Liberal Media Elite

As a coda on a discussion at the bar last night, the accomplishments, to date, of our 44th President:

Signed into law:

Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act.

SCHIP

An 800bn Stimulus Bill

The FY 2009 Budget

Omnibus Public Lands Act (I’m a big fan of this one, protecting over 2 million acres of public land, and over 1,000 miles of rivers, and other waterways. Awesome!)

Executive Orders:

Opening Presidential Records.

Banning Torture

Closing Gitmo

Lifting the ban on stem cell research.

Presidential Memoranda, other actions.

Overturning the Mexico City Policy.

Fast-tracking fuel-economy standards to the 2011 model year.

I could go on. The complete list is found at Whitehouse.gov.

More progressive goodness has come from this man’s first 72 days in office than the previous 8 years. And he hasn’t been in the job for a full 3 months. I think all the hand wringing, consternation, doubt and concern are, at this point a little premature.

Let me be clear, I do have concerns. The Geithner-Summers duo have me concerned. They seem to be of the mindset that dragged our economy into this mess, and don’t quite appear to have any good ideas to get us out. Granted, the mess is so completely intractable, I don’t think anyone has all of the answers, but I’d at least like to see a Krugman or a Stiglitz at the table on this one.

I also fail to see how contracts with AIG are somehow infallible, yet contracts with UAW and other unions need to be revisited, revised, and reduced every time corporate America feels their profits being pinched. That seems to be a double-standard the Administration has embraced.

So far he’s accomplished a lot. The big fights are yet to come, and they will certainly take all of us keeping on him and Congress to get the job done right.

From The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Paulson is resisting efforts to limit the pay of executives whose firms participate in the program and plans to fight it “hard,” according to a person familiar with the matter. He fears that provision would render the program moot, since many firms might choose not to participate

So the limit of executive pay is the one item Treasury Secretary Paulson is going to fight “hard”, because firms might “not participate” in the biggest free-for-all-after-a-massive-f***-up-of-cosmic-proportions ever? Riiiight.

Something isn’t sitting well. While the money for those vultures is certainly of enormous symbolic importance to all players, it is a “minor” issue - we are still talking BOATLOADS of money, I know - compared to the rest of what’s on the table, namely the more direct assistance to home owners and stricter oversight. Paulson knows that, too, and has already been signaling that he his ready to compromise on aid for homeowners, according to the WSJ article.

So, again, why is the executive pay so important to Paulson? Shouldn’t he be fighting the proposed oversight regulations and relief for Main Street much harder that the Democrats proposed over the weekend?

There are several possible answers to this:
a) Secretary Paulson is really trying to cover his friends in need and doesn’t care about the public reaction - after all, the man was previously the CEO of Goldman Sachs, or
b) Secretary Paulson needs to show his old buddies that he really, really tried, alas…, or
b) Secretary Paulson is trying to publicly blow a comparatively minor, but highly symbolic, matter out of proportion to retain bargaining power regarding the much more important items on the Democrats’ wish list, or
c) Secretary Paulson is playing a game of Chicken with the Congress of the United States of America and therefore the American people - and they should call his bluff

Neither explanation instills confidence in me that the man can be trusted with a $700 billion bucket of taxpayers money without any checks and balances in place.

I was out tonight for dinner and overheard a trio of fairly vapid Minneapolis homos talking.

Oh, sure. I know what you’re thinking: Minneapolis homos? Those aren’t regular folks! They don’t live in West Virginia! They don’t know how to wrassle a cow! They don’t count.

Well, sure. I’ll agree with you up to a point, Mr. Fancy Writer from Time or Something: But I disagree that they don’t count.

It’s one thing that the media always, always, always overlooks in their “analysis” of the electorate: People like my li’l homo friends and their cultural kin (which probably includes everyone reading this entry) are, in fact, a not-inconsiderable part of the electorate when we’re all added up. Are we a minority? Sure we are. But we’re a growing minority, demographics are on our side, and, at the end of the day, our votes count as much as any “hockey mom.” Plus, we’re not a made-up demographic like “hockey moms” are. Hockey moms only really count if you’re Prime Minister Harper.

(Plus, we can’t be part of the elite because we don’t live in the east. We’re midwesterners and, therefore, inherently more moral and upstanding and sittin’-on-the-pulse-of-the-nation and crammed up some eagle’s ass than other Americans who don’t live in God’s greatest land, Alaska.)

ANYHOW! They were talking about very stupid things in very stupid terms, mostly about reality TV and who was cutest dancing shirtless to icky Dutch techno. And I was ignoring it because it was making me homicidal—until they brought up the Honorable Governor Sarah Palin. And they were horrified. They didn’t know why they were horrified, per se. But they knew enough to be scared at the prospect of her vice presidency.

I bring this up because everyone has been getting into a tizzy lately about how the Democrats Are Going To Lose Again and Barack Obama is Doomed, &c., and that Republicans Are Just More Clever. As it turns out, there are a lot of people on our side—politically, culturally, whatever—who aren’t the coveted “high-interest” voter but who are still coming down on our side… Which means, of course, the solution to thinking Barack Obama is going to lose is, in fact…

DOING EVERYTHING YOU FUCKING CAN TO MAKE SURE BARACK OBAMA WINS.

That’s all.

For some time, I’ve held that it’s not Hillary that I object to, it’s the people around her. And A #1 slimebag on that list is Terry McAuliffe. I hold him personally responsible for the curb-stompings of the Democratic Party throughout the late 90’s and early parts of this century. (He was DNC chair, you know, the guy running the damn party). I am so glad he got the boot and Howard Dean is not filling his old post. And amazingly, Democrats are winning.

In recent weeks and months (since about South Carolina) Hillary has done much to erode whatever favorable picture of her I had. But it was the likes of Terry McAlbatross that initially turned me off to her. And I love it when my skepticism is validated.

Oh, and just as I was about to post, it is shit like this following video that fucking kills me.

A democrat should NEVER fellate a republican to slam a democrat. NEVER. PERIOD.

psssst. Hill, darling, remember what we learned in 2004? Voters won’t buy the imitation Republican, when they can get the real thing for free.

I know, I know, I know.

I, as the little, vastly under-read blogger, should not be pimping daily kos. Their readership is high enough, they don’t need my help. If anything I could use their help. Unfortunately, some of the user-generated posting over there is superb. (note: I said some) There are three good ones currently on the recommended list. And I will diligently link them. As if they need the help.

First, regarding Clinton campaign strategy: It’s Too Late

Second, regarding why said campaign strategy is as effective as chopping the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring: “Yes, he sure does.”

And finally, a good old fashioned rant-o-justified-indignation: . . .in which I call your butt out

I’ve never listed a must read, but any or all of these make for good reading. (Even if they were posted at the “Great Orange Satan”)

I really wonder what else Barack Obama has to win and by how big of a margin in order to get that badge of fake Democratic street cred called electability that the pundits are invoking non-stop like they are stuck in the 2004 election cycle. We are talking about the same people who deemed John Kerry electable, and we all know how well that went.

And not that it really matters anyway:

Obama is ahead with 18 to Clinton’s 13 won states in the overall count of states after the talking heads told us it would be over on Super Tuesday. Clinton only won 11 if you don’t count the states where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot (Michigan) or not competing (Florida).

Obama is also leading the popular vote right now with 931 against Clinton’s 882 - not counting the superdelegates, of course. He won these votes from black, Latino and white voters after the experts first told us that he was not black enough to be electable and then too black after the South Carolina primary. And he won after they told us about Clinton and her Latino “firewall” and notwithstanding the room for improvement for Obama on the issue of immigration. He got votes from the old after they told us that his is a campaign driven solely by the young, and he got votes from rural America after they told us his voters are all urban hipsters. He won from Alaska to the Virgin Islands.

He won Missouri after they told us that he can’t win in states that have primaries rather than caucuses because that’s his only strong suit. At times it almost sounded like it’s somehow a lesser accomplishment to win a caucus with strong grassroots support, and only a true victory if it’s a primary.

They said once the contest moves to the national level it would favor Hillary and he came out of Super Tuesday unscathed and won Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and the Virgin Islands with record turnouts.

He is outfundraising all of his opponents getting money from thousands of small donors after they told us that Clinton with all her connections to big business, Hollywood and the unions had more money than she needed to win the nomination.

They said the demographics of Maine strongly favor Clinton. Yeah well, guess what…

It appears that the race for the Democratic nomination has moved beyond the question of the lesser evil, pardon, electability. The Democrats have a candidate that can do both, motivate the own party base beyond anything people have seen in decades and appeal to enough voters across party lines, beating the current Republican front runner McCain by 3% in the polls.

I’m a little confused. Huh?:

And then, on The View, Whoopi Goldberg goes off about Hillary Clinton bravely walking into a “tough room” (with all the boys) on a day where she “had just been exposed, as if someone snatched off her clothes.”

Likening a presidential campaign to having HRC’s clothes snatched off? To say nothing of gang rape.

I’m probably simplifying it. And being misogynistic. Or something. I don’t even know anymore. Feminism (or whatever the fuck this is) as a political movement is coming so frickin’ close to jumping the shark among so many millions of people, it doesn’t really seem to matter right now.

Anyway, this isn’t the first time there have been wildly inappropriate metaphors bandied about in our politics. There are many out there who are equating ANY critique of Hillary Rodham Clinton as woman-hatred, misogyny, virtual rape and so on—much like, ahem, Evangelical Christians equate any critique against them as anti-Christian hatred. Much like saying “Happy holidays!” in lieu of “Merry Christmas” becomes a WAR ON CHRISTIANS, saying “Hillary shouldn’t distort Obama’s record” is in liberal-left circles quickly becoming LEGALIZE RAPE.

I think there are plenty of people—not just women—who are the victims of actual physical abuse and humiliation who would disagree with the notion that a very powerful, very rich woman—the presumptive front-runner of the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign even—walking into the United States Senate to take her rightful seat to hear the State of the Union… Yeah. That’s a lot of things, but that’s not a victim.

Unless of course the worst part of being forcibly stripped in public and/or raped is a vague feeling of social awkwardness. I suspect it’s not, but maybe I’m wrong.

Hillary is a very powerful, very power-hungry, very rich woman. And there’s nothing wrong with that, all you feminists, so stop acting like there is. Women don’t have to be victims. HRC’s not. And you seem embarrassed that she isn’t, as if it her election would be an unsatisfying finale to some weird, third-rate, narrative fantasy of a brave struggle on Lifetime: Television for Women. It’s like she has to be a victim in order to prove her worth. Witness:

“I don’t want to be pushed aside anymore,” [Massachusetts State Senate President Therese] Murray told the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus during an event this morning. “I don’t want to be patted on the head, saying, ‘You did a good job on that, but now we got this young person, we got this attractive man, because you can’t get elected because the media said you couldn’t, because the polls said you couldn’t. We’re going to put this guy out front.’”

The president of the Massachusetts senate feels “pushed aside”? The president? Of a big state’s senate? And why is she describing this campaign as if her husband has just left her for fresh young tail? Is this psychodrama the kind of thing feminism now stands for? “But, Ted, you promised you’d get a babysitter and take me to dinner. How! Dare! You!”

That seems like a really shitty way to view the world.

More than 80 lawyers who are providing free-of-charge legal services to detainees in Guantánamo Bay endorsed Barack Obama in a public statement yesterday:

We are at a critical point in the Presidential campaign, and as lawyers who have been deeply involved in the Guantanamo litigation to preserve the important right to habeas corpus, we are writing to urge you to support Senator Obama.
[...]
Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue. When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration’s efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us.

According to the Boston Globe, one of the co-authors, Chicago lawyer Gary Isaac, didn’t intend the “all talk and no action” comment to be a jab at Clinton, but was “really intended to respond to the contention that Senator Obama is all talk and no action. We wanted to share our experience where he was a leader on an issue of great importance to us.”

Did he just pull a I-did-not-inhale on a Clinton?

The video speaks for itself.

Bill, Bill. BILL, Wake up!

That looks like me when I sat in the back row of Roman Civ in college.
zzzzzzzzz……zzzzzzzzzz…..zzzzzzzzz…..

You should read him every day.

My nephew has recently coined the word “poonis,” under the logical (and etymological, and scatological) reasoning that if pee comes out your penis, then the anatomical region that produces poo must be your poonis. I’ve rapidly developed an intense fondness for this word, not least because it seems to me to neatly encapsulate my current feelings about the Democratic Party.

I often feel out of step with the rest of the LME crowd — not so much because of the philosophical differences, but because I so rarely talk about current events, preferring to use this space as a place to think about the relationships of individuals to their societies in a much broader, less specific sense. I pay fairly close attention to day-to-day politics — I’m something of a news junkie — but I just don’t feel that I have much to say about it.

Take the current debate over the surge, for example. What’s the big story here? That the Democrats continue to be a pack of pussies, worn, torn, stretched, and bleeding from brutal overuse? That the Republicans continue to form a line of glistening, erect penises, eagerly thrusting in and out of whatever oily orifice they can find? It’s hardly worth coming up with the crude analogy, although I did enjoy the triple pun in the word “crude.”

Briefly spent some time in a resort village. I’m told that the landscape was beautiful, though this may have been obscured for me by the presence of four Starbucks in a single square mile. Partway through the trip, we discovered a sign that boasted the opportunity to “Make Your Own Ice Cream.” We eagerly rushed forward, to discover their offer of ANY combination of chocolate or vanilla, with ANY combination of either a waffle cone or a cup. Buh? Those are significantly *less* options than just about any ice cream shop I’ve ever been to.

The rhetoric of self-determination requires only the illusion of choice. And — in an age where we’re coming to accept a more fluid perception of human sexuality — I find it ironic that our ultimate choice boils down to a bunch of pussies, or a bunch of dicks.

Oh, City Pages. I can always rely on you for a measured response.

In addition to their latest cover — an image of the collapsed bridge, with the caption “WHO’S TO BLAME?” — Kevin Hoffman opened a mini-article last week with the following paragraph:

“President Bush didn’t bother waiting until all the bodies had been recovered from the Mississippi river to politicize the disastrous collapse of the I-35W bridge at a morning press conference the day after the tragedy.”

Now, my rejection of the Bush administration, and all of its works, and all of its empty promises, are a matter of public record — but this seems to me to be a classic case of people getting angry with Bush for the wrong goddamn reasons.

I’ve heard a lot of people complaining about Bush callously taking advantage of a tragedy for a photo-op. But the thing is, he kinda has to. Why? Because if he didn’t, we’d never let him live it down. We’d be indignantly blogging about how he doesn’t even care enough about his constituents to put in an appearance. It’s like how we crawl up his ass about not having attended any of his soldiers’ funerals. The minute he did, we’d be expressing our dismay at how he takes advantage of their loss for his own gain. It’s lose-lose, and not just for him.

The point I’m making is that that’s the wrong debate for us to be having. Ultimately, I don’t care if he shows up at the scene of a tragedy or not. Isn’t he doing plenty of other scary shit we should be paying attention to?

As usual, I have one foot planted in both halves of the blogosphere — and, as usual, both sides of the debate are pissing me off. Right-wingers are trumpeting the bridge collapse as a sign of government incompetence; left-wingers are using it as a rallying call against the Taxpayer’s League. I’m all about accountability — I’m all about doing everything we can to insure that something like this doesn’t happen again. But am I alone in thinking that we need to at least wait for the results of the investigation before we can have anything resembling an intelligent debate about this?

They say that one useless man is called a disgrace. Two useless men are called a law firm, and three or more become a Congress — John Adams, from 1776, the musical

Our Congress, that one with the Democratic Majority in both houses (little good that has done us) has once again capitulated. But this round is for a few more marbles than a funding bill with troop withdrawal deadlines. No, this one is a clear dereliction of duty. When Mr 26% got to deciderin’ that he wanted a new FISA bill, all he had to do was say “boo!” and our Democratic congressional “leaders” folded like clean laundry and gave him what he wanted. And all I (and basically all rational people left in the country) am left to ask is why? Why the fuck would you do that? Whatever reason the Congressional leadership has, it’s lame.

There is more in this than electioneering. There is more in this than being tarred as “soft on terrorism.” Whatever the fuck that means, to begin with. As others have pointed out, do you think Fox News is going to declare, trumpets blaring that the Democrats are suddenly strong on national defense? This is more than being partisan. It’s not about the fact that Commander Codpiece is quickly becoming the least popular and surely the most dangerous president in US history, yet you listen to him anyway. It’s about something bigger. The Republic. Remember? You people are trashing the Constitution. You have given a back-door amnesty to all the misdeeds this “administration” has carried out spying on it’s own citizens. GOD DAMN IT PEOPLE, IF YOU DON’T START DOING YOUR JOBS OF DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION, THERE WON’T BE MUCH OF A CONSTITUTION TO DEFEND.

Others are articulating their frustration anger sheer revulsion over this bit of legislative surrender better than I. For instance Glenn Greenwald

The common, defining political principle here — what resonates far more powerfully than any other idea — is a fervent and passionate belief in our country’s constitutional framework, the core liberties it secures, and the checks and balances it offers as a safeguard against tyrannical power. Those who fail to defend that framework, or worse, those who are passively or actively complicit in its further erosion, are all equally culpable. With each day that passes, the radicalism and extremism originally spawned in secret by the Bush presidency becomes less and less his fault and more and more the fault of those who — having discovered what they have been doing and having been given the power to stop it — instead acquiesce to it and, worse, enable and endorse it.

And Meteor Blades at DKos:

Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You are surrender monkeys. And you’ve just casually tossed away a basic protection as if it were a banana peel.

I’m currently working on a production of 1776. Every night I watch actors portray the men that made our country a country. Men that risked the hangman. Risked their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor.” And what a cowardly lot our Democratic “leaders” are by comparison. Every time I think they are getting a back bone. Just when I think they’re ready to go after the pricks in the Executive Branch with both barrels, they promptly point said barrels at their feet and fire at will, more worried about what the ticker on Fox News might say, and with blatant disregard to what the Constitution actually says.

During the show I have a few big breaks. I’m taking advantage of these long breaks to do some reading. I’m currently absorbed in Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason. (It’s really great, and I’ll probably write about it at length when I’m actually done with it) In the midst of writing this post, I read this paragraph:

This administration simply does not seem to agree that the challenge of preserving democratic freedom cannot be met by surrendering core American values. Incredibly, this administration has attempted to compromise the most precious rights that America has stood for all over the world for more than two hundred years: due process, equal treatment under the law, the dignity of the individual, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from promiscuous government surveillance.

Welcome to that club, Democrats. And you signed on why? To pander to. . . somebody. So the meanies on the other side of the aisle wouldn’t throw nasty mud at you next election? Cool, calm political calculation? Meteor blades is right. Surrender Monkeys. I supported, volunteered for, donated money to, and voted for a Democratic Congress that would finally stand up to this administrations power grabs–and that’s all this is, it has about as much to do with fighting terrorism as Iraq does–but in the end you’re all just chickenshit. So, Mr Reid, Ms. Pelosi, just how dry is that powder these days?

It’s time for a song. I dedicate this song from 1776 to our Democratic Congress. (Mind you, this song is sung by the Tories and Loyalists)

What we do we do rationally
We never ever go off half-cocked, not we
Why begin till we know that we can win
And if we cannot win why bother to begin?

Rutledge:
We say this game’s not of our choosing
Why should we risk losing?

All:
We are cool

To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right
We have gold, a market that will hold
Tradition that is old, a reluctance to be bold.

Dickinson:
I sing hosanna, hosanna
In a sane and lucid manner
We are cool

All:
Come ye cool cool considerate men
The likes of which may never be seen again
With our land, cash in hand
Self-command, future planned
And we’ll hold to our gold
Tradition that is old, reluctant to be bold.
We say this game’s not of our choosing
Why should we risk losing?

We cool, cool, cool
Cool, cool, cool
Cool cool men.

Good work guys, we’re all really proud of you.

(UPDATE) Now that I got that off my chest, I think Buffalo Girl is right. Bloggers need to get better at the whole legislative process, not just doing the election thing, and throwing a tea party every year.

Through the New Republic, I found out that Barack Obama is giving up smoking.

I respect him for that. All four of us who author this-here blog smoke, a fact that we’re variously horrified by and proud of, depending on who’s doing the hacking up of what lung. We know what it’s like to have Mr. Demon Tobacco screaming in your lungs, demanding yet further virginal sacrifices. It’s un-pretty.

In fact, I’m a little surprised that The Senator from Illinois didn’t give up smoking already, what with his ambitions and all. I mean, smoking isn’t very presidential these days, is it? Isn’t it kind of like drowning excess litters of kittens born to the one-eyed mouser who lives in the barn? I’m sure they used to do that all the time back in the 1840s—maybe even as recently as the 1930s—but these days?

Good luck, Barack.

Totally awesome article in the New York Times (thanks for sending it, Kevin!) about how four mismatched roommates have come together to stop the surge and reinstate the estate tax:

This characterization is not fair to Mr. [Richard] Durbin [D-Ill.], interjected another tenant in the Capitol Hill row house, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts. For starters, it overlooks Mr. Durbin’s gift for killing rats. “He will kill them with his bare hands,” Mr. Delahunt marveled.

…and the card attached would say, “Thank you for being a friend.”

May I wish one and all a happy new year. And we should all be thankful that we don’t live in Pennsylvania, where they seem be doing a study on the introduction of frothy fecal matter to a high-power fan.

After all the votes were counted in the key swing district of Chester County (the West Chester seat), the Democrats gained a narrow 102-101 seat margin in the Pennsylvania House. But then the immortal law of the ever-quotable Yogi Berra came into play. “It ain’t over until it’s over,” Yogi famously said.

In giving the Democrats a one-vote margin, the voters each and every Democrat more power. Tragically–for himself, his urban constituents in Reading and its nearly areas, his reputation, his political future, the Democratic Party, and the people of Pennsylvania–Tom Caltagirone, now beginning his 31st year in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, chose to use the additional power for the purpose of turning the House back to the Republicans.

By the way, it seems that the tone here has been a little subdued since the Democrats took power.

Nothing could be further from the actual truth. All of us at LME have been on Cloud Fucking Nine since Tuesday night. This has been awesome.

We’re just… thinking. Rik and I ventured into the offline blogosphere tonight with the Minneapolis chapter of Drinking Liberally. Oh, yes we did! And sometime soon, Mr. Bill will be joining our ranks.

Also, I just sent a letter to Sen. Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island. He was a necessary casualty, of course. But still, a good man.

And then I started making banana bread. Because you can take the Midwest out of the homo, but you… Okay, so the analogy doesn’t hold up. Still.

P.S. I agree wholeheartedly with Mark: Drinking Liberally should, by rights, be Drinking Fucking Liberally. It is Minnesota, and DFL is a much nicer acronym in these parts.

Have the TV on this morning while working from home. Clearly, a little training is needed for the Dem talking heads making the circuit. I’m not talking about the legislators. I’m talking about staffers and Dem attack poodles (christ…we’re gonna have dem attack poodles, now). The four I’ve seen so far this morning spent most of their on-air time either snarkily taking shots at the Republicans and/or taking umbrage with people like Norquist, et al.

Um…guys…you won. You have the stage. You get to dictate the terms of the conversation. Grover Norquist? At the moment, in terms of public access, he’s been marginalized (Grover ain’t gonna stay marginalized for long). You’re giving the other side the air time, keeping them in peoples minds. And you’re looking like a bunch of wonky whiners. Perfectly acceptable role for the party out of power. But now you’re in power.

Please, try not to fuck it up.