The Meme’s the Thing

Now that the Dow has fallen thousands of points, our credit rating is on the brink and unemployment isn’t going anywhere good, it’s time to blame someone. Should we blame our highest elected official? You’d think so, but that’s not the media’s preference. Should we blame the Senate that’s been in Democratic hands since the Bush administration? Maybe we could blame the Bush administration. Better yet, we could blame the Republican House, people who have been in office for all of seven months out of the last 30.

Unemployment has gone down almost 1% since the elections of 2010. The credit decline is based on the national debt, which has in three years surpassed the total debt of all 8 years of the Bush administration. That debt, and the inability of the government to address that debt led to a downgrade.

Who’s responsible? There’s S&P. They have a spotty history with the whole mortgage derivative thing. If that’s the case, we should just ignore them. What about the Republican House? They did refuse to pass a debt limit increase until the last second. All the Democrats wanted were a few tax increases on the rich. What’s so wrong with that?

First of all, the Democrats had many chances to raise taxes for two years. In fact, all they had to do was nothing and trillions of dollars of tax cuts would have expired. They like tax increases, but they don’t want to increase taxes. Instead, it’s better to either make the Republicans sign off on tax increases or blame them for not being fiscally responsible.

Then again, Obama offered $3 trillion in spending cuts for just a trillion dollars in tax increases. It sounds like a good trade unless you understand how budgeting works. In the land of Washington, tax hikes are instant. $1 trillion in taxes mean $100 billion in revenue every year. On the other hand, budget cuts are a dish best served cold. The current $1 trillion in cuts will come mostly at the end of the next ten years. This year it will be $10 billion, which will translate to $100 billion over the next decade. Year two will be less. The bulk of the “cuts” are scheduled for the last years, when a new Congress will throw that spending plan in the trash.

One thing is clear. The people working in the government are not working. The blame needs to start at the top. The supporters who blame Obama for not being tough enough are still supporting him. They look at the Republicans for blocking him and making him negotiate. That’s their job. They are the opposition. It would be better for those people if this were a dictatorship, but damned if it wouldn’t be even worse for the country.

A new media darling?

---

TMZ:

MATT DAMON FOR PRESIDENT!

Michael Moore wants Matt Damon to run for PRESIDENT — not just because he believes in Matt’s outspoken politics … but because he believes Matt might actually WIN in 2012.

Michael spoke in an online seminar yesterday for FireDogLake.com — and when asked who he thought would be a viable candidate in next year’s election, Michael instantly replied, “Matt Damon.”

---

Just kill me now.

“Ooh, I feel something warm and squishy running down my leg!” – Tweety

Keep shoveling horseshit Dave, I’m sure there’s a pony under there somewhere

---

Thereisnospoonupmyass:

Without delving too deeply into pop pscyhology or Barack Obama’s mental state, there is nonetheless an important lesson to draw from this. Barack Obama is, by all accounts personal and political, the epitome of calm. He almost never loses his temper. He doesn’t have ups or downs. He takes the often contradictory advice he is given, and attempts to fashion compromise from its workings, taking what he feels to be the most practical approaches from the right and center-left alike, and then navigates toward the path of what he feels to be the realm of the politically possible. Much to the delight of his still copious supporters, his nickname is No Drama Obama.

[...]

His neoliberal politics notwithstanding, I have said in the past that Barack Obama might make a good, even great president during times of stasis and normalcy. His approach to problems is precisely the sort that is needed to steer calmly through times of peace, prosperity, and bipartisan sentiments.

But the great complaint with Barack Obama isn’t so much about what he has done, as about the opportunity he has largely squandered. America stands at a precipice, at a time of great crisis. A time when bold, aggressive and determined leadership is called for. It is a time when America needs drama.

[...]

After the crash of 2008, America desperately needed something irrational to believe in. America wanted to believe. America wanted to hope, and not for small things or minor advances, but to hope for a great change as yet unproven. It was Obama’s great gift in 2008 to tap into that collective national desire, even when the nature of the change on offer was unclear.

---

Like Pinocchio, Obama is a puppet, only he’s not ever gonna turn into a real POTUS.

---

The (David) Atkins Diet:

“Eat shit and vote for Obama!”

---

When the magic goes away

TOTUS

---

Jennifer Rubin:

Obama’s horrifyingly bad speech

He was a half hour late. His head turned from side to side as if he were attending a tennis match. He practically never looked in the camera, as if he were averting our gaze. And those were the strong parts of President Obama’s disastrous speech.

It was a bit like a slow-motion car crash. After a while, one stopped listening to the blather and simply watched the stock ticker go down and down. And down some more.

Obama had all weekend and the best he could come up with was a reiteration of his plea for a “balanced” approach to deficit control. That’s right. We have a tumbling stock market, over 9 percent unemployment and a flight to gold (some investment advisers say it will be at $2,500 per ounce by year’s end). All he can do is promise to raise taxes.

[...]

This illuminated Obama’s predicament — devoid of ideas, bitter about political opposition and completely in over his head.

---

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

“The Emperor is naked,” he said.

“Fool!” his father reprimanded, running after him. “Don’t talk nonsense!” He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy’s remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:

“The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It’s true!”

---

No buyer’s remorse here

---

Joan Walsh:

Should liberals have buyers’ remorse over Obama?

Bill Maher asks if Hillary Clinton would have been more progressive. We have no idea

I dodged one of my least favorite questions on “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday night: Would Hillary Clinton have been a better choice for liberals than Barack Obama in 2008?

[...]

I ducked the question because I honestly have no idea – and I have no desire to refight the bruising battles of the 2008 Democratic primary. I’m firmly on record questioning the notion that Obama was the clear progressive, compared to Clinton. There was absolutely no evidence that was true. One advantage to Clinton, I thought, was that she knew the extent to which the right wing would go to sabotage a Democratic president. On the other hand, I had sympathy with people who dreaded a sequel to the ugly Clinton Wars, and thought a different Democrat might have a better chance to avert a rerun of 90s-style partisan warfare. I didn’t agree, but I thought that was a fair and reasonable hope.

---

Forget the fact that if Joan had any dignity, self-respect or credibility she wouldn’t be anywhere near Bill Maher. The real issue here is not whether Hillary would have been more progressive. Any Cheetohead could tell you she’s not a progressive. She ran as a moderate.

Hillary would have faced just as much or more opposition from the GOP as Obama has, except no one would have suggested it was based on racism. She would have had to deal with the same economic crisis and no matter what she did she would have been called a socialist.

What Hillary would have brought to the job that Obama did not was experience, knowledge and competence. She would also have provided a different focus and emphasis.

Hillary opposed granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms in the FISA revision. She wanted to protect homeowners in the mortgage bailout. She would have pushed for a more effective stimulus and would never have passed up the opportunity provided by large congressional majorities to enact genuine health care reform.

Hillary understands that good policy is good politics. She wouldn’t need better messaging to face down the Tea Party. If Hillary was president, the GOP would not have taken control of Congress last year.

It was no mere accident of fate that Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee in 2008. The powers that be moved heaven and earth to install him in the White House. They chose him because he is ambitious and amoral and craves the trappings of power more than power itself. They wanted a puppet and they got one.

Here’s what Pam Martens said in May 2008:

The Wall Street plan for the Obama-bubble presidency is that of the cleanup crew for the housing bubble: sweep all the corruption and losses, would-be indictments, perp walks and prosecutions under the rug and get on with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. … Who better to sell this agenda to the millions of duped mortgage holders and foreclosed homeowners in minority communities across America than our first, beloved, black president of hope and change?

Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a President Obama to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes, “Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing.”

---