republicans really are, all that's left is negotiating. Oh, and spreading the word to the American people before the GOP is able to work its way onto both sides of this issue as well.



.

Always Right

Republicans are never wrong. They've always got people working the angles, so the Democrats can take the blame.



Remember all the Libya war hate from the Republicans? That was an easy position to go on the news and advocate back when the rebels looked like they were about to get thrown into the sea by Qadaffi's mercenaries, wasn't it?



But now that the Libya intervention seems to have worked, the pro-interventionist Republicans get to blame the President for not getting involved soon enough.



I really like how no one in the GOP even acknowledges that there is a difference of opinion within their own party. That's a powerful media strategy, my friends.



Same as it ever was.



.

All Hat & Fake Cattle

If Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives had two ounces of sense to rub together, they'd make Rick "Miracle Man with a Silver Bullet" Perry's campaign for President the poster child for both the policies that got America into all our current messes and the politics of right-wing cognitive dissonance.



In fact, they could go after Perry for not being a fiscal conservative and only playing one when the cameras are rolling. That would, of course, make the "Perry is the Next Bush" politics far more credible than the crap they are likely thinking of running.



Such a focus will be far more credible than the coming campaign against the Confederate States of America some of those never-squander-an-opportunity-to-lose-the-South professional bloggers and activists are doubtlessly planning on running. It would also allow the DLP to actively challenge the very right-wing narratives and political marketing that have been so effective since 1994.



HT: Andrew Sullivan.



Perry is going to be the nominee. He is the embodiment of the current Right-Wing, GOP, Tea Party alliance. He displays all their strengths and weaknesses, and could give President Obama and what Democrats remain an actual foil to run against and turn their own numbers around.



And they don't even have to make stuff up to do it.



.

House of Cards

You play with fire long enough, you're liable to get burned.



If your object is to get back to the pre-1929 world economy, we're well on our way and it looks like the whole world is coming with us. Of course, all of this should have been expected, because what else do you think happens when the American government - maybe the one entity with the ability to spending enough money to land the economy safely - says they're going to stop spending money? Business leaders and stock brokers know that there is no one left to spend the money. Companies aren't spending money, despite massive tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes. Individual people aren't spending money, because they're too busy trying to make ends meet. People in other nations aren't spending money, because their economies are based of the USA spending money.



Not only that, but if you borrow money from the USA, there is the very real possibility that a completely untrustworthy political group is going to put the brakes on you getting paid back so they can further curb the spending ability of the one organization left that can still spend money.



Thanks, Tea Party! Y'all own this economy, now. While all the kids may have pushed on the antique vase that ended up broken, the kid holding the baseball bat should recieve the most scrutiny. This isn't just the Tea Party Economy, y'all, this is the exactly stated results of their policies.



For a little while, it looked like we might get let down easy. The unsustainable economy America has been building over the last two generations was finally being exposed for the fraud it was. The panic of 2007-08 evaporated trillions of dollars in Monopoly Money from the economy, to the shock of many. The nation was bleeding jobs even as real estate oversupply sent house values tumbling below what owners and developers borrowed from the banks to pay for the land. Those are the types of jobs that aren't coming back, so not only are people going to need to find new jobs, they have to discover new ways to live within their means or create new jobs on their own. The whole time, the cost of health care continues to rise, along with prices of food and energy.



Of course, few politicians were willing to say in public how screwed the country is, lest they be called out for "making the situation worse" with a dose of reality. Out of our political caste, President Obama comes the closest to the truth the most often with the most consistentcy. And while that reality might draw derision from the Professional American Left, their national influence wanes the further away you get from the New York Times editorial pages.



On the other hand, talking about reality only draws howls and hatred from the fanatic and ideologically pure Right-Wing, content to sell cultural panic for the political capital necessary to win elections. At this point, the Right-Wing's stated policy goals include returning this country to a mythical utopia of stars-and-stripes-colored unicorns and business-friendly faeries where the government is based only on the parts of the Constitution they agree with. After all, the theory goes, how bad could things have been back in the days when the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery after Paul Revere raised his guns and bells to warn the British of an insane and armed American population?



And if you think incredible historical misconceptions are very different from the historical buffoonery of Bachmann and Palin, you're just kidding yourself.



Anyone mildly versed in United States history knows that pre-1929 economics would take us back to the boom and bust cycles of pre-1929 America, where the economy didn't experience "recessions" as often as it experienced "panics." Sound good? Try this: those economic panics happened so often they had to be labeled by the year instead of the decade, and often evaporated entire regions of national economic health.



The Right-Wing political sales pitch is more American Pie than Jim Crow, Segregation, and the legacy of slavery; more Strict Constructionist than Louisiana Purchase; more "right to work" than children in the coal mines; more seperate but equal vouchers instead of public education; and more Whistlin' Dixie than the Battle Cry of Freedom that eventually mtobilized the Union for total war.



Bobby Lee might have been revered by his soldiers and, later, an America that adores tragic heroes, but Grant and Sherman came after him with more men, more guns, more ammunition, more food, railcars to move all of those things and shoes on their soldiers' feet. I think of that any time a Tea Partier from the eleven states of the Old Confederacy talk to me about government being the problem.



These howlers aren't interested in the reality of the situation with the American economy, it only matters what they can sell the loudest to the 24 hour cable news consuming public. Discussing the real problems and real solutions would be difficult professionally and would make for boring television, after all.



Well, I doubt pre-1929 America was a boring place to live, based off the history I have read. Thanks to the Tea Party Economy and the right-wing, I think we're about to get a taste of just how "exciting" that kind of life would be.



(NOTE: This was scheduled to post Monday around lunch, and then I saw that Dante had posted Monday around breakfast, so I pushed it back.)

.

Another Left-Wing Narrative

"Poor and Working People make up one politically homogeneous demographic." Another can be added to this: "The Democratic Party represents poor and working people."



Right-wing narratives are easy to spot, and are marketed better. All you have to do is listen to a Republican, a Tea Partier, or Fox News for five minutes, and you'll hear no less than three repetitions of some assumed and politically marketed false choice or oversimplification sold with all the truth of accepted common wisdom.



On the left, they're a little more difficult to spot. One reason is because "the left" is really a loose, bickering coalition of competing interests that can hardly agree on any issue. They usually have to cut deals to achieve policy goals, and can't often get everything they want at once because so many varied stakeholders have to be in on the deal. That's one structural reason why the right-wing is usually the group setting the terms of every political conversation.



Luckily, every once in a while, I'm reminded that a few overarching left-wing narratives do exist that tie a huge majority of "the left" together. In this case, it is a narrative often used in dismay or disgruntlement by someone on the left, who is frustrated that politics are hard, and that the Democratic, Liberal, and Progressive coalition that makes up "the left" must usually factor into their governing philosophies the political priorities of the Libertarian, Conservative, Tea Party, and Republican coalition that makes up "the right."



This is especially true when "the right" has some sort of political power or capital that they are willing to cash in to get policy concessions from "the left." Such policy concessions are not seen as a necessary part of the governing process, they are considered wholesale surrender of all progressive political priorities everywhere and for all time, that will throw us immediately back into the 3rd World poverty and vassalism of the Dark Ages.



Since the Democratic Party so obviously has broken with the Liberals and Progressives in their coalition, the only answer is a third party that really represents poor and working people.



Just like the Tea Party is waiting on a 3rd party ready to represent the wishes of Real Americans (tm).



.

The Tax-Cut Gnomes

Step One: Cut Taxes
Step Two: ?
Step Three: Make Profit!

Tax cuts are supposed to be some miracle cure for economic woes, period. That's the deeply held faith of so many Republicans, Libertarians, small-l libertarians, Tea Partiers, and Right Wingers. That's what they sell in their political marketing to America.

If it was really true, where are the jobs? The United States has some of the lowest tax rates in our nation's history. Many of the states with the lowest tax rates also have the highest rates of unemployment (Georgia & Louisiana). Low taxes, tax cuts, tax loopholes, and all the subsidies our governments provide haven't been able to provide any national economic security for a decade. Jobs haven't been created or retained. Wages have only increased for the top 1%. New industries and businesses have had trouble opening. The only way the powers-that-be could pretend our nation made any economic gains in the last decade was to give us a shell game, where our whole economy become less dynamic, more dependent on cheap energy that no longer exists, a house of cards real estate bubble, and illegal labor.

In the face of all this truth, how do the right wing's political marketers reply to the burning wreckage of policy that is their biggest and most successful advertising?

Why, they double down on the bullshit and blame the economy on a make believe tax hike orchestrated by a tax cutting President, that's what.

.

Rolling the Dice

Some right-of-center folks are making a big deal out of Democratic affiliated businessman Steve Wynn, a casino and resort developer, complaining about Obama's affect on the economy.

This is big for the right-of-center crowd, because it feeds the Democrats-are-anti-business narrative with the gasoline of they even do it to their own business leaders!

Taking a reasonable step back, I'll repeat here what I said in the comments at Peach Pundit.

I think Presidents can have much more than a negligible impact on the American economy. I also think that the President’s imact (sic) is only one part of a massive, chaotic whole, dictated directly and indirectly by situation, state policies, municipal and local policies, technology, past policies at all levels, culture, the spending habits of the American people, the spending habits of small business, the spending habits of big business, and the lending practices of banks. I think the expectation that an American President can control or impact all of that to the point where they “own” the economy is nothing short of unhelpful oversimplification.

Because if the economy is getting worse, how is it that so many investors and entreprenuers are opening up (or trying to open up) shop in New Orleans, maybe the most anti-free enterprise municipality in North America? Why is it I can’t get a seat at Southern Soul BBQ, Sal’s Neighborhood Pizzeria, or Crabdaddy’s on St. Simons Island because the lines are out the door? Sanctuary Cove in Camden might have had to close down when the bubble burst, but chose instead to bottom out their prices and offer killer deals; now they’re probably the best golf value in Coastal Georgia. Wynn’s political affiliation doesn’t matter one whit – he’s angry because there isn’t a market for what he’s selling where he wants to sell it at the price he wants to sell it for.

Emphasis added.

.

The Intervention

Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone is absolutely right to bring up the flip-flop of pro-war right wingers, as they're now turning on international interventions they couldn't get enough of when a Republican was in the White House. Though be assured, now that President Obama has declared that Americans will be drawing down troops in Afganistan, even the newly reenergized isolationist wing of the right will hammer him on tactics as if the tactics of the last 10 years didn't exist.

But this is nothing new. The GOP is able to flip-flop at will over American wars without any reasonable accountability because they are so good at marketing their changing position. Either way they go, they are "on the side of Americans," at least on TV or radio.

They loved Iraq War I, but were split on Somalia before they were against it. The GOP almost completely bailed on the incredibly successful US military involvement in the Balkans, which American political culture rarely references. With that one, they questioned every item of American priority from why we were getting involved to the open ended mission to how much it would cost the US taxpayer. At one point, there was even legislation: the House passed a bill not to fund the Balkans operation, while in the Senate

Another resolution sponsored by a group of Republicans led by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas would support the troops but not the President's decision to send them.

Does that sound like GOP behavior from the last decade? What would have been said about actions like that if Democrats had been the ones taking them? Luckily, we have that answer, and it is maddening to critics and opponents of the Iraq war, the Afganistan engagement, and the whole partisan tone of war politics during the Bush II years. It didn't matter if a position was right or wrong, supportive or non-supportive, or based on tactics alone: if it wasn't part of the GOP talking points, it was WRONG, not only WRONG but AMERICAN-SOLDIER-HATING, FLAG BURNING, TRAITORS SHOULD BE BURNED AT THE STAKE wrong, and that's how every public debate was framed. Taibbi sums up these feelings well:

Six or seven or eight years ago, I seem to remember, anyone who even hinted that not using military force to resolve any foreign policy dispute, no matter how trivial or how imaginary the justification, was to be considered a traitor.

Bill O'Reilly drew a direct line in response to Dick Durbin's equally ridiculous hyperbole (the Democrats and the left, never able to miss an opportunity to make a right-winger's point for them, only encouraged the bad behavior). Or we were led to believe that actually examining the war was akin to surrender. And all this went on for years, every day, every hour on Fox News and Talk Radio.

It even continued into the Obama Presidency, with right-wingers, hawks, and Republicans breathlessly anticipating American military surrender or defeat, now that a Democratic President was in the White House.

Then a funny thing happened. Obama called the right-wing bluff and went all in with the Cheney/McChrystal strategy. Y'all want to keep going in Afganistan? Let's really spool things up there and see what you do.

From a purely tactical standpoint, it still wasn't enough. Not nearly. We simply don't have the manpower or materiel or international support or national popular committment to "win" in Afganistan the way many Americans envision "winning" a war. And that cultural tactical confusion is what's been used by partisan politicians since the first troops showed up there.

But if you're trying to find a political solution to end the war - and I'm talking about here in the United States, not in Afganistan - you have to do some things that change the national conversation on a fundamental level. The President did the only thing he could plausably do considering the political climate: bulk up the forces with as few troops as possible to end this thing as close to our terms and cultural needs as possible. Work away from a goal to acheive a goal. Which is what is happening.

Though, thanks to Bush's strategic blunders of not sending adequate manpower or materiel at the onset, and the recent success against Osama Bin Laden personally, popular opinion has turned to ending the wars sooner rather than later. A financial crisis at home is driving home the point. And now GOP Presidential candidates are starting to use the machinery of right-wing marketing to advocate ending the war and bringing the troops home.

It is hard to call a political opponent out for "surrendering" when your stated positions advocate an even quicker exit - an exit that for a decade has been demonized by the right - when said political opponent is delivering not only on his campaign promises but yours. This gives Obama tremendous political capital in the face of defense contractor interests and neoconservatives that the left was simply unable or unwilling to manufacture on their own accord for the past decade. The national narrative has turned from "when will the Democrats make our brave troops surrender" to "how fast can we bring our brave troops home?"

In 2 years, President Obama has reconfigured the terms of the entire national-security discussion. That's something the liberals and progressives and true believers were wholly unable and unprepared to do for the last decade. Working away from a goal to acheive a goal.

Which brings me to the Libya intervention. US involvement is a huge gamble here. The Administration's going at it without Congressional authorization, and our Consitutional law professor President basically throwing that authorization need back into the faces of Republicans in Congress, is confusing. Why would such a deliberate administration act in such ways? Especially when Obama's stated position on Executive authority is so well known.

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Of course, there are bipartisan internationalist members of the US Senate working to acquire Congressional authorization for the Libya action, even as isolationist Republican and anti-war Democratic members of the US House work to defund it (the old Balkan War trick).

This seems to be the par-for-the-course behavior. Isolationists and anti-war folks will get their voices heard, but the majority will back the Administration and the Libya operation will continue. But this President is despised among the Tea Party wing, who appear unafraid to salt the earth to keep the President in check. Add to that the rage of the anti-warrriors of the Democratic left, and you've got a good sized chunk of the Congress. Even if they aren't successful at defunding the Libya operation, they're going to want revenge for Obama's marginalization of Congress.

This became clear to me when I read the quote from Senator John McCain regarding how such behavior affected the Bush administration, and how it could affect future GOP Presidents.

"We were right to condemn this behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves, simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the White House," he said. "Someday, a Republican will again occupy the White House, and the President may need to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities.

"So if my Republican colleagues are indifferent to how their actions would affect this President, I would urge them to think seriously about how a vote to cut off funding for this military operation could come back to haunt a future President when the shoe is on the other foot," he continued.

Think about this politically: Obama has stated a desire for war powers to require more robust Presidential approval. Many Republicans oppose him to the point of distraction. The President could have gone to Congress for the Libya operation (especially when all the GOP folks currently complaining were calling on him to intervene) and recieved Congressional authorization in a heartbeat.

He chose to pick a fight with this Congress over the Executive powers to use the military, in the most in-your-face way possible. If nothing legislatively happens, the status quo remains.

But what if the anti-Obama GOP team up with the anti-war Democrats to propose legislation specifically limiting a President's authority to engage in military adventures? What if they amend the War Powers Act to be more specific, and more in tune with Obama's stated Constitutional beliefs?

That means this President could topple Quadaffi WHILE creating political conditions necessary to legislatively restrain a President's future ability to get the nation into wars BY engaging in a conflict with minimal exposure and cost to American troops by emboldening our NATO allies. This could be some Michael Corleone level plans.

Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. But this President has already demonstrated a willingness to work away from a goal to acheive a goal, and an ability to allow American popular opinion to shift of its own accord. We'll see if anything really comes from this, but it sure does make for interesting viewing.

Update: The votes are in, and an big majority of Congress is standing up to the President on Libya. They're even entertaining a notion later that will "defund" American operations, except for search and rescue, intelligence gathering, refueling, and logistical operations. You know, the kind of operations that pretty much define the current US involvement in Libya.

So the mission continues as planned. Anti-Obama Republicans and anti-war Democrats are now working together against American adventurism abroad. Wonder what comes next?

.

The Middle East, Condensed

You're doubtlessly hearing a great deal of bullshit today from the right wing and the Israeli Prime Minister (who himself might as well be part of the American right wing).

For any confusions you might have, please refer to Jay Bookman's write up in the AJC. This fantastic piece lays out what is really at stake and why, from an American point of view. Meanwhile, Yossi Klein Halevi at The New Republic looks at the same problem from the dualist Israeli view. (HT: Andrew Sullivan)

Both are essential, reality-based reads about a complex problem and the President's speech from yesterday, free of the disgusting demagougery and political goal-post moving you are currently seeing from the American right-wing.

.

A Wild Narrative Appears

Following up on last week's flop daring ALL BLACK RAPPERS ARE SCARY THUGS!, Right Wing Studios is set to release an even bigger pile of crap Summer Action Flick.

PIRATES OF THE MIDDLE EAST IV: ON ISRAELI SIDES

This newest installment of the classic franchise has the chance to top the Fox Box Office all summer. Even if you don't want to, you're guaranteed to see it again and again and again!

This film has been rated BS by the Reality Based Association of America.

.

Change I Still Believe In

I've been pretty plain in that I don't think the successful OBL operation had anything to do with George W. Bush's time as Presdient any more than it had to do with Clinton's.

The foregin policy this nation has (so far) engaged under the Obama Administration is far from perfect. But it is a tremendous positive change from what we faced under the last administration, and it has accomplished far more in two and a half years than Bush accomplished in 8.

.

Torture Worked!

Well, at least in the delusional fantasy land of make believe that affects most American right-wingers these days. Folks, here's where credibility is important.

The people who brought you "Not One Drop of Oil [Spilled Due to Gulf Hurricanes in 2005]" proudly present:

"Torture Years Ago Killed Osama Earlier This Week."

(This of course creates the offspring narrative: "George W. Bush Had Much More To Do With OBL's Apprehension than Barack Obama.")

And you know what? They're going to repeat this as much and as often as is necessary to convince the American media consumer that this nonsense is true. Just like they did with the "Not One Drop" narrative. This is how they work, after all: create a talking point and repeat it until enough people have heard it so often they assume it is true. And they do it very well.

It doesn't even matter how easily their arguments can be deconstructed (NSFW Image).

[A]lthough neither torture victim gave up the correct information, and one gave an entirely false lead, it was their refusal to tell the truth that proves torture worked! Seriously. It was the failure of torture to get accurate information that proves the validity of the torture!

Update: The only thing that has been proven right in this episode of American history are the folks who warned us that, once our popular culture embraces torture in such ways, it was only a matter of time before the uses of torture were officially expanded.

.

The New York Whines

You know something, fellas?

Y'all could have done more to clear all this mess up a long time ago by saying something like this every time the issue arose.

Because that's what it is going to take, these days. Every fake issue that comes out of our poisoned political system is going to require massive response. From birtherism to the Ground Zero Mosque to Kenyan Anti-Colonialism to Secular Atheist Islamic Fundamentalism to Andrew Brietbart splicing Shirley Sherood into the next Busta Ryhmes video and calling it news.

Y'all are the news. Y'all have to respond. Y'all have to investigate what is factual and what is not factual and YOU HAVE TO TAKE A STAND ON THE SIDE OF REALITY.

But you didn't. You let each comment, building on the last, slip past you while reporting what people said. You thought this stuff was a joke. You thought this wasn't serious. You, and the rest of the national media, went ahead and published the words of these people with little or insufficient condemnation or correction. Hell, at least it meant pageviews, right? At least you were being "balanced" by publishing the "other side" of the opinion that our President was a legitimate American.

Y'all left it mainly to people on internet message boards and blog comments to call this nonsense what it is. Because we'll do it without pay.

It built up so much attention that the President of the United States of America has had to go on national television to again address the issue of his own citizenship because our nation has a large population of clowns who can somehow get a hold of two years worth of news cycles to display thier honking noses and whoopie cushions while we're engaged in three wars and one tenacious recession.

But I'm glad y'all finally came out and said what needed to be said. Once the President, of course, got down in the mud first.

(HT: Cliff)

.

President Oil-bama

If you haven't already, you're going to start hearing how President Obama is somehow responsible for the high gasoline prices this country is paying. Americans should will blame the President. He is, after all "waging war" on American energy producers.

How?

Look at last year's shakedown of an oil company! Just what you would expect from someone who is into "Death Panels" and "Kenyan Anti-Colonialism" and who refuses to talk about his demonstrably proven Hawaiian birth certificate.

And I give the pundits trying to hang gas prices around the President's neck just about as credibility as I believe they had on those issues. The only action politicians in America can take to address rising gasoline prices is to ruthlessly try and assign blame.

This is, of course, not the first time we've seen this. Not even close.

Don't believe the hype, this is all crap. Here's just one reason why. All the "easy" oil is gone. Another reason? Oil producers are already some of the most subsidized businesses in the United States.

Oh yeah, that's another way the President is "waging war" on these poor, defenseless little altruistic energy companies, by working to eliminating their socialist feudal robust federal tax subsidies in the face of massive profits.

Maybe we should just start having the government pay oil companies directly. That might keep the prices down at $3.75 for another three months.

I thought maybe more Americans would have paid a little bit closer attention last year when BP was busy dispersing free oil to the Gulf of Mexico. I thought maybe more Americans would remember the last time gasoline hit $4 a gallon. For those of you who might have let the likes of Charlie Sheen cloud your too short memory, please allow me to refresh it.

.

Seriously

A lot of Democrats, liberals, and progressives need to stop laughing at the current clown car of GOP Presidential candidates and mocking Paul Ryan's budget plan as "unserious."

With the economy still vulnerable, Barack Obama's Presidency is at serious risk in 2012, and it will remain so no matter who the GOP nominates for the top post.

Not to mention the 23 Democratic Senate seats, compared to 10 GOP seats, that will be on the electoral table. Further down the ticket from that, redistricting will be ready to take effect, draining resources from state and local political organizations as candidates in combined districts get in ugly fights over their jobs.

Next time, before you laugh and make jokes, you should envision the possibility that Paul Ryan's budget proposals could be incredibly serious come 2013, as passed by a Republican House and a filibuster-proof Republican Senate, signed into law by President Romnalentbeerich, and upheld by a right-leaning Supreme Court.

.

A Civil Discussion

This is what one looks like:

But the president’s tone, like Tuesday in Northern Virginia, was again softer than it was last week. Asked by an attendee if Ryan’s plan was bold, Obama answered, “The Republican budget that was put forward I would say is fairly radical. I wouldn’t call it particularly courageous. I do think Mr. Ryan is sincere. I think he’s a patriot. I think he wants to solve a real problem, which is our long-term deficit. But I think that what he and the other Republicans in the House of Representatives also want to do is change our social compact in a pretty fundamental way.”

Of course, there's the usual talk about "partisan bickering." Umm, folks, there is a difference between legitimate disagreement style partisanship and demagoguery style partisanship. Let me show you the difference...

Legitimate disagreement partisanship goes like this: America has a problem, and we are exploring two different and realistic ways to solve it. One side wants to fundamentally alter the national social compact to continue lowering taxes - already the lowest in about 60 years - for the wealthiest Americans based on the theory that those low taxes will create jobs they haven't been able to create previously. The other side wants to restore tax rates to levels comparable to those under the Clinton Administration, roughly the second lowest in about 60 years. Neither of these actions, taken alone, will solve our problems, and the idea that either helps solve our problems are based on economic projections and estimations of what will happen to our economy in the future. That's the way Obama and Ryan are talking right now.

Contrast that with demogoguery style partisanship, like we've heard for the last two years from certain folks: OMG TEH KENYAN ANTICOLONIALIZMS! TEH WEALTH REDISTRIBUTIONIZMS! TEH COMMUNIST FASCIZMS! THE ATHEIST ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIZMS!! TEH ANTI-AMERICANIZMS! TEH BURF CURTIFICATEZ!! TEH VICTORY MOSQUES AT TEH GROUND ZEROIZMS!! TEH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATIONIZMS! TEH DEATH PANELIZMS!!

See the difference? Now, which one would you rather deal with?

.

Actions & Words

Hey, look! Ridiculous words lead to ridiculous actions.

I wonder what all these jokers are going to do when their own state government has to let Obama on the ballot because he has all the paperwork proving he was born in Hawaii? This won't end there, because it isn't really about the integrity of elections, it is about demagoguery and Obama being labled "other."

If it were about integrity of elections, they'd be talking about the ridiculous way this country handles redistricting.

Update: I wonder how much her veto of this bill will hurt Jan Brewer's reelection chances?

.

Check

That's a betting strategy in a game of Texas Hold-'em. It happens when you are the decision making bettor, and you pass the decision on to the next betting opponent.

The opponent can then initiate a bet of their own or pass the decision to their next opponent by "checking" as well.

A lot of people like to compare politics with war metaphors. I prefer cards metaphors as more appropriate. Especially when it comes to complex negotiations like this.

The last Democratic Congress "checked" the issue of fiscal reform to the President. Obama "checked" the decision on fiscal reform to the GOP. The GOP "checked" to Paul Ryan, one of the only Republicans with sand, who has now opened the betting.

I disagree with Sullivan that this is a powerful rebranding of the GOP. They've deomonstrated there isn't a single issue they can't "death panel" into the news cycle. I expect the Democrats will try to do the same to this plan, so that takes care of all the usual suspects who will be yelling at each other without the ability to change minds and policy.

The interaction to watch will be between Ryan - who the GOP has either anointed or set up to take the blame (depending on which way this goes) - and the President.

Which means there is a chance for some sane policy to come out of all this. Not a good chance, but a chance.

.

Part of Obama's Sneaky Plan

Remember how, in Rush Limbaugh Land, Obama praised oil production and offered to open up more American drilling suspiciously just before the Deepwater Horizon disaster? It was all a plot by TEH EBIL KENYAN ANTI-COLONIALIZMS!! to scare Americans away from the selfless executives of those community minded oil industry that create American jobs for Americans in America!

I wonder what El Rushbo's going to say when he finds out the President specifically praised nuclear power - in Japan! Suspiciously before this latest disaster! OH NOES TEH MARXISMS HAVE EARTHQUAKE CONTROLZ!!! Espcially now that Americans are questioning our national "renaissance" with noocyoolar power!

We'll not even mention the deregulation necessary to make both oil drilling rigs and nuclear power plants safe for the communities they serve...

.

Intervention Price Tag

Have these people ever seen a military action that they didn't like? After all we've heard from the war yahoos, from our decade in Iraq and Afganistan to the desire to open up a third war against Iran, do they have any credibility left? Especially after they've spent years telling us out of the other sides of their mouths that "debt" is killing our future and that the United States is out of money to pay for schools.

What do you think makes the planes go, fellas? Jet fuel costs hard currency, and munitions don't grow on trees. And don't forget, you've got an American population weary of supporting a decade of war with no end in sight. How is getting involved in an Arab civil war going to benefit the USA?

Not to mention the fact that the Libyan rebels seem to be doing an OK job with this.

Pardon me if I don't see President Obama as weak-kneed or indecisive for not rah-rahing our way to another foreign entanglement. We cannot solve all the world's problems and suffer no prestige hit for the President acting prudently in America's own self interest (finally).

I'm sure there is already some behind-the-scenes stuff going on, and this is just political point scoring on the part of Washington politicians and pundits who need something to talk about for the Sunday papers. I'd rather our President not be goaded into cowboying up and charging in with the cavalry for what would amount to a very, very expensive infomercial on American air-power.

We are already at war in two places. We already have troops stationed around the globe. We pay dearly for all of that. If the world - NATO, the Arab League, the Organization of African Unity, or the United Nations wants to get involved, I will have no problem if our President supports their actions. I have no problem with our nation assisting a shared international burden.

But America, unilaterally? Again? We just can't afford it.

.