I just threw up twice over Nancy Pelosi

I'm not sure which is worse, the pablum of Maureen Dowd breathlessly fellating her "satin and steel" leadership, or the New York Post reporting that she supposedly had their house exorcised after husband Paul was attacked there, with a sidebar of wingnut Bill Donohue going Conservative Cafeteria Catholic by attacking her for believing in evil spirits (you ARE a secular one yourself, Bill) and exorcisms, which Rome still officially supports. That said, the Post piece is based on part of the Dowd story, so no, BlueAnon, not made-up bullshit.

The MoJo Dowd piece is semi-vacuous. No tough questions, and letting Pelosi get away with claims such as she would be the only House Dem as Speaker who could stand up to Trump, or her excoriating NY governor Kathy Hochul for not boosting House Dems' chances there by running a tough-on-crime campaign, ignoring that she ran a suck up to Republicans one instead.

So, what about this exorcism stuff???

Is this real? Yes, Pelosi's daughter told the story to Dowd at the top link. If you hit a paywall, here's the Daily Beast. Exact quote:

“I think that weighed really heavy on her soul. I think she felt really guilty. I think that really broke her. Over Thanksgiving, she had priests coming, trying to have an exorcism of the house and having prayer services.”

Oof.

The NY Post? Let's do this pull quote.

“If it’s genuine, she needs psychiatric help,” Donohue continues. “And if not, it’s another example of Nancy Pelosi exploiting the Catholic Church for her own personal gain.” 

But Fr. Vincent Lampert, exorcist for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, said exorcism could indeed be appropriate to combat “demonic infestation,” and the presence of evil that may linger in a place where violent crime has occurred. 

“It would be the recitation of a particular prayer, inviting the presence of God back into the house, casting out any presence of evil that may be there,” Lampert said. “Then the house would be blessed with holy water, reminding us of our new life in Christ, and the fact that we need not fear any evil, because recognizing that Christ is dwelling with us.” 

“I would say I get thousands of those requests every year,” he added.

As a good secularist, and a good ex-Lutheran who knows the Lutheran ties of the fiction called The Exorcist, it is funny as hell to see a superstitious Pelosi believe this AND at least as funny to see Donohue's bullshit called out.

And, speaking of The Exorcist? It would be funniest to see Pelosi spitting out pea soup like Linda Blair.

Per MoJo Dowd, that could be Kevin McCarthy, or better, The Donald, on the receiving end.

Is she "liberated" now, per the headline of MoJo Dowd's piece? Or is a second exorcism going to be needed, per the fictional account of The Exorcist? 

It is, and it's not just that Peter Blatty's book is a novel; his writing about the actual event he bases the book on is itself fictionalized. If you don't believe me, here's the first of a five-part debunking by Mark Opsasnick. A shorter summary of that is at the Skeptical Inquirer. A TL/DR summary of that, and of skeptical observation of exorcisms in general is also at Skeptical Inquirer.

People who have read things like Joe Nickell's piece know that kids will fake all sorts of things, and yes, including demonic possession. It would appear, per Part IV of the big debunk, that Ronald Hunkeler, perhaps egged on by, or double-daring against, a neighbor friend, played up things he was doing even before newspapers, Blatty et al played them up further. Part of the "playing up," per an older brother of the neighbor friend, was Hunkeler playing off his grandmother, an old Kraut Lutheran. (That's how my alma mater of graduate school, Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, got tied in. And, yes, that was whispered about, or discussed, when I was there 30 years ago.) Both her and her daughter, the kid's mom — and an only child to boot — were themselves reportedly obsessed with the Ouija board. Ron himself was reportedly sadistic toward animals, an exhibitor of tantrum-like anger, and more.

Specifically, contra claims by Thomas Allen, the Father Hughes attempted exorcism never happened.

As for the St. Louis Catholic exorcism, an assistant, Father Walter Hallorhan, notes that most of the claims about Hunkeler's actions were later overblown. He didn't really tell Opsasnick who overblew them, whether it was one of the two leads, Father Mark Bishop or Father William Bowdern.

As for more details about Ronald Hunkeler beyond the above? Opsasnick talked to him — or tried to — at the tail end of his investigation, and was pretty much cut off. He's now dead, Hunkeler is.

Thoughts on this year's races as early voting starts

This will incorporate reflections on the polls at right, and also build on my "Gadfly slate" of last Friday.

First, here in Tex-ass, statewide offices.

I'm not yet ready to say Strangeabbott's odds against Beto-Bob are in above 80 percent, but they are at 70-79 percent. And, barring Kenny Boy Paxton busted for fucking the wife of a Republican official, if Strangeabbott wins, so does every other statewide Rethuglican. Jeebus Shot Sid Miller wins. Wayne "Oil Wells Are" Christian wins. Kenny Boy wins. So do others.

The Lege? I'm not analyzing 150 House races, or even 31 Senate races. Let's say the GOP gains two in the House and holds serve in the Senate. Dade Phelan holds on as Speaker.

Nationally? New inflation concerns, thanks to the latest OPEC cuts, plus tight diesel stocks, have slackened the sails of earlier Democratic tailwinds, as Jeet Heer notes at The Nation, with me discussing in more detail here. So, I've revised downward thoughts I had just a week ago.

And, I mentioned "denialism" in Nancy Pelosi's take on the inflation issue. Susan Glasser at New Yorker applies that word to Warmonger Joe's take on the whole election.

The Senate, I think, odds are about 50 percent it stays 50-50. I had originally had this at a bit above 50-50 that Dems hold serve or improve.

The House poll was the first one I started, when inflation was really bad. Wingnut nominees on the GOP side stand better chances in the House than the Senate. Inflation dipped, but now, gas prices have crept back up. I don't think Dems will lose 50, but, losing 40 wouldn't surprise me.

This could well make Kevin McCarthy as Speaker a slightly loonier, yet ultimately as wingnut-squared-challenged, as Boozing Boehner or Eddie Muenster Ryan. With that big of a majority, the Lauren Boeberts (if re-elected) and Marjorie Taylor Greenes will run wild and might not even be the worst.

Of course, that would relieve Nancy Pelosi of the onus of considering violating her pledge to step down as Speaker. It would also relieve AOC of the onus of having to vote against her, if she did that, in an even tighter House.

Nancy Pelosi, inflationary political idiot

New inflation concerns, thanks to the latest OPEC cuts, plus tight diesel stocks, which will likely minimize Warmonger Joe's latest effort to battle inflation, and which the Inflation Reduction Act does not do a lot of, have slackened the sails of earlier Democratic political tailwinds for the midterm election, as Jeet Heer notes at The Nation.

Of course, when you're in denialism, like Nancy Pelosi, and a reason I invented Passive Pelosi™:

Inflation’s an issue, but it’s global. It’s global. What’s (the Republicans’) plan? They ain’t got nothing. When you bring down unemployment, inflation goes up. So in any case, (President Joe Biden) brought unemployment (down), cut it in half. Inflation is there but it’s global and not as bad as it is in some countries. We’ll have to message it better in the next three weeks ahead.

How fucking stupid can you be, Pelosi? And, this statement of yours defines that yes, you need better messaging, because this messaging is crap.

I and other Americans are NOT voting globally on representatives to the UN General Assembly.

Jeet then nails Pelosi to the Hillary Clinton yardarm:

While Pelosi is at least urging fellow Democrats to take up inflation as an issue, the thrust of her comments suggests complacency: Other countries have it worse; unemployment is down; the GOP has no alternative; we’re doing great. It calls to mind the ill-fated “America is already great” message the Democrats ran on in 2016.

Oof.

Bernie Sanders said that Dems need to focus on the economy more, and many Dem activists said "but abortion is economic justice." That it is. But, even if you're a minority woman, you're not having a new baby, and considering its cost, every week. You ARE, if you're at the grocery store.

Heer notes that national Dems could take a page from John Fetterman and attack corporate profiteering, and more than just oil companies, which are low-hanging fruit. Yeah, sure.

Heer then suggests calling out Republicans for wanting to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Really? With the last three Dem presidents' history on that?

And, beyond that, you have Liemonger Joe claiming to Peter Doocy that "It's not politically motivated at all," of his latest Strategic Petroleum Reserve release.  But, despite Biden's attempt to low-key this, voters have loudly said "It's the economy, stupid" to Inflationmonger Joe and Passive Pelosi.

Impeachment failed: Why, and a retrospective

First, of course it failed in the narrow sense because Republicans control the Senate.

But, it failed for broader reasons, too.

First, why the Ukraine issue?

An ethically stronger issue, in my opinion, was Emoluments Clause violations. Given that an appellate court recently reinstated, and remanded back to district court to resume proceedings, on an Emoluments Clause lawsuits by several state attorneys general, House Democrats already had a roadmap. And, members of Congress filed their own suit, though the DC appeals court just bounced it today. (I agree on the grounds for that ruling; individual members, or a group of members acting individually, don't have standing.)

Politically stronger, IMO, was good old "misprision of funds" over the border wall. And, given injunctions filed over that, House Dems could have learned legal strategies, etc.

Each would have been easy to explain by analogy to the general public.

Emoluments Clause? You tell the average American this is no different from putting the logo of whatever company they work at on personal products they sell on Amazon or eBay.

Misprision? You tell them this is like a spouse or other relationship partner raiding the family budget, for families that do an actual budget.

Plus, misprision of funds or the functional equivalent of or similar? Congress can't do that. It passes a budget and that's that. Only the executive can do that.

Emoluments Clause? Members of Congress CAN violate that, or their version of that, though; that's why old friend Greg AtLast wondered if many national Dems were worried about bits of their own dirty laundry airing. Or, given that the lawsuit mentioned in the first link was more than 40 Democratic Housecritters and 15 Senatecritters short of the plenum joining the suit, maybe support for impeachment on this grounds was that weak.

No matter.

Still less likely than Joe Biden family laundry coming out on Ukraine.

That's why I have to agree with Peter Beinart that, beyond the impeachment process benefiting Trump, it actually hurt Biden. It kept Hunter's name in the news, Biden looked weak in response and more.

I'm not sure I agree with Beinart that Biden was the best Dem candidate against Trump a year ago. At the same time, I don't necessarily agree with Berners that, then at least, Bernie was either.

So, why?

I don't consider this a conspiracy theory; I don't think it can really be proven or disproven.

I think some national Dems wanted to boost Biden, were worried about Hunter Biden coming up anyway, and sought to "insulate" Joe.

Anyway, after almost three years of doing nothing in general, ignoring calls for impeachment by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Al Green and others, it's pretty "amazing" that Ukraine was decided on as being impeachable, and the relative speed with which things happened. Not a conspiracy theory, but empirical facts.

And it backfired. Blew up in their faces, even.

Other national Dems, like John Bolton, actually planted their flag on the semi-coup at the Maidan, and everything else Russophobic. This by no means was the hill to die on, especially since the Trump-Putin collusion claims were untrue and the Mueller Report petered out like Bob Mueller was two Viagras short of shooting a real wad.

Biden has now imploded in Iowa, as has the state Democratic party over the caucuses, with Trump running out a triumphalist State of the Union on the heels of all of this.

So, no, certain Twitterers, whether Joe, Bernie, or Liz is your candidate, it won't be easy to beat Trump.

Also empirical fact? An impeachment case on either the Emoluments Clause or misprision could have been started much earlier than Ukraine, and thus, for better or for worse, been out of the way before the Iowa caucuses. You also wouldn't have had the same problem of new information of importance popping up after the impeachment vote in the House but before the Senate trial.

(Howie Hawkins, in his piece on his campaign website rejecting Chomskyites' call for the Green Party to run a "safe states" strategy, lists campaign financing and other impeachable matters besides the ones above. I don't think everything Howie lists is impeachable, but some of it certainly is.)

A few other bits and pieces.

Of COURSE Rick Scott wants to raise the threshold for impeachment. Whether the grifting is financial or non-monetary, he's never missed a grifting angle within the wingnut world.

Second, the Salt Lake Trib may call Mittens Romney a hero, and within the circumscribed moral world of today's GOP and also of politics in general, he may be. But, 1868 Kansas Sen. Edmund G. Ross is not, contra its analogy. There's pretty good evidence that all of the "sinful seven," speaking of grifting, got some patronage type payola from Andy Johnson. Spoons/Beast Ben Butler argued that patronage had been spread for Johnson's acquittal. There's good evidence Ross took patronage and some evidence he took a direct bribe. See here.

Meanwhile, the animosity, and the issues on both halves of the duopoly caucus, continued into that SOTU address. And, it's percolating down.

At the start of local candidates forum hosted by county GOP women (no Dems running in any primary in a local race), organization members  talked about the State of the Union address and about Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing up a copy of Trump's address. Hey, wingers, it was neither illegal nor unethical.

Is this a constitutional issue? So they claimed. It isn't that, either.

But? Pelosi fired the first snub gunshot, arguably, not using traditional SOTU language to introduce Trump.

Ted Rall hits one of his more wrong moments on minimum wage

Besides not fully understanding the First Amendment (charitable version) or being a sort of butt-hurt solipsist (less charitable but more realistic version, based on a long past history of his) in his suit against the LA Times for canning him, petulancy that is now nearly 18 years old (go here for my take on Popehat's takedown), Ted Rall has other moments a-plenty of flat-out wrongness about American issues.

(Notably, the cluelessness is more often about domestic issues. When he takes controversial stands on foreign policy, he's relatively more likely to be right. Not that that means a whole lot.)

His latest? Per the above cartoon? Saying the US "really" should have a $25/hour minimum wage, or "really really" should have one of $80 an hour. Ted has since doubled down on the BS in his most recent syndicated column.

According to ... ShadowStats.com [no actual link to individual piece by Ted] $22 in 2013 comes to at least $35 today.

It does not, except in such a seemingly febrile mind. The idea that an actual inflation rate, per CPI (and not core CPI) which has not gone over 2.1 percent anywhere in the 2014-18 period and had an average during that time of just 1.52 percent, is "really" 10 percent is bullshit. It's like claiming that not only is the Department of Labor's official unemployment rate of 3.9 percent on the U-3 numbers is wrong (and it is), but that the U-6 numbers of 7.6 percent are also wrong, and the "real" unemployment in the US is 15 percent or more.

So, IF I accept Ted's claim that we "really" (that's going in scare quotes every time now, Ted) "should" (ditto) have had a minimum wage of $22 an hour in 2013, your $35 an hour in 2019 still doesn't follow. Per actual CPI, that minimum wage should be $23.71. Even if you claim the CPI is wrong by 100 percent? That minimum wage should still be just $25.44.

His Gollum-precious ShadowStats, to be a bit more generous, claimed an inflation rate of almost 10 percent in 2011, Ted. That's just triple the official CPI for the year of 3.0 percent. So, let's do this once more, tripling the CPI for each year of 2014, normal compounding (unless Ted has some "shadow compounding" to pull out of somewhere) and see what we have.

We still "really" only get up to $27.47.

At this point, Ted is clearly, from my perspective, pulling numbers out of either thin air or his ass. Your choice as to which, Ted. Oh, and to punk and troll Ted just a bit more, your precious ShadowStats is behind a capitalist paywall. Oh, you running dog capitalist lackey.

Speaking of? Ted, if you "really" cared about minimum wage and related employee issues, you wouldn't have donations to you laundered through a charity with heavy ties to USPIRG and to Fund for the Public Interest, which has been successfully (not SLAPP-reverse failed) sued multiple times for employment law violations. And yes, Ted and fanbois, your final stop laundromat, Sustainable Markets Foundation, has just such connections. Not to mention having the word "markets" in its title.

I've broken up my Twitter thread related to his individual cartoon about his stupidity into individual tweets, with bits of commentary in between.

Ted Rall is simply wrong (not the first time by any means) when he says today's minimum wage, based on the 1960s, "really" should be $25, or even $80 an hour. #MinimumWage https://t.co/jmyHtKW49V

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

Wishes and reality are two different things, Ted, just as your LA Times suit has shown. I won't repeat old jokes about having one thing in one hand and another in the other.

First, Elizabeth Warren was likewise also wrong with her $22/hour #MinimumWage.

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

Also not the first or last time she's been wrong. That said, on this particular issue, per her past, she should know better than Ted for a reason I'll note below.

Second, this page and its chart are representative of thousands of #RealNews websites. Adjusted for inflation, from the minimum wage's peak, it should be at $9-10/hour today. https://t.co/tzQxXiIQyy

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

I am going to post that chart I am talking about, to give us a clear visual.

Seems pretty clear to me, at least.

We should also note that the web post I linked to cites the Economic Policy Institute for some of its discussion. The EPI bats left of center on economic issues in general, so don't claim that I am citing some sort of wingnut piece. 

Tis true that one's a few years old, but here's a table that runs through 2018 that says the same.

Next?

Third, increased productivity, plus increasing urbanization of America, might allow for a bump to the $15/hour currently talked about, but .... more than that?

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

We are now at the point where Ted is simply phoning it in.

Third, Pt 2, increased productivity might allow for some bump, but ... measuring increased productivity on web-based jobs is a mug's game. That ignores the whole issue of bots making the Net not real, and you and I checking Book of Face repeatedly at work.

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

And, that's the refudiation, nickel version, to Ted phoning it in.

Fourth, clearly neither .@TedRall nor .@ElizabethWarren have ever visited what remains of small-town America. $15/hour would gut it; $22/hour (let alone Ted's nutbar $80) would destroy it.

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

Actually, not true, but the Tweet stays, to tie in with my point above.

Warren, of course, grew up in small-town Oklahoma, which means that on the sociological side, she has even less excuse than Rall for such uninformed blather.

My stance comes in this last tweet:

Fifth, this is why I favor Oregon's $15/$12/$10 urban/suburban/rural split on #minimumwage

— @realDonaldTrump  🌻🚩 (@SocraticGadfly) January 7, 2019

I don't know exactly how Oregon defines urban, suburban and rural in its law. Here in Texas, would Collin County be urban or suburban? Grayson County or Hunt Count suburban or rural? The idea is correct in general, though.

After we get something like that nationally? We then, per that table and graph above, institute a COLA. I faulted Nancy Pelosi for not doing that when she and her House Dems last raised the minimum wage.

As for Rall? In this case, in my opinion, it's not "just" the mix of laziness and willfulness that characterizes many of his columns, as well as both the content and drawing style of his cartoons.

I personally can't see this one as anything but deliberate lying. The statistics are out there in factual form, not Rall's distorted versions.

That's only increased by Rall's response on Twitter that he spends plenty of time in small town America. Then, in addition to telling apparent lies about the minimum wage, he doesn't actually care about small-town America, I guess. He's either exaggerating downward the size of places he's visited or else engaged in other exaggeration. Given his clear misstatements on the actuality of the minimum wage, whatever the exaggeration, IMO it's surely deliberate, though.

The per-capital income for the entire state of Mississippi is about $23,000, Median HOUSEHOLD income is about $43,000, less than one person working full time at $22/hour, Ted. So, if you "really" spend a lot of time in small-town America, you haven't "really" learned anything about "real" economic stats you "should" know.

In other words? Ted, I don't trust you. And others who do, the remaining fanboys, shouldn't.

(And, speaking of, per your suit against the LA Times? THIS is why they don't carry you any more. Idiotic mendacities and made-up information.)

Let's look at his past, too.

Among Ted's other larger mistakes in both domestic and foreign affairs?

The biggest was his whopper claiming Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 actually landed safe and sound in Kazakhstan, which he doubled down on for some time.

Then there was claiming Glenn Greenwald is a liberal. (He's become more librul on some things, but like Mark Ames and others, I consider him a libertarian just like his boss, Omidyar.)

Other ideas of his, which sounded deeply different at the time just sound dumb now. Like drafting cops. (That would probably also be unconstitutional, or very close to it. Certainly a violation of the spirit of the 13th Amendment.)

I used to halfway agree with his ideas on abortion, but have moved away from that now. Semantically, he's probably wrong, if he's going to stick that route, on using "murder" rather than "manslaughter" in many such cases. "Human life" may not be defined — or definable — as starkly as he would have it, either.

Trivialization by hyperbole is what he does here, is perhaps the best way to explain it.

Or else, gotcha by outrageous statement, like some of his editorial cartoons.

Basically, because he had, pre-9/11, traveled to Afghanistan as well as Pakistan, and had good insights overall on invading Afghanistan, and because he pissed off Hillbots already in 2008, I read him fairly credulously until the Flight 370 and Greenwald. The flight issue, and his stubbornness revealed on it, showed a new side. Then, per the Popehat link up top, I learned a lot more about him in comments there.

(I'm also in the middle of reading a book about pre 9/11 travels to Afghanistan that is almost certainly more realistic than whatever Rall wrote.)

Finally, if Warren made such idiotic claims, then, as a member of the really reality-based community, I see that as another strike against her presidential campaign. (Hiring Hillary Clinton's 2016 communications team would be another.)

==

This reminds me — once or twice a year I do a blog post when I do a major blogroll cleanup. Maybe I need to do one explaining those who I keep, even or especially when I disagree with them a fair amount.

TX Progressives look at Beto heating up

The Texas Progressive Alliance looks at how the Beto O’Rourke campaign is heating up to almost Hotter ‘n Hell One Hundred temps — hot enough to get his first "longform" national political puff piece, analyzed here — to lead off this week’s Roundup, while yet wondering if he is playing debate chicken games.

Off the Kuff considers some secondary goals for the Beto O'Rourke campaign.

Brains and Eggs revises upward his estimation of Beto’s chances.

The Dallas Snooze looks at downballot Dems drafting off the Beto boom at his campaign rallies.

The Week notes that Beto is being boosted by dislike of Havana Ted Cruz.

At the Dallas Observer, Stephen Young notes the seven steps to getting to Cruz begging Donald Trump for help.

SocraticGadfly has some fun introducing Loopy Lupe Valdez (and her gun) to Aerosmith. (Yours truly will have a couple of Beto pieces in next week's roundup.)

Jim Schutze wonders if Walt Humann or friends of his are trying to gut the city of Dallas deal (which Monte Anderson — I know him — calls very good) to privatize Fair Park operations.

The Chronicle does some analysis on Nancy Pelosi’s Houston visit.

In Part 4 of its nine-part series on borderland waters and climate change, the Texas Observer looks at shared aquifers, an important issue in general given Texas’ differentiated treatment of surface vs underground waters.

The Lunch Tray takes issue with a partnership between Houston ISD and Domino's Pizza.

BeyondBones warns of the Bananapocalypse.

Better Texas Blog can't understand the arguments against paid sick days.

Grits for Breakfast flags another scam charity that claims to benefit police families.

Paradise in Hell laughs at a dumb Trump quote.

The TSTA Blog sees through Dan Patrick's phony concern about teachers' health insurance premiums.

A Houston ISD school gets black marks for using a quote by the Mayflower Madam to shame girls.

Environmentalism makes strange bedfellows

Or outright hypocrisy, in the case of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, and the aqueduct piping its water from Yosemite National Park to San Francisco. GOP Congressman Dan Lundgren, whose district borders the park, wants the Interior Department to check if San Francisco is doing enough to find other water resources, such as water recycling and rainwater connection.

Nancy Pelosi is leading the opposition to San Francisco actually having to do something.

And, this is why "limousine liberal" is sometimes a stereotype and sometimes not.

Think of RFK Jr. fighting the wind farm offshore of Cape Cod. Or other instances.

It's also a reason to support smaller, non-Gang Green environmental groups that aren't in bed with the Democratic Party. 


It's also why, even if Lundgren is trying to score political points, one should never right Democrats a "liberal blank check."

#Debtmaggedon - Obama shafts House Dems blows McConnell

Here's where many a Member of Congress stands:

"I don't want my hands on (Debtmaggedon.)"

Those were the words, in part, of North Carolina Democrat G.K. Butterfield:

“I wouldn’t call it anger, but we are perplexed that it has turned out like it has. But we’ve run out of options and we know the consequences. I’ve heard horror stories from the Great Depression. I don’t want my fingerprints on that.”

Well, thanks to Preznit Kumbaya's surrender on the Bush Obama tax cuts last December, along with the asymmetric warfare of tea partiers, you're being forced to put your fingerprints on something that may cause a second depression as long-lasting as the current one.

Because, Mr. Butterfield, a second recession appears more likely. That's even as Wall Street, in hypocrisy mode, both worries about the effects of these cuts and kvetches about the deficit at the same time.

Those same markets don't like the economy as it is, and now that eurozone problems are becoming more pronounced in Italy, an economy too big to get the Greece treatment, they're more worried there too.

Meanwhile, Rep. Butterfield and other Dems are going to be put on the hook for two votes, the second coming just as 2012 and elections loom, as this NYT graphic of the process illustrates. Technically, it's not for the debt ceiling, but on how to address the debt ceiling, but in spirit, this is another thing Obama said he opposed ... and now doesn't.

Surrender? This is Yalta, or the stereotypical story of Yalta.

Meanwhile, back to Democrats, and back to what this means.

In his excellent analysis, Nate Silver points out that, in making this deal, Obama pissed off Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, having long ago pissed off House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi by largely freezing her out of the process.

As for Obama? Most the heavy budget hits start in 2013. Should he be re-elected, he's already hoist himself and his policy options by his own fiscal petard. Were it not so sad for the country as a whole, I'd laugh at the schadenfreude.

Back to other Democrats and the top-linked story. At least one leading black Democrat, Elijah Cummings, is already prepared to hold his nose and vote yes.

Pelosi? Well ... not yet, at least not for public comment.

“I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my caucus to see what level of support we can provide,” she said in a statement.

Whether a Raul Grivalja type really wants to vote no, and whether he can cross hands, and hold his nose, and get enough tea partiers and progressive Democrats to combine to sink the deal, I don't know, either.

Raul, here's what Team Obama thinks of you, anyway:

Senior White House officials said they were hopeful that Congressional leaders from both sides would manage to sell the deal to their parties. While “there are some Democrats who simply don’t believe in the necessity of deficit reduction,” one administration official said, “most do. I think it’s important as a party to show Americans that we’re serious about deficit reduction.”

So, go ahead, Raul, make his day.

The person who really logrolled Preznit Kumbaya, in the vulture-like fashion so typical of him? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who else. In 16 months, he'll be majority leader, and Obama just hoisted his second term by yet another petard.

Obama otherwise failed to get around a balanced budget amendment, and failed to get around having some sort of debt-related vote again before elections.

Grover Cleveland? Jimmy Carter? Buck Buchanon maybe? Unless you're an Obamiac who continues to blind him/herself to reality, none of this should surprise you. He's only done it at least half a dozen times on major issues, as documented here. The stimulus, health care, the Bush Obama tax cuts, immigration,

Barack Obama, self-diminished at #Debtmageddon

In the New York Times Book Review, ace reporter Elizabeth Drew has a great story about how we have come to the point of a looming Debtmageddon. As an intro, she uses the obvious rhetorical question of "What were they thinking?"

At the same time, she's a bit iffy in spots. She said both Republicans and Democrats expected the other to be more pliable, without noting President Catfood has already practically given away the store, to the ire of many members of his own party and more liberal supporters, especially on things such as entitlements. But she does rightly note that there were divisions within both parties, especially Speaker of the House John Boehner vs. both House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the GOP, and Obama vs. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi among Democrats.

GOP factions within both House and Senate, and different political strategies, are all at stake:

Boehner and Cantor, and also Boehner and McConnell, have had their political differences and conflicting political exigencies. Boehner of course wants to retain Republican control of the House—it’s not inconceivable that the Democrats could pick up the necessary twenty-four seats to recover it. Therefore, Boehner didn’t want his flock to have to cast a controversial vote anytime close to the election. On the other hand, with twenty-three Democratic senators up for reelection, McConnell has had his eye on a Republican takeover of the Senate. His party would need to pick up only four seats. Therefore, he was looking for a way to force a controversial vote closer to the election.

And Democrats not named Obama had their own poltical angles:

Moreover, the Democrats had their own political reasons for opposing reductions in Medicare benefits. They had had great success in campaigning against Paul Ryan’s bizarre proposal, adopted by the House (despite even Boehner’s expressed misgivings), that would turn Medicare into a voucher system.

But, we're not at the meat of the story yet.

Pelosi should tell Shuler 'Make my day'

Nancy Pelosi not only doesn't plan to resign from Congress, she's looking at running for minority leader.

And Blue Dog Pain in the Ass Heath Shuler says he'll run against her if she does.

Another Blue Dog, Jim Matheson, tells her to move on.

However:

(T)he Blue Dog coalition was decimated on Tuesday; more than half of its members, 29, lost. Only 28 remain. For the most part, the Democrats who survived Tuesday are the more liberal members, including Pelosi's strongest supporters.

So, no, YOU move on, Jim Matheson. (And, in Shuler's case, "thanks," Rahmbo. And, you weren't a good QB, either.)

That said, Pelosi deserves her Passive Pelosi moniker if it's true that, in this Internet/image/idiocy driven politics we have to day, she rejected image consultants.

Progressives lack progressivism

Harold Meyerson has a great column about how today's progressives, as compared to the New Deal or Great Society eras, largely lack a movement:

If there's a common feature to the political landscapes in which Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, it's the absence of a vibrant left movement. ... In America, major liberal reforms require not just liberal governments, but autonomous, vibrant mass movements, usually led by activists who stand at or beyond liberalism's left fringe.

But, Meyerson doesn't just point the finger at progressives. He points at The One, too:

(Obama) has consistently declined to activate his activists to help him win legislative battles by pressuring, for instance, those Democratic members of Congress who have weakened or blocked his major bills. To be sure, loosing the activists would have brought problems of its own: Unlike Roosevelt or Johnson, who benefited from autonomous movements, Obama would be answerable for every loopy tactic his followers employed. But in the absence of both a free-standing movement and a legion of loyalists, Congress isn't feeling much pressure from the left to move Obama's agenda.

I think Meyerson misses a bit of a point, though. FDR halfway co-opted some of the farther left. Call it triangulation, but in another direction from Bill Clinton.

Apparently, Speaker Nancy Pelosi would like to see more from Obama, too.

Joe Wilson escapes Pelosi bead, more

Well, to be more accurate, NoDoze-imbibing South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson apparently isn’t in Pelosi’s bead in the first place. I guess we’re back to Passive Pelosi™ and another symbol of why Democrats are still more pushovers than GOPers.

Heck, a lot of members of Wilson’s own military-heavy, GOP-stalwart district didn’t like his “you lie” outburst at the president, but, I guess Ms. Nancy doesn’t know how to run with this football.


Next, Maureen Dowd says we need “less Spocky and more Rocky” out of President Obama. We’ll see what tonight’s speech shows.

Wilson also was one of just seven South Carolina state legislators who supported the state keeping its old, Rebel-themed state flag.

Paging Ms. Nancy …

Pelosi, Reid claim to have healthcare votes

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it will even have a public option “or something like that,” whatever the hell that means.

Meanwhile, Maine Rep. Senator Olympia Snowe may be key to how this plays out, not just in the Senate, but the inevitable Senate-House conference committee.

And, as Mod Max Baucus finally reports something out of Senate Finance, it becomes ever more clear how not only GOP Sens. Charles Grassley and Mike Enzi had the “zero option” on negotiations, so did everybody else in the GOP, including Orrin Hatch, contra his BS claim about Ted Kennedy.
-END-

House Dems Blue Dog recruiting comes home to roost

Not every Blue Dog in the House may be forthright about wanting to dump Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, like Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith, but I bet at least a dozen feel that way in private.

Having a majority that will not band together like a majority is not really a majority.

Do I hear a petard being cranked up for hoisting use?
-END-

Aug. 10 healthcare roundup

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer say it’s un-American to shout down differences of opinion.

Well, it might contravene some American ideals, but in reality, it’s been done for about the entire length of existence of our republic. And, Declaration of Independence aside, the reality of America has rarely been about ideals.

Meanwhile, Robert Reich says that Obama’s deal with Big Pharma — cost controls on its part for patent extensions and other goodies — is “a precarious road -- and wherever it leads, it's not toward democracy.”

No, it’s a road that leads toward 2010 and 2012 campaign cash for the “liberal” president who opted out of public campaign financing.

Meanwhile, the country slouches toward Obama’s town hall in New Hampshire.
-END-

Blue Dog Dems have no electoral worries

Michael Tomasky compares their recently electoral wins with McCain-Obama margin in their districts. The results? They’re full of crap with their “we have to vote conservative” claims.

Tomasky goes on to chide the American mainstream media for, well, for not doing the research he just did, and instead, blindly buying these claims.

Let’s take that a step further, and say that Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi also need more chiding.

Now Durbin and Pelosi disagree on healthcare vote timing

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says Congress should work through the August recess to pass healthcare legislation, while Senate Majority Whip and Friend of Barry Dick Durbin says there ain’t gonna be a vote before then. Senate aides indicate they do hope to have the Senate Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills reconciled and on the floor as one bill before the recess. Small beer, but something.

That said, though, the way Mod Max Baucus has been continuing to dither in Senate Finance, I wouldn’t even count on that.

Coup against Pelosi?

Politico wonders whether, like Newt Gingrich a little more than a decade ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won’t be the target of a coup within her own party.

John Feehery argues that Pelosi’s knowledge of CIA torture, or the possibility, could be the spark that lights the fire issue. Feehery worked for the House Republican leadership from 1989 to 2005 and is a position to know on the comparisons with Newt, although he may

That said, if not Steny Hoyer, who’s the likely Young Turk? Feehery pulls his punches by not handicapping possible challengers.

Pelosi still boo-hoos about torture briefings

Whether or not the CIA briefed Pelosi on waterboarding in 2002, it’s a flat-out lie to claim “Congress was incapable of stopping it.

All you had to do was speak up. Constitutional protections of Members of Congress while in their official duties legally trump any Executive Branch “national security” claim. And, it would have been fun to see such a case go to court just to establish that fact at trial.

Besides, Miss Nancy, Miss Passive Pelosi™, you DID know about waterboarding in 2003. And you still kept your pseudo-liberal mouth shut.

Pelosi a 2003 sellout on waterboarding

Speaker of the House Miss Nancy now admits she WAS briefed on torture way back in 2003, but, shades of Jay Rockefeller, thought it was necessary to respect and follow “appropriate” legislative channels, exactly the response upon which BushCo counted.

Pelosi still denies she or any staff were briefed back in 2002, but that’s splitting hairs. She knew, early on, about specific techniques, and refused to speak up.

Besides, contrary to her respect for “appropriate” channels (really meaning her terror of leaking a “state secret”) Congressional immunity would, Constitutionally, trump any “state secrets” executive claim.

Of course, Sellout Nancy wasn’t alone. I already compared her to Jay Rockefeller. Here’s more:

Steve Elmendorf, who served as chief of staff to former Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), said that coming so soon after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it would have been difficult politically for Pelosi to do more to protest interrogation techniques the Bush administration was using.

“You have to remember, in the 2002 period, the whole atmospherics, it was all about scaring people every day,” said Elmendorf. “People were legitimately concerned that we were going to be attacked again, and there was a constant drumbeat coming from the Bush administration of, ‘Bad things could happen, bad things could happen.’ Nobody wants it to happen on their watch.”

Sellout Democrats. Why I vote Green.