MSM, Village bloggers hate 3rd parties

I am talking about real third parties, not fake ones like Americans Elect or whatever.

And, it's not just the mainstream media, it's DC Village type bloggers too.

News/politics bloggers claim they represent something new, but, on third parties, in general they don't. Nope, nope, nope.

This blog post at Washington Monthly illustrates this to a "T." It talks about how Villager pundit Chuck Todd and others are predicting "the rise of a third party" if Rick Perry gets the GOP nod. And the blogger, Jonathan Bernstein, repeats the claim.

Excuuuuuuse me?Third  parties aren't about to emerge, they're already here. They're called Greens and Libertarians and other things. Oh, and most non-Villager political bloggers treat third parties the same way. That's why I laugh at the Jay Rosens of the world and others who talk abut this new world blogging has brought.

Jonathan Chait, effing moron, fellates Dear Leader

The likes of Jonathan Chait is why I stopped reading The New Republic more than a decade ago. Now, in defense of Dear Leader against critics from his left like Glenn Greenwald and me, he's taken his asshattery to the pages of the New York Times.

First, defending Obama's $800B stimulus by the claim that Nancy Pelosi offered a smaller $500B one earlier? If that's rigorous reasoning, it's no wonder he's still stuck at TNR as a neocon shill for Marty Peretz. First, Pelosi's not THAT liberal herself. Second, that was only her initial offer. Third, the linkage between her position and Obama's was small.

Second, Chait ignores that Rahm Emanuel, hired by Dear Leader, wanted the stimulus to come in under $1 trillion. As part of this Chait claims "everybody who matters" told Obama to scale this back; he has that quote in quote marks in his column without any attribution, meaning it's just a scare quote.

Third, Chait ignores that Obama sold out national healthcare to insurance companies et al.

Fourth, Chait ignores that Obama continues to sell himself out to banksters on mortgage fraud, Friday's lawsuit notwithstanding.

Fifth, he claims that Bush got much of what got done in his first term by using the budget reconciliation process, ignoring that Obama could have used that on some of his initiatives ... including the health care bill that he eventually passed.

Sixth, he ignores that Obama was both naive enough and dumb enough to not include a debt ceiling deal with Republicans last December as part of extending the Bush Obama tax cuts, or was even worse than naive and dumb.

Seventh, he ignores Obama's recent backtracking on environmental issues, compounded by the fact that many of us who aren't "Gang Green" enviros knew that Kenny Boy Salazar was weak tea as his choice for Interior Secretary from the day Obama nominated him.

But, that's all small potatoes compared to what Chait really overlooks.

And that is that, way back in 2003, we had clear evidence Obama wasn't a liberal, followed by additional evidence back in 2006. And that he's this way because much of the Democratic Party (Pelosi included) is this way.

Beyond being a shill for Marty Peretz, Chait is a D.C. Villager who illustrates the moral bankruptcy of more and more of our duopoly.

On the stuff linked immediately above, he knows most of it; certainly the second and third links because Ken Silverstein lived in the Village, though he certainly wasn't of it. So Chait doesn't even have the excuse of plausible deniability.

Mickey Edwards, meet Teapot Tommy Friedman

On the Atlantic website, the former Oklahoma GOP congressman posts a meaningless paean to centrism in politics that needs a thorough deconstruction.

Much of it is focused on the evils of the modern political primary system causing candidates who are more partisan.

As opposed to this list of pre-primary era presidents:
1. William Henry Harrison
2. Zachary Taylor
3. Franklin Pierce
4. James Buchanan
5. Ulysses S. Grant
6. Benjamin Harrison
7. Warren G. Harding.

Of course, all of the "war hero" candidates above might have been nominated in a primary system anyway. But, it points out that, at least in presidential candidates, the "golden days" weren't.

Beyond that, in a four webpage essay, you'll not find ONE WORD about third parties. Because of that, you'll not find one word about instant runoff voting or similar ways to bolster third-party power. You also won't find one word about money in politics, public financing of congressional issues, or other actual changes we need.

And, when a former capitalsit insider like Jeffrey Sachs starts talking about the need for a third party, the Mickey Edwards of the world should listen. Here's Sachs:

Who runs America today? The rich and the multinational corporations. Who runs the White House? David Plouffe, whose job it is to make sure that ever word, every action of the president is calculated for electoral gain rather than the country's needs. Who runs the Congress, on both sides of the aisle? The lobbyists, who win in every negotiation. And who loses? The American people, who have said repeatedly that they want a budget that sharply cuts the military, ends the wars, raises taxes on the rich, protects the poor and the middle class, and invests in America's future not just in Obama's speeches but in fact.

America needs a third-party movement to break the hammerlock of the financial elites. Until that happens, the political class and the media conglomerates will continue to spew lies, American militarism will continue to destabilize a growing swath of the world, and the country will continue its economic decline.

A secular amen in spades.

Greenwald fillets Obama AND neolib bloggingheads

I have GOT to love, and blog about, a Glenn Greenwald column in The Guardian.

Glenn Greenwald

Greenwald not only fillets the Peace Prize Prez like a cheap carp, he also nails Duncan Black, aka Atrios, by name, and by implication, Josh "the pontificating online publisher" Marshall, Kevin Drum, Steve "former Democratic party operative" Benen (Washington Monthly), Markos "I ban real liberals" Moulitsas (Kos) and other neoliberal/tribal Democratic blogging heads.

And, deservedly so, on the group filleting of a bunch of willingly co-opted DC Village types.

First, the specific takedown of Atrios, which Glenn does simply by quoting old Duncan:

The left ... will create an epic 360-degree shitstorm if Obama and the Dems decide that cutting social security benefits is a good idea.

To which, Glenn says, but a bit more politely: Where's your shitstorm, Atrios?

Greenwald next gives us the specific bill of charges against Obama worthy of being shitstormed:

Fast forward to 2011: it is now beyond dispute that President Obama not only favours, but is the leading force in Washington pushing for, serious benefit cuts to both social security and Medicare.

This week, even as GOP leaders offered schemes to raise the debt ceiling with no cuts, the White House expressed support for the Senate's so-called "gang of six" plan that includes substantial cuts in those programmes.

The same Democratic president who supported the transfer of $700bn to bail out Wall Street banks, who earlier this year signed an extension of Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and who has escalated America's bankruptcy-inducing posture of Endless War, is now trying to reduce the debt by cutting benefits for America's most vulnerable – at the exact time that economic insecurity and income inequality are at all-time highs.

That then leads to the broader takedown:

Therein lies one of the most enduring attributes of Obama's legacy: in many crucial areas, he has done more to subvert and weaken the left's political agenda than a GOP president could have dreamed of achieving. So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, or at least tolerate, any and all policies their party's leader endorses – even if those policies are ones they long claimed to loathe.

Atrios? Mr. Drummeister? Josh the blog-publishing pedant Marshall? Markos the banner of true liberals Kos? What's that I hear from you? Crickets? Oh, Kossacks, if not Markos himself, will occasionally criticize Dear Leader, but that's about it. Marshall runs White House press office photography slide shows like he's either addicted to them or getting paid for it. Benen, befitting a former Dem operative, will never bite the hand that once fed him. Drum has focused less on DC Village-type politics lately, but, I have no doubt where his loyalties are. And Atrios is already hoist by his own petard.

Even Lisa Jackson is lying about enviro issues

Within Team Obama, I don't really expect the truth from the Secretary of the Interior, Kenny Boy Salazar. But, as part of a general screed about the Obama Admin's bad environmental policies, David Sirota notes EPA Administrastor Jackson is claiming she's unaware of any proof fracking for natural gas has hurt groundwater supplies.

She's probably using both "unaware" and "prof" in very narrow senses in her mind, so that in Washington-speak, she can claim she's not lying! That's the Village for you.

Sam Power as next Sec'y of State? Ugh

Oh, she's a smart mind, indeed. And, I won't question her moral dedication. But, the U.S. can't get involved in every bit of every foreign nation's internal unrest, first of all. So, the idea of her becoming Obama's next Secretary of State, or National Security Adviser? Pass.


Second of all, who decides when it's just "unrest" and when it's "genocide"? Take former Syrian President Hafez Assad. Were his actions against his own people "just" putting down unrest, or something more? And, beyond racial or ethnic lines, how many groups will ask for a redefinition of what all constitutes genocide?

I do know, from what I've read about here that, smart as she is, she's not wrestled with those questions.

Beyond that, she's either a hypocrite, clueless, or a big suck-up, even by Beltway standards, if she thinks President Obama has "waged" a two-year campaign of elevating human rights issues, and that that led to intervention in Libya.

The reality?

1. First and foremost, just a month ago, we vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Israel and West Bank settlements, arguably a human rights violation itself.
2. Right now, we've been quiet on Bahrain squashing and quashing Shi'ite dissent.
3. A year ago, Obama had Hillary Clinton kissing Hosni Mubarak's ass.

This is your Geithner on drugs

The New Republic has a long profile on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Most of the article shows us he has inside-the-Beltway political chops unimaginable two years ago.

The last page shows he's inside-the-Beltway in other ways.

This is your Treasury Secretary on D.C. Village drugs, the drugs of self-infatuation:

Geithner hunched his shoulders, pressed his knees together, and lifted his heels up off the ground—an almost childlike expression of glee. “We’re going, like, existential,” he said. He told me he subscribes to the view that the world is on the cusp of a major “financial deepening”: As developing economies in the most populous countries mature, they will demand more and increasingly sophisticated financial services, the same way they demand cars for their growing middle classes and information technology for their corporations. If that’s true, then we should want U.S. banks positioned to compete abroad.

“I don’t have any enthusiasm for ... trying to shrink the relative importance of the financial system in our economy as a test of reform, because we have to think about the fact that we operate in the broader world,” he said. “It’s the same thing for Microsoft or anything else. We want U.S. firms to benefit from that.” He continued: “Now financial firms are different because of the risk, but you can contain that through regulation.” This was the purpose of the recent financial reform, he said. In effect, Geithner was arguing that we should be as comfortable linking the fate of our economy to Wall Street as to automakers or Silicon Valley.

One can disagree with this substantively. Financial reform is a good start, with its stricter rules and new authority for regulators. But whether Wall Street can be made to behave like a normal industry rather than a source of economy-wide instability remains very much open to debate.

Ugh.

Sounds like Little Timmy G. has gone a mix of New Age and messianic guru there.

Even inside the Village, there's limits on reading your own press clippings, dude.

Obama the Big Biz and general sellout

On the Big Biz sellout side ... Obama "can't" cut the Export-Import bank, can't cut other Big Biz subsidies, but, Mr. Community Organizer CAN AND WILL cut community development block grants!

According to Budget Director (Jzcob) Lew, “community service block grants have helped to support community action organizations in cities and towns across the country. These are grassroots groups working in poor communities, dedicated to empowering those living there and helping them with some of life’s basic necessities. These are the kinds of programs that President Obama worked with when he was a community organizer, so this cut is not easy for him.”

What a lie. Cutting grants to grassroots groups assisting the poor is an easy move for the President. The tough and principled move would be to say that cuts to the poor in the current economic environment are off the table, particularly given how small the savings are in actual dollars.

President Obama has not made a single tough decision to help the poor since taking office. He is the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to the contrast between his words about community empowerment and his actions.

I'm sure that Obamiacs will continue to rush to defend him, though.

Meanwhile, not onlhy does Big Biz not take a cut, Obama continues to woo it. As he does the mainstream media inside the D.C. Village.

Let the selling out continue.

Richard Cohen, financial ignoramus

As opposed to the more general ignoramus, or DC Village ignoramus, he is at other times. In his latest column, he takes Jon Stewart to task for reaming Jim Cramer.

Cohen touts how everybody thought AIG was a safe investment, yada, yada, yada.

BUT… he ignores that Stewart took Cramer to task not for AIG, but toothless coverage of the larger financial crisis. And, it’s well-deserved criticism.

The subprime crisis was already starting to show up by the middle of 2006. Fiancial institutions, including swaps partners of AIG, knew they had derivatives that were shaky at best.

So, Cohen has just specialized his ignorance into a new direction.

Jackson Diehl makes ridiculous Obama-Bush comparison

What is with Washington Post editorial writers?

Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt not only remains an unrepentant war hawk on Iraq, he defends columnists’ stupidity and mendacity, such as George Will’s lies about climate change.

Now, along comes Jackson Diehl, claiming President Barack Obama is in the same spot President Goerge Bush was after 9/11.

And, he claims Obama is doing the same things wrong, starting with his proposed funding for housing and healthcare not requiring more “sacrifice” of Americans.

Excuuuusssseeee me?

1. We’re in a recession; jobs and earnings are being sacrificed for many of us right now?

2. Healthcare? That’s already been cut, or outrightly sacrificed, for many of us by our employers.

Diehl then goes on to blame Obama for the lack of bipartisanship.

Even by WaPost standards, this is diving in the drained shallow end of the pool.

Politico – the online USA Today for political junkies

Ezra Klein muses a bit ofver the editorial model of Politico, which led me to further musing.

Politico has "popularized" the CQ/National Journal angle just in time for new interest in politics, new blogging, etc. It's done that, and done the online equivalent of a USA Today on the more serious political commentary.

But, I don't think it's for policy wonks who don't want to read policy.

Rather, it's for would-be policy wonks who don't want to read policy.

Tim Geithner was NOT indispensible

That’s Frank Rich’s bottom-line take on Team Obama’s Cabinet nominations clusterfuck, which he illustrates with a de Gaulle quote:

“The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.”

He notes one of Geithner’s biggest problems is being in Larry Summers’ pocket. From there, he moves to Tom Daschle and notes how the two-party duopoly, especially inside the D.C. Village, just didn’t get it.

Read the whole thing; even better than the normal Rich.