Obama And The End Of The Post-Partisan Era

Barack Obama attracted many independents in 2008 with his “post-partisan” approach to politics, but this turned out to be far more effective for campaigning against an unpopular incumbent as opposed to governing. Regardless of how much Obama wanted to compromise, the Republicans made opposing everything Obama supported their major goal. Obama’s support of moderate economic policies and a moderate health care reform plan did not prevent bogus claims that Obama is a socialist who supported a government take-over of health care.

As long as Obama’s popularity was soaring far above that of Congress, it was difficult to criticize Obama for maintaining this approach despite my fears that he would eventually suffer in the polls if the economy remained bad. In recent weeks his popularity has dropped, even if it remains well above that of Congress and of Republicans. A recent Pew Research Center survey showed that “Currently, 57% of Democrats say Obama should challenge the Republicans more often, while 32% say he is handling relations with the GOP about right. ” This is up from 37% in April who said Obama should challenge the Republicans more. The number of Independents who want Obama to stand up more to the Republicans has increased from 30% to 36% since April.

The importance of doing this extends beyond these poll numbers. Considering that public opinion regarding the economy typically lags actual improvement by several months, it is likely that a poor economy could cause an incumbent president to lose votes in 2012. It is essential that Obama make the case that it was Republican policies which caused the recession, actions of Congressional Republicans which have hindered recovery, and that further Republican polices will make matters worse.

Perhaps I am overly concerned, considering Obama’s other advantages as an incumbent. Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has a formula which predicted every presidential race correctly since 1984, has predicted Obama will win reelection. However there really have not been many presidential elections which were very difficult to predict since then, and I also think there is wisdom to the old Clinton mantra that, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Of course the Obama political team which beat Hillary Clinton and then went on to an easy victory in the general election is not stupid either. Presumably they were continuing the same strategy as long as Obama was doing well in the polls, and  now realize that they must change their message. I have seen a number of indicators that they plan to take a harder line against the Republicans, including today’s article in The Hill:

President Obama is preparing to fight a political war this fall on two fronts — the first against Republicans who want his job and the second against Republicans who want to make his job more difficult.

Obama is taking dead-aim at the latter group, targeting Congress in a fall offensive that the president’s reelection campaign hopes will bruise the overall GOP image beyond repair…

When GOP lawmakers return, the president and his team are ready to deliver a flurry of attacks, castigating Congress for inaction on jobs, being on the wrong side of taxes and eager to destroy social safety net programs. If Obama and his team have their way, Americans will come to see every Republican as a Tea Party extremist.

The president previewed this effort when he started throwing jabs while on the road in August.

At a stop in Michigan and repeatedly during his Midwest bus tour, Obama lashed out at Congress for imperiling the economic recovery and playing politics that caused the country’s credit rating to be reduced at a time when he was working for a grand compromise.

The president is still talking about compromise, but his tone and posture indicate he is more — or at least as — interested in combat…

And there’s a bonus to beating Congress to a pulp that officials think will pay off next year.

By forcing the GOP to take positions on such key economic issues as the payroll tax cut and tax cuts for the rich, Obama and his team are hoping to draw out and lock down the president’s 2012 challengers.

Example: If the debate turns on Republicans trying to gut Social Security, then expect the Democratic National Committee to connect the dots from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the new GOP presidential front-runner, who once wrote that Social Security was “a Ponzi scheme.”

Voters Have Increasingly Negative View Of Influence Of Tea Party On Congress

With the tea party and other right wing Republicans leading us on a path towards potential financial doom, including precipitating the recent downgrading of the nation’s credit rating, the question remains as to how this will play with the voters. The Republican strategy is essentially to use their power in Congress to wreck the economy as much as possible in the  hopes they can blame this on the incumbent president.

The poll cited in the previous post is an early indicator that the tea party strategy is failing. Another poll conducted by the Washington Post and Pew Research Center also shows decreased support for the tea party among Democrats and independents:

When the 112th Congress started in January, more Americans anticipated a positive rather than negative role for the newly elected members affiliated with the tea party political movement. Now, a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll finds public opinion tilted the other way.

In the new poll, 29 percent say congressional representatives associated with the tea party have had a “mostly negative” effect, 11 percentage points higher than the number expecting a negative impact at the beginning of the term. Now, 22 percent see a “mostly positive” effect, down five points.

Still, as anticipated in January, about half of all Americans say the tea party supporters in Congress have either had “not much of an effect” or expressed no opinion.

The see-saw in public opinion on tea party-affiliated members is particularly apparent among Democrats and independents. In January, 30 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of independents said tea party members would have a mostly negative effect; those numbers have jumped to 49 and 28 percent, respectively.

Republicans, by contrast, are little shifted since the beginning of the year. By more than 4 to 1 Republicans see tea party members as having a more positive than negative effect.

Abortion Opponents Take (Probably Short-Lived) Lead In Gallup Poll

There have been numerous headlines over the past few months in which various polling organizations have announced that, for the first time, a majority now supports legalization of same-sex marriages. There have been enough polls showing this to suggest a trend. We would hope that this would correspond to more liberal views in other areas, but that is not always the case.

The trend with regards to abortion rights is far less clear. Typically a majority supports the continued legalization of abortion, with opponents of abortion rights occasionally taking the lead.  Gallup showed such a shift today with “pro-life” moving ahead of “pro-choice” for the first time since 2008, leading 49 percent to 45 percent. Needless to say, some  conservative blogs are getting quite excited over this probably transient lead.

Not surprisingly, the breakdown came along party lines, with independents and, to a much greater extent, Democrats, supporting abortion rights. Republicans were opposed by a margin of 67 percent to 28 percent. In the long run, the most important numbers might be breakdown by age. Both the 18-34 and 35-54 age groups classified themselves as “pro-choice.” The overall trend remains towards freedom, regardless of any temporary gains by the authoritarian right.

Pew Research Center Looks At Political Views Beyond Conventional Labels

I’ve often noted the problems with labels such as liberals versus conservatives, often lumping together people who do not agree on a number of issues while sometimes dividing those who do agree. My views have never fit in entirely with any group, but in recent years when it came down to liberals versus conservatives it has been a simple matter of siding with those who are not bat-shit crazy. Besides, liberalism contains a wide variety of views; in recent years including most who oppose the agenda of the theocratic, authoritarian right.  A Pew Research Center survey went beyond simple divisions of liberal versus conservative and party identification to break people down into a number of groups. Based upon this, it looks like I might have to rename the blog Post Modern Values. Of course a major characteristic of us post modern people is that we are very liberal on social issues. A few different answers on questions where I was forced to choose from two views which didn’t really capture my opinion could have also made me a Solid Liberal.  Regardless, we are on the same side on many of the major political issues. Post moderns are  the independents who overwhelmingly support Barack Obama. Unfortunately many post moderns (but not me) sat out in 2010.

The 2012 election might come down to whether Democratic-leaning independents turn out for the Democrats in 2012 as we did in 2008. On the one hand, many independents are increasingly turned off by the conservative views of Republicans on social issues. Just today, after seeing Barack Obama wage a war on terrorism, we are seeing House Republicans wage a war on women. On the other hand, another independent group, libertarians, is far more supportive of Republicans today than in 2008. As is far too often the case, libertarians tend to fall for Republican rhetoric on the economy (regardless of the realities) and are willing to compromise on matters such as social issues and actual freedom.

While the look at independents was most interesting, the survey also broke down supporters of each party by type. The views of Republicans were fairly predictable, regardless of type. For example, 90 percent of  Staunch Conservatives say that religion is an important part of their life. The Main Street Republicans  do not differ on this, with 91 percent answering the same way. Staunch Conservatives also include most of the Tea Party supporters. Knowing how conservative positions are frequently based upon beliefs which are counter to fact, it was no surprise to read that, “More Staunch Conservatives regularly watch Fox News than regularly watch CNN, MSNBC and the nightly network news broadcasts combined.”

The Tea Party Is Not Winning As Americans Reject Both Extremes

A reader of The New York Times and Washington Post might become quite confused as to who is winning. Today E. J. Dionne tells us the Tea Party is winning. However, yesterday Frank Rich pointed out that things are not going well for the far right:

Glenn Beck’s ratings at Fox News continued their steady decline, falling to an all-time low last month. He has lost 39 percent of his viewers in a year and 48 percent of the prime 25-to-54 age demographic. His strenuous recent efforts to portray the Egyptian revolution as an apocalyptic leftist-jihadist conspiracy have inspired more laughs than adherents.

Sarah Palin’s tailspin is also pronounced. It can be seen in polls, certainly: the ABC News-Washington Post survey found that 30 percent of Americans approved of her response to the Tucson massacre and 46 percent did not. (Obama’s numbers in the same poll were 78 percent favorable, 12 percent negative.) But equally telling was the fate of a Palin speech scheduled for May at a so-called Patriots & Warriors Gala in Glendale, Colo.

Tickets to see Palin, announced at $185 on Jan. 16, eight days after Tucson, were slashed to half-price in early February. Then the speech was canceled altogether, with the organizers blaming “safety concerns resulting from an onslaught of negative feedback.” But when The Denver Post sought out the Glendale police chief, he reported there had been no threats or other causes for alarm. The real “negative feedback” may have been anemic ticket sales, particularly if they were to cover Palin’s standard $100,000 fee.

The news section of The New York Times also points out problems faced by the Republicans:

…in the view of officials from both major political parties, Republicans may be risking the same kind of electoral backlash Democrats suffered after they were perceived as overreaching.

Public surveys suggest that most voters do not share the Republicans’ fervor for the deep cuts adopted by the House, or for drastically slashing the power of public-sector unions. And independent voters have historically been averse to displays of political partisanship that have been played out over the last week.

“If Republicans push too far and overreach their mandate, they will be punished by independent voters, just as they were in 1996,” said Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist who was a senior adviser to President George W. Bush. “Voters said they wanted bold action. They are getting bold action. But Republicans need to be constantly reminded that the last election was a referendum for change, not a referendum for the G.O.P.

Mr. McKinnon said that although Mr. Obama had claimed a mandate after his election, it turned out to be exaggerated, The president had paid a price for it, he said, and was adjusting.

Russ Feingold, the Democratic senator from Wisconsin who was turned out of office in the Republican sweep last year, said the new crop of Republicans was drawing false conclusions from the party’s victory.

“They are taking some kind of public expression of deep concern about the economy and turning it into something entirely different,” Mr. Feingold said. “They are making a mistake. They say: ‘Well, we won the election. Elections have consequences.’ And I say, yes, and we are going to have another election next year.”

What we are really seeing here is a failure for both extremes.

When the Democrats took control of the White House and Congress I recall writing a post warning that the Democrats would again become a minority party if they were to overreach. Looking back at the 2010 election, this should be updated to add the Democrats were also at risk of losing if the Republicans could create a false perception of Democratic overreach. I am glad to see that the article describes the problem of  as “Democrats suffered after they were perceived as overreaching” as opposed to actual overreaching.

The Democrats took a centrist course but failed miserably in explaining their actions, once again allowing the Republicans to define them and create a false perception of a move to the far left and overreaching. In addition, Obama did make one serious mistake in reversing his campaign position against the individual mandate. This allowed Republicans (who initially supported the mandate) to oppose health care reform as something being imposed upon Americans by big government as opposed to a case of government stepping in to provide help to those who need it when the market has failed.

Frank Rich is right that those on the far right are losing because, fortunately, many conservatives out in the real world don’t support the extremism and know-nothing philosophy of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party. Many on the left are also making a mistake when they see any support by Barack Obama or other Democrats for fiscal responsibility as giving in to right wing frames and a victory for the Tea Party.

Cutting the deficit is important in the long run. Republicans were wrong during the Bush years when they argued that deficits don’t matter, and exploded the deficit by fighting two wars off the books while cutting taxes primarily for the ultra-wealthy. It is far better to point out how Republican policies are responsible for the deficit than to shy away from any discussion of cutting the deficit. Rather than avoid the discussion, Democrats must point out that some deficit spending is beneficial, such as Obama’s stimulus which kept us out of a depression. Democrats must also continue to point out how cutting taxes for the ultra-wealthy and spending on Bush’s wars has done far more to increase the deficit than Democratic spending.

Some on the left want to avoid any use of “conservative frames,” but in doing so they actually hurt the left. When they refuse to mention anything discussed by conservatives, they allow conservatives to take credit for positions they do not actually promote. As a result we have conservatives claiming to be champions of freedom and capitalism, despite the reality that they really support more government intrusion in the lives of individuals and confuse plutocracy for capitalism.

This mistaken view that the left must avoid any conservative frames  leads to many of the attacks on Barack Obama from the left. Obama, while certainly not always perfect, at least understands that the way to win a majority is to demonstrate to rational conservatives that the economic policies they desire can better be delivered by his administration than by the extreme right. Those who oppose Obama’s attempts to appeal to conservatives argue that this has not led to any support from Congressional Republicans. This is correct but misses the point. The real target is not Congressional Republicans, who care more about denying Democrats any victories for political reasons than they care about any specific issues, or the good of the country. The target is the more rational voters who might have voted Republican in many of the recent elections but who are not totally brainwashed by the right wing noise machine. Attracting these voters, along with independents,  explains why Obama’s popularity has consistently been higher than that of Congress, and is now moving upward. It might also explain why some are turning off Glenn Beck.

America Returns Those Who Destroyed The Economy To Power (Russian Communists Envious)

The midterm elections are turning out as most expected. The Republicans have won control of the House, while the Democrats will probably retain control of the Senate. Republicans have also had major gains in many states, giving them an advantage in redistricting.

Really, America, wouldn’t it make more sense to vote for the party which kept the United States out of another depression as opposed to bringing back the people responsible for the economic collapse?  What this election really proves is that dishonest talking points and outright lies will win over rational thought about our problems.

As it is getting late, for now I’ll primarily repost some of my items from Twitter and Facebook and will have more on the election later.

I voted for the party which believes in science and rule of law, not the party which is trying to replace both with theocracy.

Christine O’Donnell loses. No happy ending for her–which goes along with her crusade. (One of the retweets changed the word after the dash to “witch.”)

At least if the GOP only takes over the House they’ll still fall short of being able to achieve their goal of replacing the Bill of Rights with the Ten Commandments. Except they’d keep the Second Amendment (and ignore all the confusing stuff about militias and just assume it means an individual right).

The worst news of the night beyond the flat-earthers taking control of the House is the defeat of Russ Feingold in the Wisconsin Senate race. With his strong record on civil liberties, Feingold was endorsed by recent Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr. How is defeating Feingold a step towards reducing government?

In his acceptance speech Rand Paul spoke of taking our country back. Exactly how many centuries does he mean?

Republicans Retake House. Seeing how the people responsible for screwing up a country can be returned to power, former Communists in Russia are now plotting their return.

People of color will now be in top positions in both the White House and the House of Representatives. First Barack Obama in the White House, and now John Boehner will be the nation’s first orange Speaker.

Is the nation ready for an orange Speaker of the House? More importantly, is the nation ready for a bat-shit crazy Speaker?

There is going to be a tendency for some on the left to respond to the election results by attacking Obama. Some hardcore Clintonistas have already started. This is a mistake. The only thing standing between between us and the insane hordes might be Barack Obama’s veto pen.

The big difference: Previously the Democrats would pass bills in the House but they would die in the Senate due to the need for sixty votes. Now we won’t have liberal legislation pass either House. Instead we will have all sort of lunacy proposed–leading to the GOP getting thrown out in two years.

Just wait until the GOP House passes bills to privatize Social Security and Medicare, with Rand Paul proposing the same in the Senate.

Damn, I now live in a red state. Does that mean I have to unlearn all that science and other elitist book learnin?

If there is a God he sure got my prayers wrong. I wanted the team from Ann Arbor to win in football and the candidate from Lansing to beat the candidate from Ann Arbor in the gubernatorial race. Instead I got the reverse.

Losses by Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle represent a poor night for Sarah Palin. Other candidates Palin supported are also going down, possibly including in Alaska.

And a few comments from others:

Often on Election Day we’re forced to choose between a liar and an idiot. Thx to the Tea Party, we can vote for both. –Andy Borowitz

No matter what happens, it’s a bad night for Tea Party voters because it involves so much math. –Andy Borowitz

‎”Politico was wrong, Huffington Post was wrong, hell, all the pundits were wrong. Harry Reid isn’t just Dracula, he isn’t just Lazarus, he’s our Leader and our whole caucus is thrilled that he’s unbreakable and unbeatable.” –John Kerry on the reelection of Harry Reid

Independents Prefer Obama’s Economic Policies over Bush’s & Turned Off By Palin and Other Conservatives

Despite the conventional wisdom coming from the supposedly “liberal media” that Obama and the Democrats are in huge trouble, there is more scattered good news. First a survey from The National Journal found that Americans prefer Obama’s economic policies over those of George Bush:

Despite a tough year for President Obama, the public believes his administration’s policies offer a better chance at improving the economy over the policies of his predecessor, former President George W. Bush. According to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center, 46 percent said Obama’s path would do more to improve economic conditions in the next few years, compared to 29 percent who said policies put in place by Bush would.

And regarding the most significant domestic policy of Bush’s time in office, his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the public is offering a split verdict on what course lawmakers should take as they all expire at the end of the year.

Needless to say, there was considerable partisan bias in the findings, but independents did show a strong preference for Obama’s policies over Bush’s:

The number of independents who said neither administration’s policies would help was higher than the overall sample, 27 percent. Forty-three percent of independents favored Obama’s policies, while 20 percent favored Bush’s.

The preference of many independents for Democrats when it boils down to a clear choice between Democrats and Republicans is being seen in California. Public Policy Polling is finding that independents are turning against Carly Fiorina. As a result, Barbara Boxer has extended her lead to 49-40 in a race which previously appeared competitive.

In New Hampshire, an endorsement from Sarah Palin has turned out to harm a Republican candidate. Public Policy Polling found:

Kelly Ayotte’s seen her appeal to moderate voters crumble in the wake of her endorsement by Sarah Palin and her lead over Paul Hodes has shrunk to its lowest level of any public polling in 2010- she has a 45-42 advantage over him, down from 47-40 in an April PPP poll…

The Palin endorsement may well be playing a role in this. 51% of voters in the state say they’re less likely to back a Palin endorsed candidate to only 26% who say that support would make them more inclined to vote for someone. Among moderates that widens to 65% who say a Palin endorsement would turn them off to 14% who it would make more supportive.

Independent Vote No Longer Strongly Republican As In 2009 Senate Elections

Polls early in the year looked very bad for Democrats but we also knew there was plenty of time for them to improve before the midterm elections. Republicans won the independent vote in Senate elections held in 2009.  Public Policy Polling has mixed news for Democrats today. Independents continue to favor Republicans, but by much smaller margins than earlier in the earlier Senate races.

In the early contests such as in Massachusetts, Republicans won the independent vote by a mean of twenty-eight points. Republicans continue to lead among Democrats in seven of the nine Senate races being polled but in comparison to the races which have already taken place the Republicans lead by a mean of seven points and their maximum lead is fifteen points. Democrats still have a lot of ground to make up but it also seems like the Republicans peaked too soon and the Democrats now have the momentum.

Rand Paul’s View On The Civil Rights Act Displays More On The Fallacy of Libertarianism Than On Racism

Rand Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act has raised questions of racism. Such questions are understandable considering the racist writings of his father, Ron Paul, and the connections by both of them to racist elements of the right wing. Rand’s position actually says far more about the fallacious thinking of many libertarians as opposed to saying anything conclusive about his racial beliefs.

Libertarians and true small government conservatives could oppose the Civil Rights Act without being at all racist due their general opposition to government action. This is the major problem with libertarianism–confusing opposition to government with liberty in all situations and denying that at times government action can be beneficial.

If we were dealing with isolated business establishments refusing to do business with African Americans then I would agree there would be no need for government action, and would hope that market forces would punish those who restricted their potential customers. The reality is that market forces did not work here, as Bruce Bartlett explained:

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn’t have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn’t work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

James Joyner is another who has found justification for the Civil Rights Act, while maintaining understandable concern about further expansion of government involvement in what should be private business decisions:

There’s no question in my mind that private individuals have a right to freely associate, that telling owners of private businesses whom they must serve amounts to an unconstitutional taking, and that it’s none of the Federal government’s business, anyway.   Further, in the context of 2010 America, I absolutely think that business owners ought to be able to serve whomever they damned well please — whether it’s a bar owner wishing to cater to smokers, a racist wanting to exclude blacks, or a member of a subculture wishing to carve out a place for members of said subculture to freely associate with only their kind out of purely benign purposes.

The problem, circa 1964, was that there really was not right to freely associate in this manner in much of the country.   Even once state-mandated segregation was ended, the community put enormous pressure on business owners to maintain the policy.   That meant that, say, a hotel owner who wished to rent rooms without regard to color really weren’t free to do so.   More importantly, it meant that, say, a black traveling salesman couldn’t easily conduct his business without an in-depth knowledge of which hotels, restaurants, and other establishments catered to blacks.   Otherwise, his life would be inordinately frustrating and, quite possibly, dangerous.

In such an environment, the discrimination is institutionalized and directly affecting interstate commerce.   It was therefore not unreasonable for the Federal government to step in using their broad powers under the 14th Amendment.    I’m still not sure parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (especially the issue in question here) or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (especially treating individual states differently from others) are strictly Constitutional.   But they were necessary and proper in the context of the times.

The Civil Rights Act was a situation in which government action led to increased freedom, contrary to libertarian beliefs. A strict libertarian would be expected to oppose the Civil Rights Act out of consistency in opposing any government action. However, in the real world a very large percentage of libertarians do not strictly adhere to libertarian views in all cases. While there are some anarcho-capitalists who share the beliefs of libertarians such as Murray Rothbard, many libertarians do find exceptions where they do support government action.

Rand Paul’s position here very well could be a consequence of mindless consistency in following libertarian dogma but there are reasons he cannot easily escape being tainted with racism here unless he makes a meaningful effort to dispel this. One problem Rand Paul has is that he has already made so many compromises with libertarianism, from supporting restrictions on civil liberties to supporting using government to interfere with a woman’s right to chose to have an abortion. I would understand if a pure libertarian cold not support government intervention to stop the type of infringements on liberty which were present prior to the Civil Rights Act. It is harder to understand why Rand Paul could not make another exception when he has already compromised libertarian principles to such a great extent.

The other questions surrounding Rand Paul might be matters of guilt by association, but they do create an even greater need now for Paul to distance himself from the racist elements of the far right which he associates with. It is understandable that he would not want to disassociate himself from his father but speaking at a rally of the racist and theocratic Constitution Party in 2009 is a different matter. Regardless of whether Rand Paul has any racist feelings, there is little doubt that his public statements on the Civil Rights Act are going to lead to some expressions of support from racist groups. It will be interesting to see if Rand Paul does the right thing and refuses to associate with them and refuses their contributions. His father failed this test, losing the support of many libertarians, in contrast to Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr who did have the integrity to repudiate their support.

Charlie Crist Running As An Independent

The Republican Party’s small tent is getting a little smaller. Charlie Crist is the latest moderate Republican to find that moderate candidates can no longer win in a party which has been taken over by the extreme right wing. Crist is expected to announce tomorrow that he is running as an independent. While he is expected to lose in the Republican primary for the Florida Senate seat, he now appears to have an even shot running as an independent.

Joe Lieberman Thanks God For GOP Momentum

In a moment which might come to define him as much as kissing George Bush in 2005, Joe Lieberman made a statement today which many Democrats might never forget:

“There were a lot of people, particularly Democrats, who were declaring after the 2008 election that we were beginning a period of Democratic dominance that would go on for decades,” Lieberman said during an interview with the conservative Newsmax magazine.

“Now, all of a sudden, the momentum is with the Republicans. And that’s — thank God — that’s the way people have spoken, you know? That’s our democracy.”

Lieberman actively campaigned for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008 and now has expressed support for Republican gains in Congress. At least he did vote with the Democrats on health care reform–but only after he helped kill the public option and Medicare buy-in.

The State of the Union Address

Barack Obama needed a great speech and he delivered. (Transcript of State of the Union Address here.) As noted by both myself and others live blogging or otherwise commenting live, the speech started out slow, initially with no applause. He finally received applause with, “It is because of this spirit – this great decency and great strength – that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight.” He received further applause for expressing dislike for the bank bail-out, and more for speaking of getting the rest of the money back. Talk of cutting taxes was also received well.

Obama took advantage of the negative view of Wall Street and gained points for recognizing the importance of Main Street:

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can’t afford it. Not now.

Obama countered the misinformation from the right which has tea-baggers who had their taxes cut by Obama protesting against imaginary tax increases:

We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.

Obama announced a jobs bill, which I’m sure surprised nobody. He discussed his education policies along with tax credits for college education. He promoted high speed rail. He discussed the need for acting on climate change, along with the need for developing new energy sources even if one does not accept the scientific evidence. (I was happy to see him refer to the scientific evidence for climate change. I wish that he could also make a political issue out of those who do not accept the scientific evidence for evolution.)

The big question for the past week was whether, after getting so close, Obama would give up on health care because people in Massachusetts who already have a similar program saw no point in backing one nationally. Obama made it clear that he planned to move ahead:

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Reducing the deficit was just one reason for backing health care reform. Obama pointed out that the problem arose under George Bush, and the economic conditions he inherited made it necessary to spend more:

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now — just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

Obama called for more action to reduce the deficit:

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.[...]

I’ve called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

Obama also called for earmark reform and for reducing the influence of lobbyists. He addressed why Washington does not work:

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can’t wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of –I’m speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn’t be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators.

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it’s precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it’s sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it’s clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.  And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town — a supermajority — then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.  Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.  So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.

On foreign policy, Obama discussed his successes in fighting terrorism, and plans for getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq:

Since the day I took office, we’ve renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We’ve made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We’ve prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008.

And in Afghanistan, we’re increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home.  We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans — men and women alike. (Applause.) We’re joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.

He also discussed eliminating “don”t ask, don’t tell.”

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It’s the right thing to do.

There were also several other items discussed and there is plenty of other commentary. The best one-liner came from Josh Marshall: “Nelson and Lieberman sitting together in axis of weasels.” The dumbest line from someone who was saying something favorable about Obama came from Chris Matthews:  “I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.”

The speech actually went on for over an hour, which is rare for State of the Union addresses. The only previous presidents to do this was Lyndon Johnson one time, and I believe Bill Clinton every time.

Obama made many arguments to counter the distortions from the Republicans and the misconceptions held by the Tea Party movement. Contrary to the conservative memes, he supports Main Street and small business, not Karl Marx. He has cut taxes and is determined to reduce the huge deficit he inherited after years of Republican fiscal irresponsibility. He advocates moderate plans to reform health care coverage, not a government take over of health care. This won’t change the mind of partisan Republicans and ignorant tea-baggers but it will help Obama retain the support of the independents who helped elect him.

Update: Obama did quite well when his statements were checked by the legitimate, non-partisan fact checkers. Incoming  links show a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty–utilizing right wing partisan “fact checkers” who evaluated Obama’s statements based upon their biases as opposed to the facts.

Why Massachusetts Voters Should Hold Their Nose And Vote For Coakley

Polls continue to show the Massachusetts Senate race  too close to call. As I previously discussed, the weakness of the Democratic candidate as well as anti-incumbent sentiment could very well lead to a Republican victory. Andrew Sullivan has several posts on the race, including ones I will quote here which provide reasons for voting for or against Martha Coakley.

While Republicans will spin a victory for Brown as a repudiation of Obama, one of Sullivan’s readers gave this reason for backing Brown, saying it is not a vote against Obama:

I was a very early supporter of Obama. I was living in New Hampshire two years ago. I signed up to go door-to-door to talk to people about his candidacy and in contrast to Hilary. I trudged through feet of snow in the week before the primary. I entered homes and had great discussions with my fellow residents. I went to Claremont, NH and shook Obama’s hand. I rallied the night before the primary in Concord. He lost the state but I knew we were on the right side of history.

I’m with you in thinking that Obama is the best thing the Democrats have going for them right now. But I also think that in having the supermajority, they actually undercut him. They don’t have to compromise and so they don’t try to. Instead, what passes as legislation is a horrid mismash of corporate interests and traditional, not progressive, balms of the Democratic Party. I know this country can do much, much better. And I think Obama needs a less powerful Democratic party to make it happen, like Clinton did.

The writer continues to argue for ballot splitting and notes that “It also helps that Brown has already voted for a health care plan with a public option. So to someone like Malkin who was ready to toss away a Congressional seat in NY for ‘purity’, I now laugh at their support of Brown.”  This is also described as an act to promote GOP moderation along with opposing “hacks like Coakley.”

Let me say emphatically that my vote for Brown isn’t a vote against Obama. It’s a vote against the Democratic Party, and hacks like Coakley, but also a vote to help moderate the GOP. One more New England Republican is necessary. Of all the places the GOP might find it’s path again I hope it’s from where it was born.

At other times I would have been more sympathetic towards this argument. I would certainly like to see moderate New England Republicans change the direction of the GOP. I also fear that once Brown is operating on a  national stage he will find it to his advantage to pander to the far right as Mitt Romney has. He may have voted for “a health care plan with a public option” in Massachusetts but is now running as the candidate who will block health care reform nationally.

If we could have a responsible Republican Party offering alternative solutions to problems it might be beneficial to have a Democratic Party which lacks the super-majority and force bipartisan cooperation. The problem is that the Republican Party now has no interest in bipartisan cooperation. Their only concern is to deny the Democrats any successes, even to the point of unanimously opposing a relatively conservative health care reform measure.

Andrew Sullivan appears to be thinking along similar lines. In some posts he has demonstrated the problems with Coakley, such as describing the flier which distorts Brown’s record on rape and emergency room treatment as vile. Sullivan also explains why he would hold his nose and vote for Coakley:

…there is the total, rigid opposition to any reform and any cooperation at all from the nihilist Republicans. Obama is president for three more years. He will survive. He may even prosper. But this really would be a massive blow. To get this close and lose health insurance would embolden every enemy Obama has, from Netanyahu to Ailes.

That’s the only reason to vote for Coakley on Tuesday.

She’s a dreadful candidate, but this race is now a critical battle in the war to rescue the possibility of effective governance. If health reform dies, it will show just how broken the system is, just how impossible it is to effect even centrist reform in a Senate this paralyzed, how polarization has made compromise impossible, how the country’s profound problems are simply beyond the system’s reach. If this fails, what chance for any action on climate change? Or the debt? Or some movement toward a settlement in the Middle East?

And if Obama fails, there are no Democrats able to match him. The nihilist Republicans would be resurgent, pledging more tax cuts, more debt, and no entitlement cuts, entrenching torture as the American way, and pouring even more resources into the indefinite occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The lesson will be: permanent political war is the only way. The only way to govern the country is to divide and weaken it.

Just like Rove did. You want that back? Vote Brown. You don’t? Hold your nose and vote for Coakley.

Opposition To Mandates Uniting Left And Right Against Health Care Reform

Throughout the primary campaign when it was an issue I argued against including an individual mandate in health care reform. It does makes it easier to write a bill eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions if there is a mandate to prevent people from gaming the system, but there are many other ways around this problem.

What supporters of the mandate failed to understand is that such government requirements greatly magnifies potential for opposition to health care reform. To be accepted by a majority, any health care reform plan needed to provide assistance to those who desired it without being seen as interfering with others. Even though Republicans initially supported the mandate along with most Congressional Democrats, this has now become an issue which could backfire against the Democrats.

David Weigel believes that Firedoglake, a liberal blog which opposes the bill, is paying for polls to undermine Democrats whose seats are in trouble. Questions include:

Under one proposal, if a person does not carry health insurance from a private insurance company, they would be fined up to 2% of their income. Is this fair, or unfair?

Nate Silver commented more on the polling and Weigel concluded:

The question, raised by Nate Silver and others: Is Firedoglake trying to scare vulnerable Democrats into retirement in order to kill health care reform? All indications point to “yes.” I’m hearing that FDL will conduct more polls in vulnerable Democratic districts, based largely on this chart of the “top 20 Democrats who could lose their seat over health care vote[s]. Snyder was at the top of that list, posted by FDL’s Jane Hamsher on Jan. 6. (One irony: Snyder is a fairly progressive member of Congress, and not a member of the Blue Dogs.)

Tension between FDL and some other progressive sites has increased since the Senate’s health care compromise took shape–Hamsher has campaigned aggressively to “kill the bill.” A month ago she predicted that “left/right populist outrage” would do so, and she hasn’t slowed down since.

Liberals can question Hamsher’s actions. It is certainly possible that killing the bill could lead to even worse results than a flawed bill which might still be improved upon. Nate Silver has a point that, “The survey fails to provide context about the individual mandate, and arguably biases the respondent against it through its choice of question wording and question order.”

Despite this, the fact remains that including an  individual mandate decreases the chances of passing health care reform along with increasing the potential for losing seats in 2010. Democrats need to consider  how this plays into the often distorted picture of them generally painted by Republicans. Independents who rebelled against the policies of the authoritarian right in recent election cycles, and who were willing to accept bigger government involvement to help those who desire help, can only view coercive government mandates as reason to question whether Democrats are any better.

It is rather late in the process but changes can still be made. Obama should go on television and admit he was wrong for changing his position and going along with Congress on the mandate and that he hears the popular objections to the current health care plan. I believe that many of the independents who supported Obama last year would respect such an admission and back him. This might also provide momentum for support of an improved version of the health care plan and deny the Republicans the ability to win by campaigning against much-needed improvements in the health care system.

Bob Barr Defends Obama

Bob Barr, former Republican and former Libertarian Party candidate for president, defended Barack Obama from those using the recent attempted bombing attempt to attack him:

Critics of Obama way off base on this one

Yes — the not-so-bright, would-be terrorist from Nigeria got though international and domestic security mechanisms supposed to have stopped him long before the jerk lit his underwear afire before landing in Detroit.  And yes — the incident happened during the administration of President Barack Obama.  But the sniping at the president by Republicans, including former Vice President Cheney, and by conservative radio and TV commentators, borders on — if not passing into — asinine.

The criticism has included such childishness as blasting Obama for waiting a few days before making a national speech on the incident.  For heaven’s sake, the president was briefed on the incident from the moment it occured; he made statements almost immediately indicating his concern and that he was being regularly briefed; he took time to gather the facts and meet with his national security team; and then he appeared publicly to give a rational, measured, but hard-hitting response.  And for this, a former vice president criticizes him.

Partisanship truly has pervasively infected our political system when a reasonable, measured, factual, timely and substantive response by a president to a single security incident — the roots of which clearly indicate long-simmering problems that predated his tenure in office — is publicly blasted as irresponsible.  In point of fact, those levelling such counterproductive attacks are the ones engaging in irresponsible behavior.