So close, yet so far

---

Jefferson Morley at Salon:

In his new book, “Pity the Billionaire,” Tom Frank turns his mordant eye on the unlikeliest political development of the Obama presidency: how the crash of 2008 served to strengthen the political right. The deregulation of Wall Street, championed for 30 years by right-wing leaders, had led to an economic catastrophe so frightening that the country elected a liberal Democrat to the presidency. Yet two years later, the most conservative faction of the Republican Party, the Tea Party, had taken effective control of the House of Representatives, the regulation of Wall Street had stalled, and the champions of economic deregulation in Washington had emerged stronger than ever.

Frank, author of the bestselling book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” provides a pithy and nuanced explanation of what he calls the “hard-times swindle.” He spoke with Salon from his father’s home in Kansas City, Mo.

---

As you can see, the whole article goes off track early with “the country elected a liberal Democrat to the presidency.” You might expect that whatever follows that is probably not gonna be accurate.

Early in the book, you describe the moment in the spring of 2009 when free-market economics had been so thoroughly discredited that Newsweek could run a cover story proclaiming, “We’re all socialists now.” What happened? Why did that moment dissipate?

I saw that cover so many times [at Tea Party events]. For these people, that rang the alarm bell. I think the AIG moment [when the bailed-out insurance behemoth used taxpayer relief to dole out huge bonuses to its executives] was in some ways the high point of the crisis, when [the politics] could have gone either way. There was this amazing public outrage, and that for me was the turning point. Newsweek had another cover, “Thinking Man’s Guide to Populism,” and I remember this feeling around the country, that people were just furious. Somehow the right captured the sense of anger. They completely captured it. You could say they had no right to it, but they did. And one of the reasons they were able to do it was because the liberals were not interested in that anger.

I’m speaking here of the liberal culture in Washington, D.C. There was no Occupy Wall Street movement [at that time] and there was only people like me on the fringes talking about it. The liberals had their leader in Barack Obama … they had their various people in Congress. But these people are completely unfamiliar with populist anger. It’s an alien thing to them. They don’t trust it, and they have trouble speaking to it. I like Barack Obama, but at the end of the day he’s a very professorial kind of guy. The liberals totally missed the opportunity, and the right was able to grab it.

---

Obama and the Democrats had the opportunity to catch a wave. We never believed his Hopenchange™ horseshit, but many people did. If he had done the right things he might have even persuaded some of us. All he had to do was channel the popular anger at the targets that deserved it.

They didn’t even use the bailout as leverage to break-up the TBTF banks and force them to accept new financial regulations. They just gave it away, no strings attached.

Looking back on it, I feel like people like myself were part of the problem. We sort of assumed with the Democrats in power, the system would correct itself.

One of the problems with liberalism in this country is that it’s headquartered in Washington and its leaders are a very comfortable class of people. Washington is one of the richest cities in the country, maybe the richest. It’s not a place that feels the crisis, that feels the economic downturn. By and large, the real estate market stayed OK. The city continued to boom. The contracts continued to flow. What we’re talking about here is the failure of modern liberalism. At one time it was a movement of working-class people. The idea that liberals wouldn’t feel economic pain was ridiculous. That’s who liberals were. No more.

---

“Comfortable” is not the word I would use. I would use “corrupt.”

That’s why Obama and the Democrats failed. They are corrupt.

A bail-out with no strings. A stimulus that rewarded contributors but failed to stimulate. Financial regulations that don’t regulate. Healthcare reform that created a windfall for health insurance companies but didn’t reform health care. Crony capitalism.

The problem in this country isn’t the Tea Party. It isn’t the Occupiers either. They are both a reaction to the problem.

The Tea Party was created as an astroturf organization to channel right-wing anger at Obama and the Democrats. It turned on its creators and attacked the Republicans.

OWS was created as an astroturf organization to channel left-wing anger away from Obama and the Democrats. It succeeded.

Neither the Tea Party nor OWS has done much to change any minds. The red states are still red and the blue states are still blue. They are never gonna agree on most issues. But they both agree on a couple key things.

Both the Tea Party and the majority of OWS want responsive government. They want their elected representatives in Congress to keep their campaign promises. Sure, they voted for different candidates and different promises, but the principle is the same.

Both the Tea Party and the majority of OWS want to end crony capitalism. They might say it differently, but they both want the same thing. They are tired of seeing their tax dollars going to campaign contributors. Neither side likes Wall Street. They want their votes to count.

You would think some smart people would use those facts to make a change.

But now the Tea Party is busy trying to select a candidate to defeat Obama. When the Occupiers start up again in the spring they will be busy trying to defeat the Republicans. Meanwhile the crony capitalists will be laughing all the way to their banks.

---

Infidels and heretics

---

GOP senator says Tea Party challenges ‘killed off’ efforts at Republican majority

Sen. Dick Lugar (Ind.) facing a primary contest from the right in his reelection bid said past Tea Party-backed challenges had “killed off” Republican efforts to take the Senate in the past and could undermine a GOP majority again in 2012.

“A Republican majority in the Senate is very important, and Republicans who are running for reelection ought to be supported by people who want to see that majority,” Lugar said in an interview which aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

“I think the majority of Tea Party people understand that too,” he added.

Lugar who is facing a tough primary challenge from Tea Party-backed Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) said he was the best GOP option to win the seat and that past attempts by grassroots groups to install candidates they found more conservative had backfired.

“If I was not the nominee it might be lost,” he said of his seat. “Republicans lost the seats before in Nevada and New Jersey and Colorado where there were people who were claiming they wanted somebody who was more of their Tea Party aspect but they killed off the Republican majority.”

“This is one of the reasons why we have a minority in the Senate right now,” he claimed.

---

This is one of those zombie lies that keeps popping back up. During the last election cycle (the only one affected by the Tea Party so far) The Republican party gained six seats in the Senate. They needed four more to take control. Not one GOP incumbent lost their seat. (Lisa Murkowski of Alaska won reelection despite losing the primary to a Tea Party candidate.)

The claim that the Tea Party “lost” the Senate is based on the assumption that the GOP would have won four more seats had the establishment candidates won the primaries. But there is little proof that is the case – mostly some pre-primary polls. They might have won one or two – or maybe not.

It could just as easily be argued that without the support and enthusiasm of the Tea Party the Republicans would have won fewer seats and might not have taken control of the House either.

The Tea Party is a conservative movement and I’m a liberal, so why does this matter? Because the establishments of both parties have a vested interest in maintaining power, and neither establishment represents their party’s rank-and-file voters.

The Tea Party originated as an astroturf organization intended to gin-up opposition to Barack Obama. But it quickly morphed into a genuine grass-roots organization as the monster turned on its creators with primary challengers. Suddenly the GOP establishment joined with Democrats in portraying Tea Partiers as lunatics.

Some people think that the Occupiers are the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party. This is not true. OWS has no interest in challenging the Democratic establishment by fielding primary candidates. But if they did they could expect similar treatment.

---

Hunters Don’t Run With the Herd

You Betcha!

There are two diametrically opposed narratives out there regarding a Sarah Palin run for the Republican nomination. One is that she is a dumb bimbo who is paradoxically a brilliant businesswomen and doesn’t want to upset the gravy train. The other is that most of America loves her and she would run away with the nomination and presidency if she ran. Neither is quite right.

For one thing, it was pretty obvious from the beginning that the Republican Party hates her. She’s one of those accidental candidates who made it to the governor’s office without being a lawyer or a cog in the party machine. She went up against her own party in Alaska and won. Getting support through the RNC would be an uphill battle. This year’s primary system is designed to award delegates to the candidate with the most money later in the race.

Imagine Sarah Palin running for president. She would spend weeks at the mercy of the media, running slam polls, waiting for mispronunciations in debates and hounding her family. She wouldn’t be able to talk about what was wrong with the Republican Party while she was trying to court it. Plus, she’s be running with the herd as another Not-Romney candidate.

So, what do you do with yourself when you are wildly popular, can draw crowds of thousands and are viewed by millions on the Internet? You build yourself a Republican Party. Sarah Palin’s effect on the 2010 elections was greater than that of a presidential election. The Republicans had a 670 seat gain in state legislatures. In the House, they gained over 30 seats and had a retention rate of 98%. The Democrats only retained 76% of their seats. The Republicans flipped over half of the few Senate seats held by Democrats up for election.

There’s a reason a reload looks like a retreat. A hunter doesn’t charge an animal. A hunter seeks the advantage and waits patiently to take the shot. The Obots want the confrontation. Palin wants the trophy on her mantle. The next president will have a whole new Congress to deal with.

One Shall Rise

At the Republican convention of 2008, John McCain was introduced by the first major party female candidate for Vice President in 24 years, and the first in the Republican Party. McCain sent a signal to PUMA supporters of Hillary Clinton by his VP choice and more subtly with his orange tie. He was running a general election campaign since he won the primaries and tried to be inclusive of independents and disaffected Democrats.

He lost.

In 2010, McCain ran for another Senate term in Arizona. His Tea Party opponent for the primary forced him to run as a conservative. He sought out the coveted endorsement of his former running mate. He ditched his former open borders stance and demanded Obama “complete the dang fence.” He won that election.

McCain’s 2008 adversary Mitt Romney is running again this time. He was hailed as the conservative alternative to McCain back then. Huckabee turned out to be the social conservative choice and he used that mantle to steer votes to McCain. Now, Romney is some sort of centrist. He’s the Democrats’ favorite Republican, except for Jon Huntsman’s vanity campaign. McCain tried that crap in 2008 because the media loved him in 2000 when he ran against George W. Bush. McCain lost that race, too.

I understand the logic here. You take a candidate with an unclear stance, throw a bunch of Wall Street money at him, run a negative primary campaign and stay away from one-on-one interviews. It worked for Obama. The problem is that it doesn’t really work for Republicans. Conservative Republicans come off as evil, but mostly to people who won’t vote for them anyway. Moderate Republicans come off as creepy. Look at Nixon. Did George H. W. Bush lose his election because of an economic slump or because he was the first Republican president to break the Grover Norquist pledge? If people really voted for Perot’s deficit stance, Bush was reducing it by raising taxes.

Newt Gingrich has enough staying power at this point to make a strong showing in a number of primaries. We already know his crazy views, unlike the surprise of Michele Bachmann. He’s far more articulate than Rick Perry and can remember the long list of government programs he wants to abolish. He won’t drop out like Cain for leaked scandals. What can Gingrich’s wife say to him? She used to be the mistress. Ron Paul may be more Tea Party then Newt, but his middling stance on running third-party has ended his chances.

Then there’s the moderate / independent / Democratic vote. This is a referendum on Barack Obama. If Newt goes negative against Obama, and will he ever, he’s got a good lock on that vote. Clinton supporters may despise him, but that will just shore him up with conservatives reminded that Newt stuck it to Bubba every chance he got.

Political calculus tends to dictate that the winner of the primaries will be the one who pisses off his challengers the least. The few Republicans who have dropped out have endorsed Romney. If the tide turns and Gingrich’s strategy of not attacking opponents leads to endorsements, Romney could find himself in big trouble.

Then again, Newt could screw up big and lose all his current support. It’s pretty much even money on him doing that.

Here We Go Again

Governor Reagan, who in most cases does typify his party, but in some cases there is a radical departure by him from the heritage of Eisenhower and others.

-James Earl Carter

If a poll were taken today, Jon Huntsman would be first, Romney second. Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich would be near the bottom. That poll would be of people who will be voting for Barack Obama in 2012. The idea that radical and extreme candidates are bad and will lose elections is firmly held in the minds of Republicans. In reality, it mostly applies to Democrats.

In 2008, Mitt Romney tried to claim the conservative mantle against “maverick” John McCain. The same people who like Huntsman but will settle for Romney now were the ones who thought Giuliani was a shoo-in for 2008. Instead, the primary voters liked Mike Huckabee, who became Romney’s focus of attack. Now, Romney is trying to thread the needle.

I’d like to say it’s a matter of picking the more solidly conservative candidate, but there’s a problem in the Republican Party itself. Republicans have had a taste of power since 1994 and grew accustomed to it. There has been an effort to consolidate power and moderate candidates. It almost always means defeat for Republicans. These people would rather a Democrat win than let a Tea Party candidate take their job. Alaska, Nevada, Delaware and NY-23 proved that.

Then there’s Sarah Palin. She was a last-minute choice when someone managed to talk McCain out of his “fusion” ticket with Joe Lieberman. I imagine the strategy was that disaffected Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton would prefer a female running mate. For the sake of gravitas, it should be a governor. Between the governor of Alaska and the governor of Hawaii, Palin was the better fit.

What followed was one of those political accidents like Teddy Roosevelt or Calvin Coolidge where a person outside of the political machine made it to running mate. Palin is the model of a citizen politician. She started in the PTA and eventually made it to governor. She is the GOP’s closest thing to an ambassador to the Tea Party Nation and she’s a solid conservative. And Democrats who don’t like Obama like her.

Winning this election means going hard negative on Obama. The Republicans who might otherwise sit out the election need to be energized and those thinking of voting Obama again need their spirits crushed. Romney may be capable of it, but we know for certain Sarah Palin is. Republicans had better stop listening to Democrats warning of extremism. If your opponent prefers a candidate, run screaming to the one they mock.

Representative David Wu (D-OR) accused in “unwanted sexual encounter” scandal

Caption this tiger.

From The Oregonian:

A distraught young woman called U.S. Rep. David Wu’s Portland office this spring, accusing him of an unwanted sexual encounter, according to multiple sources.

When confronted, the Oregon Democrat acknowledged a sexual encounter to his senior aides but insisted it was consensual, the sources said.

The woman is the daughter of a longtime friend and campaign donor. She apparently did not contact police at the time.

Wu claims the incident was consensual.

You may remember Rep. Wu from the 2010 election. His campaign staff apparently closed down his office and campaign just days ahead of the election due to his increasingly erratic behavior, including crazy e-mails he sent in which he pretended to be his daughter, and a picture of him dressed in furry attire as a tiger. They then confronted him over his mental health. Eventually, there was a mass exodus of staffers from his office.

Now comes this allegation, which is not the first time David Wu has been accused of this kind of behavior. During the 2004 election, The Oregonian reported (trigger warning: graphic details at this link) that a woman with whom Wu went to college alleged he had sexually assaulted her in 1976. The allegations were brought to light by Wu’s Republican opponent, but it was apparently common knowledge among Democratic insiders, according to the report.

This is different than your normal sex scandal involving politicians and consenting adult women because of the potentially criminal nature of the allegations. So I’m not going to comment on that aspect. What I will comment on is that this is yet another case that sends a warning about the nature of tribal allegiances in politics. Wu’s district encompasses Portland, a hotbed of progressive politics. The voters there voted him back into office in 2004 despite knowing about the previous allegation, presumably because they couldn’t stomach voting for the Republican. But what does that say about Portland’s voters, that a potential sexual aggressor was more acceptable to them than Goli Ameri, his female Republican opponent?

Do you think it might have something to do with that pesky problem with misogyny the left tends to have?

Ask not what your party can do for you

---

House Dem: Liberal groups need to back off for party to win in 2012

Liberal groups need to stay out of Democratic primaries if the party is going to retake the House majority, according to a conservative Massachusetts Democrat.

Rep. Stephen Lynch was one of several Democrats who faced an aggressive primary challenge from the left in 2010. His challenger Mac D’Alessandro, a former top official with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), received almost $300,000 from labor groups for his campaign.

[...]

Clearing primaries for members and discouraging liberal groups from spending against incumbents should be a priority for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said. “It would definitely help, I think. You need to talk to those groups.”

FTW comment goes to somebody named “John Puma”:

Great, another “we can only win by NOT distinguishing ourselves from the GOP” idiot.

If you think Lynch is a lone-nut think again. They may not admit it publicly but his pro-incumbent beliefs are widely shared on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

Look at what happened last year on the GOP side – Tea Partiers aggressively challenged incumbents in the Republican primaries, winning many of the contests. Most of those challengers went on to win in the Republican tsunami last November.

But the Village Idiots focused on a few races (like Delaware and Nevada) to argue that the Tea Party cost the Republicans several seats and possibly the Senate majority.

Speaking of idiots, let’s check in with Booman:

I think it is safe to say that progressives did not cause the loss of a single seat in Congress through the use of primary challenges to incumbents or moderate candidates. But that isn’t stopping some people from whining.

What? That actually makes sense. Has Booman finally seen the light?

It’s possible to screw things up by adopting unrealistic purity tests. We all saw that happen with the Tea Party. But it didn’t happen on our side. We lost almost every single competitive contest in the country, regardless of funding, the quality of the candidate, the campaign strategy, or the quality of the opponent. We lost because our base didn’t turn out and their base did. It’s that simple. Under the circumstances, nothing in the known universe could have saved Blanche Lincoln, or countless other backstabbers. But voting progressive wouldn’t have saved them either. In the last election cycle, the only thing that could have mitigated disaster would have been something that created real fear or real excitement in our base. Individual candidates had no control over that. As for excitement, our opinion leaders were too busy nit-picking to do anything but crush what little excitement that might have existed.

Sometimes, it’s just not your cycle.

Okay, there’s the Booman we all know.

“Our” base didn’t turn out because they were disgusted with the 2% less evil DINOcrats. And now Obama is signaling he plans to take a hard right turn for the next two years.

---

---