Obama and the Left

Greg Sargent has posted comments from David Axelrod made to a group of bloggers regarding movement talk of Obama moving towards the center:

I’m not going to change the nature of this town and the nature of our politics….But we tend to sit on the back of the truck and look at what happened before, and then define what’s happening now in the context of what happened some other time.

So, Bill Clinton repositioned himself to the center, and that’s the prescription for what you do and so on. I guarantee you, as God is my witness, we have not had a repositioning discussion here. We have not talked about, “let’s move three degrees to the right.” That’s not the way we view this.

It is true that we have to go back to first principles and really think about what it is that drives us and what it is that has been so central to Barack Obama’s public life and outlook. Because some of that has been sort of ground down in the minutia of day-to-day governing here…

I mean, there’s nothing that the President said last night that I couldn’t draw a straight line from to speeches that he has made way back to 2004.

I got a reporter’s inquiry, `the President seemed very optimistic and he seemed to be talking about American exceptionalism last night, and is this a reaction to the elections?’ And I said, go back to his convention speech in 2004.

When the President got the call that he was going to give the keynote speech at the convention in 2004, I was with him. We were driving in a car in downstate Illinois, on some dark road somewhere with bad cell service. So we had to call back and confirm that he actually was going to be the keynote speaker, because the call got dropped. And the first thing he said was, “I think what I want to do is wrap my story in the larger American story and talk about what it is that makes us who we are.”

And it’s something that he believes deeply in, and it’s what he talked about last night…I mean, there’s no doubt he is progressive in his outlook and that’s what he believes in. But he has never been particularly dogmatic…His fundamental view is you don’t have to agree on everything, or even most things, to work together on some things. And so there was no sort of grand repositioning…

But I’m not going to defeat this. I had a politician in this town say to me, after the speech in Tucson, “Boy, that was a great speech. I can see he is really thinking about re-election.” And I’m thinking, “What are you talking about?” Because I spoke to the President before and after that speech, and I’ll tell you what he was thinking about more than anything else. He was speaking about a nine-year-old girl who was about the same age as his girl. And he was pretty broken up about it. And all he wanted to do was speak to that moment.

But everything in this town gets evaluated in that way, and that’s just the way it is. Anybody who says that, I will give them a volume of Barack Obama speeches going back many, many years, and I will defy them to say, where has he changed? Where is he different? Where is his basic approach different than it was when he started on this journey five and six and seven years ago?

Yes, the Obama who gave the State of the Union Address is the same Obama who served in the Senate and campaigned for president. One reason some might see a difference is that Obama was forced by the economic conditions present upon taking office to change his priorities and propose more government spending than he otherwise would have. Of the two big government programs which Obama might have desired upon taking office, health care reform and addressing climate change, one was accomplished and the other is not currently achievable in Congress.

It is rather absurd to concentrate upon labels such as whether Obama is a centrist or a progressive as opposed to evaluating the policies on their merits. He is a centrist based upon international standards, but is also far to the left of where the Republican Party is. As for his policies, there are definitely areas where I wish he was more liberal, but these are not the areas where he has been receiving criticism from many on the left recently. Increasing American competitiveness is a reasonable and liberal goal when it means calling for improving our infrastructure and educational system. Evaluating regulations to determine whether they are needed and effective while ensuring that we have the regulations we need to prevent abuses is such a common sense approach that I cannot believe that some on the left see this as a betrayal.

Recap Of Live Blogging Of The State Of The Union Address

Last night, rather than posting on the blog, I utilized Facebook and Twitter to live blog the State of the Union Address.  (I wound up primarily using Facebook due to not having to cut back as much in  a status update as in a tweet, and the discussion was easier to follow). Before the speech I posted this comment to those on the left who were already critical of Obama:

I don’t care about the whining from those on the left who insist on ideological pure thought and speech. Improving competitiveness is a GOOD THING when used to push for spending more on education and to improve our infrastructure.

I started out primarily quoting from Obama (cutting back to Facebook’s allowed length) and later got more into commentary. The full text of the SOTU is available here. I am also proud to say that, contrary to the trend on Twitter, I didn’t resort to a single salmon joke.

“Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.”

“We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.”

“Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America’s success. But if we want to win the future if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.”

“Of course, the education race doesn’t end with a high school diploma. To compete, higher education must be within reach of every American. That’s why we’ve ended the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that went to banks, and used the savings to make college affordable for millions of students.” –

Does John Boehner realize this is being televised and everyone can see him?

A couple of the responses to this comment:

He can’t be still….he needs his smokes and a Rob Roy….16 hours ago ·

If smug were a source of energy, we could plug Boehner in and power DC for the next year.

Getting back to my own commentary, followed by more quotes: Will Fox attack Obama for playing the race card tonight (Race to the Top)?

“If we take these steps — if we raise expectations for every child, and give them the best possible chance at an education, from the day they’re born until the last job they take — we will reach the goal I set two years ago: by the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.”

“Our infrastructure used to be the best — but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation’s infrastructure, they gave us a D.”

“We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what’s best for the economy, not politicians.”

“Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I’m proposing that we redouble these efforts.”

“Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down.”

“All these investments — in innovation, education, and infrastructure will make America a better place to do business and create jobs”

“When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people. That’s what we’ve done in this country for more than a century. It’s why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe.”

“What I’m not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition.”

“I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.”

While Republicans greatly exaggerate the amounts, malpractice reform is one way to cut health care costs without limiting anyone’s care.

I’d love it if Obama ends by pointing to the Fox “News” cameras and shouts “You Lie.”

“And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools, or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break.”

“And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.” –

“And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.”

“American Muslims are a part of our American family.” Wait until Glenn Beck splices this to claim that Obama admitted to being part of a Muslim family (from Kenya where he was born).

“We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution.” –Barack Obama. Unfortunately he is wrong here. For example, large numbers of Republicans deny separation of church and state and claim we were founded as a “Christian nation.”

“We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends upon individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.” –Paul Ryan in GOP response. If you guys mean this, stop trying to legislate morality and infringe upon reproductive rights.

Next we got into the two Republican responses, preceded by this advice via Twitter:

“To tweet about the President’s speech, use #SOTU. To tweet about Michele Bachmann’s response, use #STFU.” –Andy Borowitz

“We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends upon individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.” —Paul Ryan in GOP response. If you guys mean this, stop trying to legislate morality and infringe upon reproductive rights.

“,,,patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage” –Paul Ryan. No, his party’s reforms just increase insurance company profits and screw patients.

Why does Paul Ryan comb his hair just like Eddie Munster?

NBC got rid of Olbermann, and now they are having Joe Scarborough give commentary on the main network.

Why did I waste time with the GOP response when Big Ten Network/Classic College Football is airing Michigan’s victory over Michigan State from 2004?

The Conservative News Network (CNN) is now preparing to air the Tea Party response. I can’t believe people see CNN as a counter to Fox, as opposed to a less extreme and generally more fair and balanced conservative alternative.

When someone disagreed with the characterization of CNN as conservative, I added:  Keep an eye on who CNN hires. They’ve hired far more Republicans in recent years than Democrats. They are conservative but still far to the left of Fox, and they make an attempt at real journalism, so conservatives reject them.

Check out CNN just to see Michele Bachmann’s eyes. She looks possessed (and it is not by the spirit of the Founding Fathers who would tell this idiot to shut the fuck up if they ever encountered her).

Bachmann is wrapping up. Next CNN will have Joe the Plumber on.

CNN  turned to what they describe as the best political team on television. I commented: If you guys are really the “best political team” you will all say that Michele Bachmann is a fracking idiot.

If SNL aired Michele Bachmann exactly as CNN aired her we’d be laughing hysterically, thinking they were mocking Republicans.

When someone commented that “Michelle Bachmann is clearly out of touch with the Mother Ship” I responded: Maybe her Mother Ship was off to the right and is what she was looking at the whole time she was talking.

Those who are saying Obama is moving towards the center are missing the fact that Obama is redefining the center.

And this concludes tonight’s live blogging/tweeting of the State of the Union Address delivered by President Barack Obama and the televised responses of two morons.

Capitalism, Socialism, and The State of the Union Address

Bush speech writer David Frum has presented his version of what tonight’s State of the Union Address should be. Here’s one section which Obama might really consider using–or at least conservatives should consider before repeating any more claims that Obama is a socialist:

We can see the future of a better economy already emerging.

Over the past twelve months, we have created more than one million net new jobs in the private sector — while government employment has shrunk by more than 250,000.

Corporate profitability has reached record highs, meaning that companies can afford to hire as demand revives.

Including dividends, the stock market has gained more than 10 percent this year.

If this is “socialism,” what would capitalism look like?

As for the actual speech, Jake Tapper reports Obama will propose a freeze on non-security related discretionary spending and a ban on earmarks. Considering that Republicans have both been speaking out against earmarks while also using them I wonder whether Republicans will go along with Obama on this or suddenly find reasons to defend earmarks.

Conservative Delusions

If it wasn’t getting so late I’d write more but at least I had to give a link to this bizarro world view of differences between conservatives and liberals. I guess when the facts have shown you are wrong on the issues the next best thing is to claim a bunch of fictitious virtues.

Sorry guys, there’s nothing patriotic about conservatives who vehemently oppose the principles this country was founded upon. They are confusing their jingoism for patriotism. Conservatives who oppose much of the Constitution and promote an imaginary version which exists only in their own heads, most certainly are not the ones who care the most about defending the principles of the Constitution. There’s plenty of other howlers in the article, but these are two of the most blatant.

The Worst People In The World

All the worst people in the world are now breathing a sigh of relief, knowing they won’t be exposed on Countdown tonight.

Update: Keith Olbermann was on Twitter between 8:00 and 9:00. He probably had more people reading his tweets than MSNBC had viewing their network.

Leonard Nimoy Tweets That Plans Are Developing For William Bell to Return To Fringe

@TheRealNimoy Leonard Nimoy
Plans developing for a William Bell return to Fringe. Stay tuned. LLAP

Founding Fathers Supported Government Health Care, Including An Individual Mandate

Conservatives frequently project their views onto the Founding Fathers, despite the fact that their views are quite contrary to the views of the Founding Fathers. They ignore restrictions on government favored by the founders they disagree with, such as separation of church and state, while imagine that the Founding Fathers agree with their rhetoric about limiting government in other areas. An example of this can be seen with government involvement in health care. The Founding Fathers were enlightened, liberal individuals but they had no reason to consider modern health care when writing the Constitution. If they were around in more recent times when the experience of every industrialized country has proven a need for government involvement in health care, it is a safe assumption that the Founding Fathers would not have left he United States as the only major country without a form of universal health care.

An example of how the Founding Fathers supported both government involvement in health care and an individual mandate to purchase insurance was provided by Rick Ungar at Forbes:

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed – “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

It might be argued that John Adams was a supporter of bigger government than many of the other Founding Fathers, but Thomas Jefferson supported the same proposal

I personally have opposed the individual mandate, preferring a system of incentives for purchasing insurance and penalties for those who try to game the system by buying insurance at a later date when they need health care coverage. (Russ Douthat proposed a Republican counter-proposal to mandates which I could support today, but ignores the fact that mandates were originally the Republican position.) Despite current opposition to mandates from many on the left and right, there is no basis for the argument that the mandate is unconstitutional or that the Founding Fathers would have opposed this.

What Planet Is Paul Krugman On?

Has anyone told Paul Krugman that the 2008 primary is over? Maybe he is trying out for a job a Fox, showing he can distort Obama’s policies just as much as the Republicans do. Investing in our infrastructure to create jobs and become more competitive with other countries is hardly the evil plan that Krugman makes it out to be. This includes absurd attacks on  his blog as well as on This Week this morning. Krugman’s characterization of Obama’s position is no more about what Obama is really saying than Republican attacks on health care reform reflected Obama’s policy. It’s not like Obama is advocating anything the Republicans are actually supporting as they are vowing to oppose his economic proposals.

I am also getting rather sick of the way that Krugman (and many of his supporters) characterize any disagreement with him as moving to the right, as if this by itself is sufficient to disqualify any idea from consideration. Sure, more often than not a conservative idea these days is a bad idea, but one really must demonstrate this about a specific idea before attacking someone.

Of course Krugman is rather inconsistent in this. On the one hand he has never stopped attacking Obama for bringing up Ronald Reagan, even if it was simply in the sense of acknowledging his place in history while expressing disagreement with his policies. On the other hand, Krugman had no problem during the primary campaign when he advocated the Republican policy of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance while Obama opposed this. (At least Krugman is in no position to attack Obama for making the mistake of later accepting the old GOP position on this issue).

We can at least be confident that Barack Obama is not losing any sleep over Krugman’s ridiculous attacks as he watches his position improve in the polls.

Update: Krugman practices the same type of distortion in his New York Times column.

Quote of the Day

“The Republican-controlled House voted to repeal the healthcare bill. If that goes well, they’ll see what they can do about this whole ‘women voting’ thing.” –Conan O’Brien

SciFi Weekend: Fringe Returns; Anne Hathaway To Play Catwoman; Summer Glau on The Cape; Camelot; Blood and Chrome

Even before Fringe returned on Friday, John Noble suggested the possibility of either his character or Peter ultimately getting killed. The episode, Firefly, was on this topic. The episode featured the butterfly effect, in this case involving a firefly which led to another man’s son getting killed as a result of Walter saving Peter. The Observers had Walter puzzled with him coming to the false conclusion that they were using very convoluted means to save his life. In reality it was a test for Walter, to see if he could make a decision which would put Peter’s life in danger should Peter’s death be necessary to set things right between the two universes.

We also saw that, while the two remain separate, the relationship between Peter and Olivia remains important. Jasika Nicole revealed before the episode aired that the romance is not over.

Fringe producers Jeff Pinkner and Joel Wyman gave some hints about the show in this interview. Here’s just a few questions from the full interview:

Obviously, we’ve all gotten really attached to the cast of characters “over there,” including Lincoln, Charlie and the autistic version of Astrid. Now that none of our three main characters is there, are we going to see less of that world? Or will we still find ways to look in on them?

We will absolutely still be visiting the alternate world — we love those characters too. One of our goals from the first half of this season was to “earn” the ability to tell stories set exclusively Over There, even after Olivia returned home… And after all, Bolivia’s story (and Walternate’s) is now inextricably tied to the story going on Over Here.

Are we going to start seeing signs that “our” universe is unstable in the same way that “over there” is unstable?

Absolutely. Back in 1985 Nina warned Walter that his crossing over to the other universe to save Peter would damage both universes. We have seen the accelerated damage that has been going on Over There (Vortexes, Mutant Insects, etc) and now we will start to see that the physical constraints of our side may be beginning to fray as well.

During the episodes set “over there,” we got a lot of hints that Walternate might be more responsible for the devastation to his universe than he’s letting on. It seems like right now, “our” Walter is living with almost unimaginable guilt for having wrecked an entire universe. Without giving any huge spoilers, do you think it’s possible to spread the blame for the destruction “over there” without letting Walter off the hook, and thus taking away the guilt that makes him so compelling?

Nope. It’s pretty much all Walter’s fault! Apparently playing God has it’s consequences. Walternate has been doing his best to contain the damage to his world – and has had to make some hard choices, namely when/if to amber innocent civilians in order to “plug the dike”. But it would be unfair to say he is responsible for exacerbating the damage.

I’ve read elsewhere that Olivia’s evil stepdad will be showing up. Is this for just one episode, or is he going to have an ongoing arc?

We will meet him in an episode later this season – he will largely be used to highlight an emotional trajectory for Olivia. But, in the vein of spoilers, the story is set 25 yrs ago.

And finally, I have to ask — how set in stone is the endgame for this series? If it winds up ending early, are we going to get the ending you’d originally planned? Is there a chance the show could end on a cliffhanger?

We know where the show ends. And we know several of the season-long chapters that will occur along the way. Much of our storytelling has been seeded from very early on. The only real question is how many of these chapters we will be able to explore.

J.J. Abrams believes Fringe deserves a fourth season, but should not dumb down to attract more viewers:

“[Fringe is about] a woman who was experimented on when she was a kid, about a man who might not have come from here [and] about a father who is holding incredible secrets, including those that mean war,” he explained. “To not embrace that means that we will fail on other people’s terms.”

He continued: “If we’re going to fail, let’s go down doing the most bad ass, weirdest, interesting, sophisticated version of a series that we could possibly do.”

Anne Hathaway Catwoman

Anne Hathaway has beaten out other actresses including Keira Knightly,  Natalie Portman, and Jessica Biel to play Selina Kyle (Catwoman) in The Dark Knight Rises. The movie begins shooting in May and is expected to be released in July, 2012. Hathaway will also have a guest appearance on Glee.

One of the problems I see with The Cape is that having Vince not reveal that he is alive to his wife seems to be a contrived and unrealistic situation. Summer Glau believes the situation might get even more complicated:

Summer Glau has hinted that her character Orwell could have a romance on The Cape.

Speaking to Zap2It, Glau explained that Orwell and Vince (David Lyons) “need each other”.

“They don’t like to say it,” she said. “I can’t speak for David and his portrayal of Vince, but my portrayal of Orwell is that she finally feels like she’s not alone.

“She’s been doing this for so many years by herself, and to finally meet someone who’s standing up for what she believes in changes her life.”

Glau acknowledged that Orwell could develop romantic feelings for Vince in the future, saying: “From my perspective, it would be impossible for Orwell to be in this situation with him every day and not have dangerous feelings and thoughts. His motive is to get home to his family and be with his wife and son, but for her I think it’s a little bit more complicated.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rg4Tnnjot4&feature=player_embedded

Merlin has been off to a great start for the third season on SyFy (and previously broadcast on the BBC). The show is increasingly moving its characters towards the situations in the King Arthur legends. For those who want to more quickly move beyond their younger versions, Starz has Camelot premiering in April. A Trailer for the series is above.

Battlestar Galactica Blood and Chrome

IO9 has some ideas on what to expect from the Battlestar Galactica prequel, Blood and Chrome.

Although the script for a 24 movie was rejected by Fox, Keifer Sutherland predicts that a movie version might begin filming before the end of this year.

Red Dwarf is returning for a six part series with plans to start filming later this year.