Morning Must Reads: Showdown

“Bachmann, the Tea Party darling, argues that the GOP should elect her as the House GOP’s effective spokesperson to show that the party respects the grass-roots movement that helped propel them into majority status once again.

She made that point in the letter to her GOP colleagues last week announcing her candidacy.

“It is important that our Conference demonstrate to the people who sent us here that their concerns will be tirelessly advanced at the table of leadership,” Bachmann said in the letter obtained by The Hill.

Her candidacy was bolstered last week when Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), also a favorite of the Tea Party crowd, endorsed Bachmann’s bid.

“The Republican Conference Chair needs to be the best communicator we have. … Michele has charisma and she brings with her an impressive skill set. She embodies the agenda of the constitutional conservatives. Constitutional Conservatives are the majority makers, the conscience of America and the new agenda setters,” King said.”

I agree – let her. She’s awesome at communicating the batsh!t crazy stuff. Like the 200 million dollar per day. The sooner people who think we can turn around our economic trouble in 2 years see what the alternative is, the better.

Lets not hide these people in the basement and pretend that the landswell that brought them here was some kind of moderate right of center movement. This is what people voted for and it should be right up front.

Can you imagine? I mean, the woman could possibly bring the entire party down on her own. I say go for it.

On a seperate note…that is just a great capture in that photo no matter how you feel about Gibbs. That’s one for the books.

‘Hey Tonto – you can’t fool me – the guy over there is Obama, I know a Kenyan when I see em and you’re not a Kenyan.’

So thrilled Obama will compromise on the tax cuts. Is anyone going to mention how much it will add to the deficit?

All the people who kept screaming, deficit, deficit, like little sheep, should be thrilled that billions more won’t be added to it.

I know, the Repubs say tax cuts are simply the people’s money, however they will add a lot to the deficit and that needed to be pointed out over and over.

Let them all expire.

Sounds to me like an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

“…a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.”

“Let them all expire.”
.
Only in a sane world. We’re too far down the rabbit hole for that now. The one where Paul Ryan’s and Sarah, I-don’t-know-what-I-read, Palin’s thoughts on macroeconomics are “newsworthy”.

Oddly enough, I disagree. I’d like to see the Dems try to pass the tax cut for the first $250K of income during the lame dusck session…without an extension for income above that limit. If the GOP wants to filibuster, make them actually stand up and do it.

Barring a display of that type of intestinal fortitude from the Dems, then, yeah, let them expire as the Republicans intended.

Obama backs India’s bid for a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council. I’m trying to figure out how strongly he was thinking about how badly this screws up Pakistan when he made that decision and I’m wondering how intentional that was.

What did I miss?

“The Mid-Term Elections, in One Chart”

“Yes, of course, many other things were going on, but this is a very useful basic guide to why the Administration’s “it could have been worse” entreaties fell flat. And also, of course, why this is a bad time to kick off a new austerity drive.”

(chart at the ink)

I agree with grape. They don’t even have to make a big show of it, just have to get Republicans to actually vote against tax cuts. Do it a few times and then let the next class of Republicans be welcomed in under the claim “Republicans don’t want tax cuts for you, they want tax cuts for their rich buddies”. In fact, float a few Liberal votes against the idea to ensure that even if the ladies from Maine come over, the vote fails so the Republicans wear the blame.

Expand your vocabulary: “plutonomy”.

“But plutocracy is here, and a pumped up Citigroup even boasted of coining a variation on the word— “plutonomy”, which describes an economic system where the privileged few make sure the rich get richer and that government helps them do it. Five years ago Citigroup decided the time had come to “bang the drum on plutonomy.”

And bang they did. Here are some excerpts from the document “Revisiting Plutonomy;”

‘Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper… [and] take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years.”

‘…the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the United States – the plutonomists in our parlance – have benefitted disproportionately from the recent productivity surged in the US… [and] from globalization and the productivity boom, at the relative expense of labor.’

‘… [and they] are likely to get even wealthier in the coming years. Because the dynamics of plutonomy are still intact.’

I’ll repeat that: ‘The dynamics of plutonomy are still intact.’ That was the case before the Great Collapse of 2008, and it’s the case today, two years after the catastrophe. But the plutonomists are doing just fine. Even better in some cases, thanks to our bailout of the big banks.”

January would be a great time for changing the rules for holds and filibusters

“The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has a new poll showing that 64 percent of voters oppose the filibuster. While it strikes me as one of those polls that miraculously finds what the client wants it to find, it does seem clear that the beginning of the 112th Congress in January would be a great time for Vice President Joe Biden to head down to the Capitol for the inaugural session and rule filibusters unconstitutional, with the Democratic caucus voting to uphold the ruling. You can imagine the statement from the White House:

With the midterm elections registering Americans’ disappointment with the government and Washington’s business-as-usual, the Obama administration asked senators from both parties today to support Vice President Biden, in his role as president of the Senate, in removing archaic congressional rules that promote corruption and obstruction. The administration supports the elimination of these out-dated rules to better work with our Republican colleagues in responding to the message of this election: Tired Washington politics is no substitute for action on the pressing issues facing our great nation.

There’s any number of good reasons to do this. Eliminating the filibuster, or instituting some kind of semi-elimination compromise, is good policy generally, and nominally supported by the administration and a number of Democratic senators. This would be a fairly effective strategy to regain the party’s initiative and display its unity. It will be harder for Republicans to paint this as a power grab, since they’re the ones who gained in this election.”

“The bill was more important than the election.”

“But if health care did cost the party its majority, so what[...]?

I realize that sounds crazy. We’ve become so obsessed with who wins or loses in politics that we’ve forgotten what the winning and losing are about. Partisans fixate on punishing their enemies in the next campaign. Reporters, in the name of objectivity, refuse to judge anything but the Election Day score card. Politicians rationalize their self-preservation by imagining themselves as dynasty builders. They think this is the big picture.

They’re wrong. The big picture isn’t about winning or keeping power. It’s about using it. I’ve made this argument before, but David Frum, the former speechwriter to President Bush, has made it better. In March, when Democrats secured enough votes to pass the bill, he castigated fellow conservatives who looked forward to punishing Pelosi and President Obama “with a big win in the November 2010 elections.” Frum observed:

Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. … No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage?

Exactly. A party that loses a House seat can win it back two years later, as Republicans just proved. But a party that loses a legislative fight against a middle-class health care entitlement never restores the old order. Pretty soon, Republicans will be claiming the program as their own.”

The unintended consequences of religious bigotry.

“Oklahoma voters on Tuesday approved a measure that bans the application of Islamic law and orders judges in the state to rely only on federal law when deciding cases[...]

For months, legal experts had lambasted the initiative as biased toward a religion and potentially harmful to local businesses that engage in commerce with international companies. It also presents potential constitutional law problems, experts say. Is Oklahoma’s state constitution now in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … ‘?

‘Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don’t cry,’ he said. ‘I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin.’

Businesses that engage with international companies may also find the ban is a stumbling block, Tepker said. The ban also requires all state business to be conducted in English.”

“I’d like to see the Dems try to pass the tax cut for the first $250K of income during the lame dusck session…without an extension for income above that limit.”
.
Again, only in a sane world. In fact, that vote would already have taken place as Dems entered a brutal mid-term election where their apparent commitment to the middle-class and the base of the party would determine the outcome.

–The Boston Herald really thinks it’s Scott Brown’s time.

–Politico likes Marco Rubio for veep.
.
and I like cold grits and uncooked crawfish with hot sauce for breakfast.
.
We saw this in ’08 about the ultimate defeat/disappearance of the Repubs. Really, how many of these stories will we see against the Dems until the pendulum swings…again??

“Well, what am I supposed to do? You won’t answer my calls, you change your number…I mean, I’m not gonna be ignored, Marco!”*

“The label was convenient, but now that Marco Rubio got what he wanted, he’s the same Bush-sponsored Republican he always was:

If the tea party is expecting Rubio to plant its yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag in the hallowed Senate chamber, it’s in for a letdown. This career politician who once carried the state party’s American Express card defines himself first and foremost as a Republican.[...]

“’Early on in the primary, a conservative group of passionate, well-intentioned people coincided with his beliefs and somehow he got this tea party label, which I don’t think is totally representative,’’ said Republican fundraiser Jorge Arrizurieta.

“Somehow”? He got the Tea Party label by accepting Tea Party endorsements and telling Tea Party members that he looks forward to going to Washington and fighting for them…

(*line taken from the movie Fatal Attraction, video of Rubio accepting the Tea Party mantle at the link)

One’s been around less than two years, the other’s not even sworn in! How ’bout Miss Prissy for ambassador to Russia?

I know this is on the back burner, but apparently the coral’s dying in the Gulf, no thanks to BP/Haliburton et.al.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/science/earth/06coral.html?_r=1

…and Guard Duck’s sprung from “suspension” (or coupla days furlough, take your pick)…SIR.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/content/msnbc-says-suspended-anchor-keith-olbermann-return-tuesday

Obviously they’ll do everything they can to make it look to their constituencies that they’re fighting to “repeal and replace.” The fact that they can do neither won’t stop them.
.
“I was against HCR before I was for it???”

Given that other former American strengths such as our economy and moral leadership are now not-so-strong, the application of brute force is the only bargaining chip we have.*

“Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said his fellow conservative, fresh from their historic elections romp this week, support ‘bold’ action to deal with Iran.

If President Barack Obama ‘decides to be tough with Iran beyond sanctions, I think he is going to feel a lot of Republican support for the idea that we cannot let Iran develop a nuclear weapon,’ he told the Halifax International Security Forum.

‘The last thing America wants is another military conflict, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran… Containment is off the table.’

The South Carolina Republican saw the United States going to war with the Islamic republic ‘not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime.’

He spoke just days before expected nuclear talks will see US and Iranian officials sitting at the same table for discussions on Tehran’s nuclear drive.[...]”

(*heckuva job, neocons and plutocrats!)

I’m trying to figure out how strongly he was thinking about how badly this screws up Pakistan when he made that decision and I’m wondering how intentional that was.
.
Pakistan is already screwed up. Strengthening India’s hand helps us in the nearer term when it comes to national security. [Economically, it's a mixed bag]:

“I’m here because I believe that in our interconnected world, increased commerce between the United States and India can be and will be a win-win proposition for both nations,” Obama told the U.S.-India Business Council, drawing applause. “I realize that for some, this truth may not be readily apparent.”
.
Recalling an issue from the midterm campaign trail, Obama said that “there are many Americans whose only experience with trade and globalization has been a shuttered factory or a job that was shipped overseas.”

but it’s not all suck:

In accords detailed today, the White House said in a statement that Boeing Co. is finalizing a deal worth about $4.1 billion to sell C-17 military aircraft to the Indian government. The firm has also agreed the sale of 30 commercial aircraft to the Indian discount airline SpiceJet Ltd. in an order worth about $2.7 billion, according to the statement.

So much for Obama being anti-business or anti-free trade.

So lower taxes, get rid of money wasting programs like the EPA, don’t touch SS and medicare and start another war.
.
Consvatives sure know how to stimulate the economy.

Well played. I think Polo played ‘em to get elected…now watch when he discards them like yesterday’s seldom-read newspaper!

“…it’s conservatives who should fear climate change the most. To put it simply, if you hate big government, try global warming on for size”.

“Many conservatives say they oppose clean-energy policies because they want to keep government off our backs. But they have it exactly backward. Doing nothing will set our country on a course toward narrower choices for businesses and individuals, along with an expanded role for government. When catastrophe strikes – and yes, the science is quite solid that it will – it will be the feds who are left conducting triage. [...]

In fact, far from being conservative, the Republican stance on global warming shows a stunning appetite for risk. When faced with uncertainty and the possibility of costly outcomes, smart businessmen buy insurance, reduce their downside exposure and protect their assets. When confronted with a disease outbreak of unknown proportions, front-line public health workers get busy producing vaccines, pre-positioning supplies and tracking pathogens. And when military planners assess an enemy, they get ready for a worst-case encounter.

When it comes to climate change, conservatives are doing none of this. Instead, they are recklessly betting the farm on a single, best-case scenario: That the scientific consensus about global warming will turn out to be wrong. This is bad risk management and an irresponsible way to run anything, whether a business, an economy or a planet.

The great irony is that, should their high-stakes bet prove wrong, adapting to a destabilized climate would mean a far bigger, more intrusive government than would most of the ‘big government’ solutions to our energy problems that have been discussed so far.”

Welcome to Freedonia.

“You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.

The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent. [...]

In the past, many of us acquiesced in discomfiting levels of inequality because we perceived a tradeoff between equity and economic growth. But there’s evidence that the levels of inequality we’ve now reached may actually suppress growth. A drop of inequality lubricates economic growth, but too much may gum it up.”

Don’t forget the inevitable oil shock either

Those the Villagers source and take seriously. “I’m talking to you”, JK, MS, et al.
.
Limbaugh to echo chamber>Lies about Obama’s tax cuts. Too often the President lets the liars win.
.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-06/obamas-tax-cut-how-rush-limbaugh-misled-the-country/?cid=hp:mainpromo2
.
Josh Marshall reasons why it is important to avoid the Village inner circle, in particular POLITICO
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/in_it_but_not_of_it.php?ref=fpblg

http://gizmodo.com/5684297/whos-dying-in-the-iraq-war-in-pixels
.
Interesting chart in pixels demonstrating who is dying in Iraq.

You see, in BoehnerWorld the 2001 tax cuts were a smashing success. Why, so much prosperity Trickled Down after that giveaway to the wealthiest Americans, that almost nobody is unemployed now…

Sad part: Dupes who fall for it.

– Balkingpoints / www

I saw a rather unusual creature called an “Andrea Mitchell” on the Chris Matthews chatfest yesterday. Mr. Matthews’ producers deserve high praise indeed for giving viewers a unique take on the political scene, one informed by absolutely no knowledge of American politics at all. The “Mitchell” creature assured us that adding Marco Rubio to the 2012 Republican ticket would be a “game changer.” Mercifully, she was not asked to clarify her remarks, so perhaps someone could help me sort this out. Are all Hispanics across the country supposed to rally around a Cuban-American? Are their loyalties that monolithic? Aren’t some of them going to have a few questions about Mr. Rubio’s positions on, you know, those little issues thingys? Especially regarding the GOP’s immigration policies. Or does the “Mitchell” think that they’ll see a familiar looking face on a poster and think, “That’s the guy for me!” automatically? (The fact that that face looks like it just graduated high school might give them pause all by itself.)

By the way, the “Mitchell” also assured us with absolute certainty that Mr. Obama would face a serious Democratic primary challenge. This was said with no supporting evidence at all.

Apparently political punditry on national television is a pretty easy gig. Where do I apply?

What I mean is, it’s a well known fact that Pakistan’s less than friendly behaviors are because of it’s overly inflated concerns about Indian authority in Afghanistan. Obama strengthening India’s position on the world stage by supporting it in the UNSC bid can’t possibly help alleviate that concern. That said, this might be an intentional slight on Obama’s part towards Pakistan along the lines of “if you’re going to keep messing with us and playing both sides, you’re going to lose more than you would’ve lost if you’d just stayed out of it altogether”

FOX news. No experience necessary.