Thursday Reads
Posted: November 4, 2010 Filed under: morning reads 81 Comments
Good Morning!
I’m so glad to be able to surf the web again with my morning coffee!! It’s become such a ritual for me that living without it has been difficult. It’s just not easy doing it on that little tiny BlackBerry screen.
So, I thought I’d start with some economic threads today. Some economists are beginning to decipher the election and what it might mean for the economy. The first link is from Mark Thoma who writes on what the election might mean for financial reform. Will the Republicans try to repeal Dodd-Frank or block Basel 3? Both are important to bringing translucency to the financial markets. Basel 3 is specific to banking and is the international standard for capital and reporting requirements. Thoma takes some of the major new Regs one by one. That coverage alone is worth the read.
At least for the next two years, we should not expect any big changes. If there are changes, they will likely be incremental and move toward less rather than more strict regulation. In the longer run, i.e. beyond the next two years, if there is divided government then gridlock is likely to persist and there will be no big changes. If Democrats retake control, the tilt will be toward stricter regulation and enforcement, but I wouldn’t anticipate any major new regulatory initiatives. However, if Republicans take broad based control, we should expect an attempt to undue many of the more restrictive provisions of recent bills, regulations, and agreements as the free market approach they favor would be likely to prevail.
The Curious Capitalist at Time Magazine–Michael Schuman–thinks the election results will be bad for the world economy. All of us economist types seem to be using the G word. GRIDLOCK. This is his gridlock point. There are more, so be sure to check it out.
First, we’ve got the gridlock problem. A divided Washington probably means that not much will get done to aid the stalling U.S. recovery. Forget about a second stimulus. We’re more likely to see extra pressure on Obama to cut spending. And that’s not good for growth. Longer-term issues, such as financial reform, could just drift.
The FED continues with the next phase of Quantitative Easing. I’m not sure what all is included with its purchase requirements yet, but the basic idea is to get paper investments off the books of banks and give them money instead. They can’t just sit on cash because there’s no return. If they want profits they’ll need to invest or loan it to catch their arbitrage profits. Will they loan it out this time or where will it go? No one can ever tell for sure but the FED hopes it will be used for loans. Especially, in an economy like this. Here’s a FAQ on the QE from Real Time Economics at the WSJ. I promise I’ll write more on this as soon as my laptop looks normal again. That and I’m curious about the currency war possibilities. Look for it some time this week. Meanwhile, back to the QE FAQ and the big question.
Why is the Fed planning another round of QE?
Even though the Fed has been holding short-term interest rates near zero since December 2008, the economy remains weak. The Fed is falling short on its two primary mandates: unemployment, at 9.6%, is well above “maximum sustainable employment” and inflation is running below what the Fed considers to be “price stability,” an informal target of 1.75% to 2%. Fed officials believe more bond-buying could push rates even lower, though they admit the effect may not be as pronounced as it was before. “The impact of securities purchases may depend to some extent on the state of financial markets and the economy,” Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said in late August. “For example, such purchases seem likely to have their largest effects during periods of economic and financial stress, when markets are less liquid and term premiums are unusually high.”
[MABlue here] For those of you who are not very well versed in the world of finance, here’s is a good video from Market Place. The guy does a pretty good job in his grosso modo explanation of Quantitative Easing.
On the day after Republicans reclaimed control of Congress, a Democratic lawmaker said he will introduce a measure that would “disavow” the impeachment of former President Clinton.
Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.) said that the resolution is necessary so that Democrats and Republicans can work together in a bipartisan fashion.
“As we enter a period in which bipartisanship will be a major priority for the Congress, it is vital that we disavow the most highly partisan example of the politics of personal destruction in the recent history of this House,” Fattah said in a statement.
The last time they were in power, House Republicans impeached Clinton for allegedly perjuring himself over his supposed affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, only the second president in history to be impeached, was eventually acquitted at trial in the Senate.
Does any one else find this a little weird? And, let’s add another one the the weird pile from Ben Smith over at Politico. This one is on “HillBill”. Actually, it’s just a picture of SOS Clinton in New Guinea with some glib comment about how she’s in the right place at the right time. (sigh). Couldn’t he just say something nice about the trip?
The Guardian has an interesting piece up on Election Day Turnout. It is–as they say–a numbers game.
Here, as far as I can see, are the three big top-line differences:
1. The 2008 electorate was 74% white, plus 13% black and 9% Latino. The 2010 numbers were 78, 10 and 8. So it was a considerably whiter electorate.
2. In 2008, 18-to-29-year-olds made up 18% and those 65-plus made up 16%. Young people actually outvoted old people. This year, the young cohort was down to 11%, and the seniors were up to a whopping 23% of the electorate. That’s a 24-point flip.
3. The liberal-moderate-conservative numbers in 2008 were 22%, 44% and 34%. Those numbers for yesterday were 20%, 39% and 41%. A big conservative jump, but in all likelihood because liberals didn’t vote in big numbers.
So, I’m still trying to rediscover all my old links and haunts. I’m relying on you to help me for awhile. I crashed while I was spiffing up the place so I need to get on with that. Any suggestions?
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
See, the problem I have with this kind of analysis, which I’m seeing all over, is that it yet again blames Republicans for action/inaction Obama brought us anyway.
Obama’s had his Dem Congress for two years and the first stimulus was too small and even that was bloated with non-stimulus stuff like tax cuts. There wasn’t a second stimulus when he had the chance. His financial reform was slow in coming and at best anemic, and I didn’t see any sign he was pulling together a potent follow-up.
Site comments: I really love the site colors, the spatter paint graphics. I don’t love the big quote marks next to quotes. I prefer using a box with a different color for quotes. I know, I know, everyone does the boxes, but it’s because it works so well.
The comment nesting is a bit confusing. I don’t know if you can change that, but more indentation, and ridding the grey versus white would both be nice.
I love the content of the page. It would be nice if what you see as “real issues” would be somehow laid out for us. Sometimes I post and then wonder if I’m posting a tabu subject.
I have a feeling the more of you and BB that appear here, the less I’ll go to the other place. A certain front pager over there would do themselves favors by avoiding snarky talk toward people over here. That person comes across as mean, nasty, self-absorbed and juvenile. But she always has.
A summary of the news: The election was awful, but so are the Democrats. I think your news today furthers the justification for my statement.
Yes, I find nesting indentation and quotation marks a little confusing too.
Agree. Even leaving plenty of spaces after the blockquote, it can still be difficult to see where the quote ends.
For me, one of the most disconcerting aspects is having the comments link at the top of the post, since I’m one of those people that never jumps into comments until I’ve read the complete post. Then, I have to go back up to the top of the post to click on comments.
I’m going to have to get an account upgrade to change some of those things. I’ll see what I can do. Today, I’ve got to get a few more things loaded back in–like STATA–which is essential to my research. I’ve also got to move into the new BlackBerry so maybe I can get at this over the weekend before Doctor Daughter comes down for a visit. I get to meet her significant other finally. Youngest is turning 21 so we’re going to do the town with her too.
“more indentation” would be nice. But I like the gray/white. It’s easy to see a complete “conversation”.
I like the gray/white also but agree the indent could be greater.
OTOH – if it costs money to fix I can live with it.
As for the other place – I could not believe that in the middle of dak’s final post over there Miss NJ was barking orders in the middle of the thread to other front pagers demanding that they “contact” her. I felt certain they had other ways to communicate with each other privately and her authoritarian demands were an embarrassment and an early indicator things were not going well off screen. Her nasty angry out of left field responses always made me wince and I stay away from people like that.
The worst insult (IMO) you can say about a person in a work or professional setting is:
“I would never want to serve on a committee with them”.
well, so be it
Well, they needed an enemy to liven up the place and I guess they found it in me. Believe me, it wasn’t just me, I wasn’t the first one by any means, and it was never my intent to split things or leave. Funny how once something is set into motion it develops a life all its own. I’m being accused of all kinds of things now. It’s actually made me glad I revived the file cabinet over here and the best thing has been and will always be the community and I’m very blessed and fortunate that you all didn’t abandon me. You can’t imagine how awed, humbled and joyous that makes me.
It really is “Down the Rabbit Hole” world to see what you’re being accused of! Boggles the mind!
I also noticed that bullying, inflammatory discourse spiced with swearing was hailed as preferable to a civil – which actually doesn’t exclude “passionate”! – and respectful one.
Okay, to each his/her own, but there’s no doubt which one gives me the better insight … and outcome.
I’ve always felt you could voice a controversial opinion without being insulting. I don’t know how being civil makes one mealy mouthed at all.
I don’t think it’s a big money investment but there’s that and I have to learn how to switch things a bit so it may take me some time to actually figure it out, but I’m willing to try!!!
One thing I’ve learned about people over the years, if they get loud and nasty, they’re wrong and they know it.
When I, after a year of reading blogs, jumped in and asked her if I as a foreigner was allowed to comment, RD welcomed me warmly. And never once did she make me feel like I wasn’t welcome. For that I’ll always be grateful to her.
But it seems like lately she’s gone somewhat … “Jeralyn”. Maybe that’s inevitable when you’ve had a blog for some time? That you suddenly jump on both foes and friends and start “purging”? I don’t know.
About the “You need to mail me”, you refer to, a blog (that I won’t link to and shouldn’t even be reading) made this satirized version:
“Anytime any of youse disagree with something I’ve said here, email me. Don’t do it here and act like a blog is some kind of format specifically set up for people to publicly communicate with each other.” 😉
I’m fine with tangents. I’m the Queen of tangents so it’s fine–especially on these morning posts–to post WHATEVER. That’s what they’re for and you can essentially consider them completely open. I’m trying to make the headlines terse and categorize some so folks can tell what’s on the table. Guess it’s only been a week so things will be developing as we see what works and what doesn’t. Just realize that all suggestions are welcome and asking to open up a topic is fine too! I can also open up author rights to folks who want to open up topics for discussion on their own.
Again, most of my ‘rules’ come under the heading of of you can disagree, but be civil about it and that rule definitely applies to every one including ME. I just don’t want any one to feel intimidated about speaking up here because they think they’ll be jumped on or humiliated.
Oh, funny. Haven’t been perusing the other place, figuring the increasing nonsense there should not be rewarded with viewership. Perhaps the fascination with TEN MILLION VIEWS started a hype-cycle that, once set in motion, will be difficult to temper. That sort of high drama environment is my cue to withdraw to calmer pastures.
*****A
Krugman, in his post yesterday said that nobody cares about the deficit.
I think that should be reworded. Nobody SHOULD care about the deficit, but many do care. They seem to think curing that will cure all ills somehow, magically, as if the USA were just running over the USA family budget somehow after buying too many new sheets and blankets, or a new TV.
I’m trying to make it plain that the deficit is the least of our worries right now. We have to spend to get the economy started, and spend on the right things, not the banks. It’s like shouting into a windstorm. I do see some people comprehend, after a while.
I think Krugman’s right.
I think what people really care about is their own financial circumstances and whether or not the economy’s humming in a prosperous direction, and all the rest is noise. We have first-hand experience with this, we saw while Clinton was President that the deficit can be taken care of if the economy’s healthy; I think bleating about the deficit is just another way of saying fix the economy.
Bill Clinton had it right as usual: it’s the economy stupid.
I said in January 2009 and I stand by it, Obama should have approached this like FDR did: decide on a cohesive approach (while bodysurfing in Hawaii if necessary) and then start on day 1 deluging Congress with legislation. Back then they’d have passed almost anything he sent over; for a few months at least. Then let the bad sift out and reinforce the good.
If he’d done that he’d be sinking now or swimming, but he and we wouldn’t be in this pergatory where he can say things are improved and not be a total liar while most of us are getting worn out from trying to keep our chin above water and still don’t see land or a boat or even a floating log on the horizon.
I completely agree with your take on how Obama should have approached this. And perhaps you are right about the deficit grumbling. Around here everyone I know mentions it, and worries about it. Could just be that’s because its all the talking heads talk about.
People really are concerned about their own little economy and worried that the powers that be will keep making things worse. In my experience, they relate the overall economy and how it should be run to their own, instead of realizing it should run differently. Hence all the crazy anti-tax measures in my state, while people keep protesting that services are cut, and cut, and cut, and cut. But somehow, magically, all those services will be funded if we just ‘balance the budget’, ‘cut the waste’. It’s amazing how many professed liberals spout those right wing canards. Maybe that’s a sign of the success of Reaganism.
True, but I even have a problem with that.
Although I am financially conservative by nature –a saver, not a borrower or even a spender– in mid-life after many financial ups and downs I’ve finally understood that the way to prosperity is to use one’s assets and credit. Whether it’s an individual or a government, you don’t go from economic disaster to prosperity by merely scrimping and being careful. Be frugal and smart about spending but not fearful and stingy, lower expenses wherever possible, sure, but also be bold about investing in the future. If I’m broke with bills and no job and can get my hands on a thousand dollars, I won’t pay my bills with it I’ll use it to plant vegetables and build a chicken house and buy chickens, and then sell the produce and eggs in addition to providing food for my family.
love this ….you explained it very well
I think this comes under the heading of the wisdom of the ancients …
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven
That generation employed in the media is, by a wide margin, hateful about Hillary. It’s hardwired into them and in 2008 their peers and Obama reinforced it. Sometimes it’s overt and sometimes it’s snide lurking just beneath the surface. But it’s deeply ingrained and will likely never change. I don’t understand all the details but the reason it’s so intractable is because their parents put it there. And if they say anything positive about Hillary they generally say it in a way that implies their positive assessment is superior to our assessment.
Disavowing impeachment is very weird. If he’s trying to convince the Repubs to promise not to start playing political games with Obama, good luck. If he’s trying to raise everyone’s spirits by bringing it up and feeding into CDS, which is rampant today, I guess it makes sense. Wave a red flag in front of the Republicans, then join hands to moan about Billary and try to undercut a primary challenge neither of them wants to see?
Yes I think it’s the latter.
“Don’t pay attention to the sewage seeping across your lawns. Look! Over there!! It’s a Clinton!!!”
I can’t honestly see how the Clintons could be blamed or be in any way involved in this cluster f*ck of a election. Hillary isn’t even allowed to campaign. People need to find new demons to pick on. I suggest Boehner and associates :).
Once people have agreed upon who’ll be the whipping boy, they don’t need a reasonable excuse to drag him out. They’ll just make up reasons, and if they’re too lazy to even do that they’ll dust off some old ones.
The one thing Rethuglicans and Obamabots agree about is the Clintons.
… and you can include people who really know better!
I’m fully aware that Jon Stewart is a comedian with a juvenile sense of humour that plays well into his audience. I know he’ll take any opportunity (doesn’t even need one) to ridicule Bill Clinton with stupid hints to the Monica affair. Still, the vigor and insistence with which he made a joke in his first show back in N.Y. about how there wasn’t a threesome B.C. wouldn’t engage in was … appaling! The audience loved it and laughed and applauded like crazy!
That’s one thing I always detested about Stewart: He has people on, is friendly and respectful, but the moment they turn their back, he has no problem ridiculing them.
Not being a politician himself he still is considered a very (the most?) powerful person when it comes to politically influencing especially the youth. He really should use this power more care- and thoughtfully. But I guess that’s not how fratboys ‘roll’.
Point well taken.
Still, I don’t mind him ridiculing Bill Clinton so much as I mind his reticence to ridicule Obama the same way. Problem is, if you ridicule Obama in the same manner you do Bill Clinton, you’ll be called racist. And I think even Jon Stewart isn’t powerful enough to withstand that.
So, to be fair, if you don’t do it about Obama you don’t do it about Clinton. Problem is, then half your material is gone.
Speaking of Stewart, I got sick to my stomach watching the show last night as he went through the election results. He snarked on it being the “…year of the woman….Losing” and the audience really reacted with a spiteful sounding cheer. I don’t think it’s merely Hillary-hatred going on these days, the rampant misogyny is alive and well.
He may have been referring to the likes of Sharron Angle, Meg Whitman, and Christine O’Donnell by that remark. Those women were not in favor of women’s right to choose which may have prompted the response from the audience.
I took it as less a sexist remark as a political failing of these three in particular to lose the seats they desired.
I didn’t see the show but I’m familiar with the “spiteful cheer” janicen describes and I doubt very much it had to do with a woman’s right to choose. It’s a mob-mentality we-hate-them-over-there cheer. It’s not about principles or ideology, it’s aabout the crowd cheering the defeat of The Other. Those people are not concerned about a woman’s right to choose, that’s not what I heard and read the past month, I heard about O’Donnell being a witch or not being a witch and masturbation and her bankruptcy and sleeping with a guy on Halloween. I heard no uproar over her opposition to abortion rights. Most (if not all) of that mob crowd have no idea what it’s like to live in a country where they don’t have access to legal and safe abortion and I think that’s not even on their radar — if it were, why didn’t they protest Obama’s Stupek-EO.
He may have been referring to Angle, Whitman, and O’Donnell, but he didn’t mention them specifically at that point. He mentioned women and then he ranted on the fact that women had achieved “true equality” in that they spent millions of their own money and still lost. It didn’t come across as a specific shot at those three candidates even if that is what he meant. It came across as ridiculing women for trying to compete in a man’s world. I could not help but wonder how it would come across if he referred to African Americans or any other oppressed minority in such a jeering manner, and how the audience would react.
Exactly . Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.) is my congressman and frankly I agree with your last idea . It’s a way to keep Bill’s impeachment in the news cycle and help the media block out any noise from a Hillary ground swell … the WH must be even more afraid of her than ever. imo this is at the White House behest and Fattah’s ” reasons” are utter BS. He’s a party footsoldier , completely dependent on his AA base and will do as he’s told….his only question would be how high you want me to leap? I don’t blame him . I would last about ten minutes in his place! lol!
People didn’t care about Bill’s impeachment when it was happening! He still had 70 % approval ….another reason for Obama Inc to hate Bill. And what could possibly be a bigger time waster than trying to get Repugs to admit they were wrong ? It’s ridiculous
Pheww. I’m off to get some sleep for a bit. It’s the once a fortnight take care of my sister overnighter, and I’m bushed. Be back in a bit!
Dak, I have an introductory post just about ready. Is there any special timing on when I should post it? Anything you want me to do?
You can post it anytime right now. The only thing I think is wise is just to give any one else’s new post an hour on top. like I said not an issue at the moment.
This is another strong post from Anglachel, at least I think so.
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-his-head.html?
I stopped reading Anglachel a long time ago and won’t go back regardless of how much people rave. She struck me as self-righteous and a legend in her own mind. Just my opinion, of course.
I used to admire Anglachel, but then I didn’t like her hurting RD so hard. Now I find her analyses to be a little repetitive (Stevensonian…).
Yup, a certain amount of arrogance, for sure.
I’m with you.
I noticed that everything she writes is now being quoted at TC like its fuckin’ biblical.
so damn obvious – an enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thing
The winds are blowing in a circular manner.
Exactly, and well said Dee. There’s no question that the only reason to suddenly start deifying A. was to ‘get’ to Kat.
So very … immature. So unforgiveably illoyal!
Wow, I did not mean to get at Kat by posting that link here…I actually saw that post before TC quoted it.
No they were quoting Anglachel a few days prior to the pile on.
Because the discussion was offline. That’s why dak hadn’t been posting for a while before the final post.
Again…. in no way was I using that link to Anglachel to dig at Dak….I think I will crawl into my hole again.
It’s okay. I never took it that way.
So sorry Mink! My comment was in no way directed at you but at TC. Please forgive me for not making that clearer!
Thanks Dak, I am glad you did not think I was dissing you….It’s all good.
Whew. Glad I’m not the only one. I keep trying to read her and just don’t understand why everyone gushes over her writing. I’m not knocking her, just scratching my head.
The “hills are alive” with the sound of pundits urging the president to become less detached in his presentation and show some “passion” for once rather than the “coolness” in his approach to the issues. In other words, show us that he too “feels our pain”.
The problem with those suggestions that even during the 2 year primary run few had any idea of who he was, what he actually stood for, where his passions resided.
Now, only two years in, the same questions still surround him. Who is this man? What actually drives him? What are the issues he most cares about? Is there really any “there” there?
Stripped of the screaming crowds, a fawning press, ridiculous comparisons to others before he even took the oath, he stands on a worldwide stage looking no better than “average”. A vice prinicipal of a junior high waiting for the bell to ring to end his day.
A bewildered man expected to lead but has yet to emerge. Disappointing.
That reminds me of the I love you, now change way of thinking. They loved that he was supposedly NoDrama Obama but now they want passion.
Secondly, I’ve seen his anger peek through, barely, a couple of times and I have a feeling that unrestrained it’s not a pretty thing.
Third, his passionless public speaking presentation isn’t the problem. The problem is in his policies. But of course they can’t admit that so they convince themselves he’s passed Historic Unprecedented legislation and somehow the American people just don’t see it and his job is to passionately show them. If ObamaCare were the great achievement they pretend it is, Americans would notice it in their own lives or that of our loved ones, it wouldn’t just be 25 year olds remaining on their parent’s insurance policies.
That’s what I wonder too, Is there really any “there” there? And if there is then what is it? I can’t help but speculate that all his performances are just that performances. Carefully studied and rehearsed.
That’s why even as much as I have a hard time both watching and listening to him, I curiously “study” him when he is unscripted. Like in the ‘presser’ yesterday. And as I’ve mentioned before I do get a feeling that he lately is trying somehow to simulate Bill Clinton. Explaining things in the same manner (visually!) as B.C.
He did, yesterday, look like he was trying to convey concern and understanding a la Bill Clinton, but something went awry in the photocopying process and it just came out looking grim.
Next the media will be suggesting that he bring David Gergen on staff and start having secret late night conversations with Dick Morris.
David Gergen appears to be part of the resurrect JEB movement if his appearances on CNN recently suggest anything.
When you are a media creation it must come as a shock to discover that after the luster wears off and you stand there exposed as the mediocrity you really are, the reaction is stupefying.
The surprise was not felt by those of us who had it figured out from the beginning, but to those who gradually allowed it to creep in and for those “late to the party” who held strong that he was just “warming up” and urging us to “give him time”.
Giving him time only caused the hated Right to emerge more triumphant than ever and we are stuck looking at Snooki Boehner weeping for the next two years. This is the same guy that was promised to “hit the ground running” in 2009 but whose parachute is still floating somewhere in space seeking a landing site. This is the same man promising hope and change and handed that chant over to a GOP agenda that promises the same but in a much more dismissive fashion.
Standing there yesterday like a deer in the headlights it must have dawned on him that there exists an “enemy camp” that is out to destroy him come hell or high water and the life preserver is a little out of reach.
Handed the keys to make a difference, he willingly entrusted the leadership required to a congress of misfits who couldn’t agree on the day of the week to come up with their own singular brand of protecting the insurance and pharma industries at the expense of the people who demanded otherwise.
His weakness is on display and urging, suggesting, and demanding that he show some fortitude in dealing with the monster that is bent on his destruction he will capitulate. My biggest fear.
I think depth of character and understanding comes from having to persevere in a series of really tough circumstances not only as a child, but as an adult and that means you have to have some really tough job experience. The one thing that I see in Obama and I see it in my governor Bobby Jindal is they just seem to be able to get their ticket punched and move up to the next job without really learning tough lessons about the first. I’ve worked for two companies that went bankrupt. In the first I survived series of lay offs and went in about the last round. The second one just came down one morning and all but a skeleton crew were gone with no prior notification. I’ve had sadistic managers and I’ve had difficult staff as well as staff reporting to me that were like family. Obama just always seems so young and inexperienced even though we’re close in age. I think yesterday is the first time I saw him age quickly.
Anyone interested in a (left wing) Brit view of the Tea Party movement?
The audience – mostly middle-aged and older but with a smattering of teenagers and kids – cheered. The Bellville Tea Party started out as
a ladies’ book club called Leap (Ladies Embracing American Principles), attended by “wives, mothers and grandmothers”. Their first book was The 5,000-Year Leap by W Cleon Skousen, a conservative, religious political theorist, asserting the moral roots of the United States…
…By now, there were only about 50 people watching; the appeal of this Tea Party rally was waning, as the appeal of the Tea Party itself seems to be. On 24 October, the Washington Post published results of a survey showing that the thousands of local groups affiliated to Tea Party Patriots, the grass-roots umbrella organisation, have dwindled to 647.
“The Tea Party is a waning force”
http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2010/11/tea-party-american-venus-roots
Thanks, that is interesting.
New Statesman is full of articles today. This one has the usual echoes of we told you so !!!!
He’s not the messiah
Above all else, Obama raised expectations to unprecedented levels. The messianic “Yes, we can!” candidate of the 2008 campaign trail became in office a cautious and overly deliberative pragmatist. Despite being denounced by opponents as a “socialist”, Obama failed to offer a convincing, left-wing economic populism to counter the right-wing, anti-state populism of the Tea Party. He couldn’t mobilise the 13 million “virtual” activists on his much-vaunted email list to take to the streets against the opponents of health-care reform. In the words of a Labour strategist who has worked with the Obama White House: “He was expected to stand up for the little guy against the vested interests. He didn’t.”
Instead, Obama and his aides trained much of their verbal firepower on their own supporters. The president’s former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, dismissed liberals concerned about the administration’s health-care bill as “fucking retarded”; the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said left-wing critics of the president “ought to be drug-tested”. Obama did not just neglect his base; he abused it. Is it any wonder the Democrats didn’t turn out for him in as huge numbers on 2 November as they had only two years before? Or that 47 per cent of them say Obama should face a primary challenge for the presidential nomination in 2012?
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/11/labour-leader-obama-miliband
That’s a good one. You can’t raise expectations that high and not bring about severe reality shock and disappointment when things don’t go well. There were some real big promises implied and just to laugh it all off as campaign rhetoric is really not good.
Okay, here’s a local news story that hits home:
Dak,
Thanks for the video on Quantitative Easing 🙂 I sent it off in a tweet after watching it twice.
Interesting thing, I can only find the site by writing SkyDancing, but not by Dakinland? Oh, but your youtube account comes straight up?
Thank MABlue for that! Dakiniland is in the site address but I went with Sky Dancing for the title. I had absolutely no blog management experience when I set it up and so I didn’t think to sync them at all. I’m not sure that anything’s ever actually be published that says dakiniland. Besides, there’s some ‘dakas’ hanging around too now!! (That’s the male noun.)
J. Bradfrod Delong is absolutely not happy. This is the actual title of one of his post today:
Barack Obama, Master of Zero-Dimensional Chess
Ouch!
Great line and interesting to see he’s sticking with it. Thanks for adding the stuff to the Reads! I’m so glad to we’re seeing more of you these days!!!
Could we maybe start by withdrawing the troops from two unwinnable theaters?
That move alone would be used as a “sustainable” argument in and of itself.
I agree, and the shock of these elections is NO ONE mentioned the WARS!
I found that appalling.
Me three. WTF is going on? This is no way to live. Is America that far gone?
Who would mention the wars? I mean who among those who’s allowed prime time?
Neocons love war and now ObamaDems pretend it isn’t happening because Oprecious kept Iraq going even though his PR says he ended it and he amped up Afghanistan. If you’re anti-war, which media outlet will give you five minutes? Two years ago Obama won because he’d been against Iraq and Hillary voted for it; today it’s unmentionable.
Dems were my peeps for 30 years, my parent’s peeps, my grandparent’s, but today I don’t recognize them and they want me to STFU. But then so do ex-Dems like Riverdaughter. I think we’re going to deep dividing and dividing until we’re just a nation of tribes.
It’s really fascinating watching how this kind of stuff unfolds.
Thanks to my grandparents I grew up hearing about how Germans and Austrians, and even Poles (my maternal grandmother was a Polish Jew and only she and her brother survive from that family line) had to be part of what led to the Holocaust or it never could have happened. I miss them, my grandparents, so much these days as I watch the same kind of dynamic unfold right around me. I want to tell them I finally understand what they were saying.
Hey. We do live in interesting times.
This is cute, Meet President Clinton 🙂
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1011/meet_president_hillary_clinton.html
Oh I want to see it because Hillary’s response is always so great!
YouTube, let’s go!
Somebody please kill me now!
Gibbs: Obama Will Listen To GOP Pitch On Extending Tax Cuts For Wealthy
We’re really off to a good start.
yeah, way to be concerned about the deficit … I don’t know why he just doesn’t switch parties and get it over with
So much for O’s sterling political advisors. In case the O didn’t notice, the Blue Dog/New Dem candidates went down with a vengeance the other night. Pretty tone deaf to be supporting tax cuts for the rich when it was the middle class shaking its collective fist at the politicians. So what else is new?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/hillary-clinton-responds-to-democratic-losses-from-papua-new-guinea/
Hillary 2012
thx 🙂
I was quite impressed to learn that you Kat, have been using the internet since 1981!
But even that pales in comparison with 102 year old Polish Wiktoria Wawszczak, who has been using Skype for a couple of years now. Awesome … and ‘loverly’. 🙂
http://www.tvz.tv/index.php?c=videos&userid=1393&user=true
(You have to scroll down a bit.)
Wiktoria said:
“Work, eat and work and then you will be healthy.”
awwwwwwwwww!!that,s sweet 🙂