Beverly Hills Tea Party

Pat Boone is leading the "citizen's revolt" in Beverly Hills. That's funny on the face of it!

But even better is this clip of Pat vs. Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog, who is smart and plain-speaking enough to completely dismantle and counter Pat's no-nothing presumptions that the Tea Party is (a) anything close to the majority will of the people (that was the last Presidential Election, actually, when Obama won a clearer mandate than Bush Jr. or Clinton ever did) and (b) that their anger is properly directed, as well as (c) that it's all a spontaneous citizen's revolt rather than something heavily influenced on the idea and financing level by big oil companies:



Pat keeps looking off camera left whenever Court nails him with the truth (often), which I expect is to a buddy he's with who shares his reactionary views. It's such a smug expression every time, like "get a load of this guy," the kind of avoidance look that seeks reinforcement of his pre-existing views rather than fair and open consideration of the other man's argument.

We've seen this smug smile before, on the face of El Presidente Bush back when he was in the White House. This goes to how Conservatives and Tea Partiers hold their assumptions and communicate in shorthand to each other their innate "rightness" when faced with real questions or counterarguments in the real world outside their Fox hollow.

It's the type of assumptiveness regarding, say, their self-serving interpretation of the Constitution that goes back to the Confederacy, when the nation faced the exact same kind of rightwing (and regional) obstruction that we are saddled with now by self-proclaimed Chancellors like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who has "a standing hold" on all Senate business unless he sees fit to let it come to a vote.

There's another word for what Sen. DeMint is practicing. It starts with "F."

Consequences

A good friend of mine has taken to heavily criticizing President Barack Obama on her Facebook page, torn the Obama sticker from her car and coined the phrase, "Blowbama," which is funny. Her opinion is that the BP killing of the Gulf is so critical to our species that Obama should have quit everything and moved his operations down to Louisiana, focusing almost exclusively on fixing the hole. When I challenged her on it she claimed that from the five major news sources she reads everyday, he didn't seem to be doing anything else.

This is where I wrote:

Clearly not true that it's the only thing that matters. He's about to pass a form of financial reform (that the GOP is already campaigning to repeal), dealing with Afghanistan, North Korea, Mideast Peace, trying to get unemployment extensions passed (which the GOP is opposing), trying to get more stimulus (which the GOP...you get the idea), working on an overall climate bill, G20 meeting, nominating and shepherding a Supreme Court nominee, passing PTSD benefits for veterans, plus whatever threats and future projects that we do not yet know about are going on.

If you're reading those five sources and not seeing at least some of this, I question the sources or what you're focusing on.

You need to get off your Obama-hate. There's a Tea Party for that. Fine to try on influence/pressure him, that's a good thing to do, but this type of thinking is what got Ralph Nader his support in 2000 and led to 8 ruinous years of George Bush...that Obama is still trying to dig the country out of.

(And added:)

He did get a team of scientists together, perhaps why the cap today. And he's being criticized from the right for the group he put together to study BP fault and report - no oil industry flacks on it!

Since the time I wrote this the financial reform bill, whether you think it goes far enough or not (or are a Republican opposed for those political or ideological reasons to any such regulation at all) has passed the Senate. The BP lesion has been capped and the President has rightly pointed out that, while good news, there is so much more ahead, the problem is far from over thanks to the mega-damage done. And it might leak again.

However, elections have consequences and here's what you get if you keep taking the anti-Obama side, keep Dem enthusiasm low for November and let the GOP take the House or Senate - per Paul Krugman, who hasn't been shy about criticizing the current Administration himself:

Republicans are feeling good about the midterms — so good that they’ve started saying what they really think. This week the party’s Senate leadership stopped pretending that it cares about deficits, stating explicitly that while we can’t afford to aid the unemployed or prevent mass layoffs of schoolteachers, cost is literally no object when it comes to tax cuts for the affluent.

And that’s one reason — there are others — why you should fear the consequences if the G.O.P. actually does as well in November as it hopes.
...

But this past Monday Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, was asked the obvious question: if deficits are so worrisome, what about the budgetary cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Obama administration wants to let expire but Republicans want to make permanent? What should replace $650 billion or more in lost revenue over the next decade?

His answer was breathtaking: “You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn’t count.

...

Of course, flirting with crisis is arguably part of the plan. There has always been a sense in which voodoo economics was a cover story for the real doctrine, which was “starve the beast”: slash revenue with tax cuts, then demand spending cuts to close the resulting budget gap. The point is that starve the beast basically amounts to deliberately creating a fiscal crisis, in the belief that the crisis can be used to push through unpopular policies, like dismantling Social Security.

And this -- remember the Clinton years of GOP noise, misdirection and obstruction:

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California has hounded President Obama all year about the apparent job offers the White House made to certain Democratic Senate candidates this election season -- and if Republicans win control of the House this November, Issa intends to significantly ratchet up his inquiries into what he sees as potential administration wrongdoing.

As the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa would become chairman of the committee if Republicans managed to win the majority this fall. If he became chairman, Issa has said he would double his staff from 40 to between 70 and 80, Politico reports. As chairman, he would also have the power to subpoena White House officials to appear before the committee under oath.

Here's their plan to curtail regulations. Here's their new Tea Party Caucus in Congress itself, led by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Here's how the GOP (along with a few Blue Dog Dems) are obstructing economic stimulus to keep us from falling deeper again.

So when I read this Blowbama stuff, I just ask that everyone remember, this kind of thinking is what got Ralph Nader enough votes to keep Al Gore from becoming President, opening the door for eight-count-'em-eight years of George Bush, an unprovoked war against Iraq, economic collapse and the relaxation of energy regulations (thanks to Dick Cheney) that brought us the Gulf.

So if Obama isn't the progressive demigod who would likely end up a Jimmy Carter and end up less effective than he is by following the type of "camp out in the Gulf" directives above, if you didn't follow his campaign and learn that he's more of a conservative-progressive, no-drama, not the scary black man President that the Tea Partiers still believe is driving us to a socialist-fascist slave state, then you're missing the point of how politics really works. With everything that Obama is up against, his list of achievements thus far is astonishing.

I guarantee that once Obama is out of office, whether in two years or six, just as with Bill Clinton those on the Left who complain about him now will look back with fondness and think about how much of a better direction this country was moving in before President Huckabee or Gingrich or Daniels or Thune or Pawlenty or Romney.

Or President Palin.

A Better Bush?

Young Barbara Bush, as opposed to the nightmarish grande dame of that family, seems pretty smart, or at least has her heart in the right place, dare I say progressive, per Huffington Post:

Barbara Bush, daughter of president George W. Bush, appeared as a guest on "Fox News Sunday" this week to discuss her non-profit Global Health Corps, whose mission is to bring health equity to the U.S. and Africa, and she made some comments that surprised host Chris Wallace.

"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care?" Bush asked. "Health should be a right for everyone."

"What do you think about Obama health care reform?" Wallace asked.

"Obviously the health care reform bill was highly debated by a lot of people," Bush responded., "and I'm glad the bill was passed."

The link above gives video as well. Fox's Chris Wallace seems just on this side of patronizing, but like Megan McCain, there appears to be hope in the next generation of GOP scions, female.

Primary Results

There is no GOP wave. It's a myth. There's a huge civil war going on in the Republican Party, whether the establishment coheres to fight their insurgency or not. There is no false equivalency on the Democratic side as progressives are far from a radical insurgency, in large part they're members of the angry middle as much or more than teabaggers.

I'm interested to see if the establishment GOP can recapture the Wall Street campaign money thanks to their opposition or weakening of the bank reform legislation. I've only seen the Left picket and protest on Wall Street -- where are the t.partiers? Can they remain bought off by an unregulated Libertarian approach to capitalism? Even if it cost them their pension fund?

I'll also be looking how insurgent KY GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul's public image develops. His father seems like a gentleman. Rand just called out Obama like a punk. Offering to pay for his ticket.

Vestiges of condescension.

Reform Really Coming?

So financial industry reform...how tough will it be? (Break 'em up!!)

Senate progressives offer hope, if their amendment passes:

Stressing the need for more competition among smaller banks and increased business lending, the senators believe that the largest financial institutions present too much risk to our economy to keep them around. They have the support of the Main Street Alliance, a group of progressive-leaning small business owners who have advocated for strong financial reform and set themselves up in opposition to the Chamber of Commerce.

The bill's central points:

• Imposing a strict 10 percent cap on any bank-holding-company’s share of the United States’ total insured deposits
• Reducing the maximum amount of non-deposit liabilities at financial institutions (to 2 percent of United States GDP for banks, and 3 percent of GDP for non-bank institutions)
• Setting into law a 6 percent leverage limit for bank-holding companies and selected non-bank financial institutions

These steps would require several of the largest banks to, in effect, break themselves up to come in under the limits that this law would create. While most of the existing legislation in the House and Senate contains gestures toward these ideas, this is the first time they've been proposed as statutory limits, something called for by a number of public figures, including several Midwestern regional Federal Reserve presidents and former Fed Chair Paul Volcker.

Godspeed.

Derail?

Will the President be able to hold the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to the Senate rewrite?



Danger Will Robinson.

Big Moves

Senate Dem negotiations seem to be producing a health care compromise that doesn't completely suck, has some potentially very good features, has great potential to improve the current state, but does not contain a full-blown pubic option that kicks in immediately, or even the opt-out, which could be a dealbreaker for some on the left. Seems very hybrid, and I'll be listening to how Sen. Bernie Saunders goes on this one.

Here's the "Gang of Ten" Harry Reid threw together tonight to thrash it out:

On the progressive side:

Russ Feingold (WI)
Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Chuck Schumer (NY)

On the conservative side:

Mark Pryor (AR)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Tom Carper (DE)

Sherrod Brown has also been very stand-up so far, so his opinion and, of course, Sen. Feingold's, will mean a lot to progressives on how they feel about the full compromise when revealed .

The White House is nodding its o.k.

How much of half a loaf will it be?

Two Fires

Southern California is on fire again, horrible destruction in the gorgeous Montecito/adjacent area next to/in Santa Barbara, and more in the northern foothills of Los Angeles county, particularly Sylmar. Horrific news and photos here, liveblog with unnerving evacuation and other info here.

The other major fire (after lumping together all the SoCal blazes above) is the nationwide and somewhat worldwide protest for gay marriage rights today (Saturday). There's some great pix from Los Angeles today but it was even in unlikely places like Alaska and Missoula. Nice to see that the one good thing to come out of the Prop 8 passage is everyone coming out -- gay and straight alike -- who believes in this American civil right.

This is truly the front line issue for civil rights today, and I'm not sure that any to follow will be of the same magnitude. It's just acknowledging reality in law, and I'm sure that in one generation this issue with be just treated in mainstream America just like racial intermarriage -- sure, some bigots will still be haters, and maybe it won't be the most pervasive image or marriage in the media, but we'll have gotten past it for good.

Tell me if I'm misreading the moment, but the success of President-Elect Obama seems to have opened the door for peaceful, firm but respectful and well-reasoned protests on every possible scale. The Facebook-centric organization and casual fearlessness of showing up in public appears mirrored by today's massive civic protest. There are so many different cities, towns and even countries represented on so many different Andrew Sullivan posts today that I can't link to them, although you can dig back to check them out yourself maybe by starting here. Remarkable.

This is a disjunctive moment in history, most notably economically, and Obama somehow planned his collision course perfectly, poised to take advantage of the disjunctive opportunity for good rather than the post-9/11 hackery that led us into Iraq, with so many carpetbaggers to feed at the trough. These moments don't come along very often, are fraught with fragilities, and require both haste and tact.

Take advantage of it.

Pro-

There's two new ads up from the Center for American Progress at Crooks and Liars, essentially re-introducing the Progressive "brand" to America, for the first time via television.

Casting the yet-to-be-smeared term Progressivism as the antidote to Conservatism -- rather than Liberalism vs. Conservatism -- the ads list major advancements such as Women's Suffrage, the National Park system, the 40-hour work week, Civil Rights, Social Security and the New Deal as successes benefiting all Americans bitterly opposed by Conservative forces, and then links up to today's major battlefields of national health care and protection from corporate exploitation.

There's two more ads I "get" but like a lot less, as they're already cliched parodies of Apples "Mac guy/PC guy" ads, but they're at least on point and mildly amusing, if borderline cheap shots.

What I love about all of this is the focus on modern branding, and anyone who gets too purist on me can eat it, because if we don't do it we don't win -- the other side already knows all these lessons, witness Karl Rove's message machine. And it's also crucial to define it to ourselves so it's not just an instinct or tendency or feeling.

But a modern brand campaign won't be enough in and of itself, progressives.

Get ready to be slimed, and I hope the Center for American Progress already has their plans in place for brand defense.

Digby

Blogging is a great way to participate in the marketplace of ideas without having to physically put yourself in that marketplace. Since you can always be tracked down and hounded it isn't exactly a cowardly way to participate, but there is one prominent blogger who has always made a point of keeping her privacy, as even her online name plays genderless, or even shades male.

This past week, at the Take Back America Conference, Digby came out.

It turns out she's a she from Santa Monica and besides having one of the finest voices in the liberal blogosphere, she revealed herself as a hell of a speaker. You can read the text of her remarks here, or watch the video here.

She does a great job of providing context for the leftist blogging revolution we're currently experiencing, lists some of the key bloggers writing today, points out how diverse the group is, and then sums up what brings us together. An excerpt:

All of us who blog in the progressive blogosphere, have a common goal. It's the same goal of virtually everyone in this room tonight. We want to begin a new era of progressive politics and take back America.

We may argue about tactics and strategy or the extent to which we are partisans vs ideologues--and believe me, we do. But there is no disagreement among us that the modern conservative movement Of Newt and Grover and Karl and Rush has proven to be a dangerous cultural and political cancer on the body politic.

You will not find anyone amongst us who believes that the Bush administration's executive power grab and flagrant partisan use of the federal government is anything less than an assault on the constitution. We stand together against the dissolution of habeas corpus and the atrocities of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. We all agree that Islamic terrorism is a threat, but one which we cannot meet with military power alone.

She sat for an interview at the conference which reveals a little more about her in an informal setting. With an eyes-wide-open appreciation of this moment borne of having lived through the later 1960's progressive apex (and subsequent undermining), I couldn't agree more with her conclusion:

I actually feel very confident about it because there is this new political debate going on that is allowing us to make arguments that have not been made in a very long time. I don't think people have heard the progressive argument explicitly in a long time, not filtered through the right wing and the conventions of their media and interpreted by the mainstream media. I think as a lot of people are going directly into the blogosphere people are going to be hearing our arguments again. Now, whether we make them all and whether they are effective you never know; I don't think there are any guarantees there. But I think there is a new political debate that has opened up at a very propitious time for us as a result of the unfortunate failure of the conservative project under George W. Bush, and let's just say there will never be another time like this one.

Only time will tell if the current progressive blogging end up being considered a golden age or not, but if it is it wouldn't be unjust to consider Digby a middle-aged, female, publicity shy Thomas Paine of our time.