Jon Chait STOPS fellating Obama, becomes bigger hack

Exactly two months ago, political insider Jonathan Chait wrote a big steaming pile of blather with this headline: "The Case for Obama: Why He Is a Great President. Yes, Great."

It included such dreck as this:

Obama can boast a record of accomplishment that bests any president since Roosevelt, and has fewer demerits on his record than any of them, including Roosevelt. 

And dreck that is indeed.

Says who?

Not just me, but ... Jon Chait!

Exactly two months later, he writes, with this headline: "Why is Obama Caving on Taxes?" and proceeds to excoriate Dear Leader up one side and down the other.

That includes this closing paragraph:

Obama may think his conciliatory approach has helped avoid economic chaos. Instead, he is courting it.

That's a Loooong ways away from "great," isn't it?

Well, the second Chait is right. But, refusing to let even 10 percent of that thought into a political puff piece two months ago (Note: Obama's biggest achievement, allegedly, Obamacare, actually is Nancy Pelosi's doing) shows just how much a hack he is.

But, really, he's a representative of a type. In days ahead (whether the House approves the "fiscal slope" deal or not) you'll see others like Chait, neoliberal but not quite as conservative as Dear Leader, and still clueless as to how bad an executive leader he is, similarly burn rubber and strip clutches at the strenuousness of their change-of-direction rethinking about O'Bummer.

I'll bet we soon smell similar burned-out clutches from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos, Steven Benen at Washington Monthly, and Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, among others.

In order of hackery, Kos is right there with Chait, as is Benen, a consistent Democratic Party fluffer. Marshall at times ranks higher on the snootiness level, though.

And, even IF the House GOP approves this ... a definite if ... this is only a two-month Band-Aid. Why?  The "great" Dear Leader didn't get a debt ceiling long-term fix as part of the deal.

In any case, let's see exactly sort of Ricky Ricardo "splaining" they do.

Steve Rattner: Obama bailout czar and financial leper

This is the guy Steve Benen at Washington Monthly gives so much credence to, when the guy is clearly self-serving.

And, "civilly offensive," to pun away on his pre-GM bailout chicanery.

He refuses to accept a civil sanction barring him from securities trading for three years. The fact that he faces such sanction makes you wonder how much he's condoned "good GM's" smoke-and-mirrors effort in paying off the government.

Mr. Rattner’s former firm, Quadrangle Group, paid $12 million in fines to settle with state and federal officials in April, but Mr. Rattner was left out of that agreement because he would not accept the S.E.C.’s proposal that he be barred from working on Wall Street, people briefed on the case said. ...

Quadrangle has rebuked Mr. Rattner’s conduct in unusually harsh terms, calling it “inappropriate, wrong and unethical.”

And, he also has a book coming out about his alleged "savior" efforts.

Steven Rattner, "civil criminal."

And, Steve "Party Line" Benen at Washington Monthly, willingly gullible putz on Rattner.

If AG Eric Holder wants to start new criminal investigations, I can suggest one, I think.

Steve Benen, neolib Obama torture cover-up apologist

I thought Washington Monthly was bad enough as a blog with Kevin Drum as a neoliberal squish.

Well, I was wrong; it’s become worse with Steve Benen as a Democratic Party hack. I’ve pretty much stopped reading, but went by there earlier today.

Proof of Benen’s hackery? This post claiming Obama hasn’t shut the door on indicting BushCo officials for torture. Even by Benen’s standards, it’s week.


Meanwhile, Sully joined him in the tank.

Andrew Sullivan agrees that President Barack Obama is right to not prosecute torturers. For a while, on a few issues, Sully could be seen as the “enemy of my enemy” type. But, remember, folks, he’s NOT a Democrat, let alone not being an independent liberal.

And, this is AFTER Sully’s earlier post, saying, “We are now Indonesia.”

Hey, Sully. Not prosecuting will lead to “Indonesia amnesia.”

When a Washington Monthly ‘open thread’ is not

Steve Benen and/or WM staff has closed comments on this thread, his usual end-of-day political roundup.

Why?

My best guess is a throwaway link about Obama’s town hall and saying he’s not going to legalize marijuana.

Benen’s “close the thread” antic is as weak and chickenshit as Obama’s answer to the marijuana-issue was, though neither is quite as bad as Team Obama removing the question from Obama’s original list of questions to answer.

Update, 2:30 p.m. Central: Benen says he has never closed a commment thread as a blogger, via e-mail. I ask him to explain why, both then and now, this particular post is the only one on the page where you can't comment, either in the comments pop-up box or the permalink.

I told him I stand by my assumption that he, or somebody else at WM (I didn't say it was necessarily you, Steve), deliberately did the closure. But, I find it hard to believe this is an Internet or blogging program glitch.

Hey, if you did it because of NORML comments, per Team Obama trying to avoid discussing the question, fine. But, something happened, and it appears deliberate.

Finally, in his second e-mail, not his first, Benen, after referring to comment moderators in the original e-mail, says it was specifically because of some Xanax spam. Why he didn't mention that in the first e-mail, I don't know.

He also said he's not usually informed of when moderators (which include Blue Girl still, I'm sure... blecch; another "salute Democrats only" liberal who booted me from a joint blog after inviting me) intervene. Well, you told me the cause, in the second e-mail, Steve. Let's see how long it takes you to follow my suggestion and actually note, at the end of the post, that's a closed post.

And, to claim you're unaware of when a moderator shuts down a comment thread?

You, like most big bloggers, read the threads and actually post responses on occasion. Please. I'm not 100 percent buying that, either.

If that is 100 percent true, you have an internal communication problem, then. Don't blame that on me either.

Other than that, I know, I'm a mix of left-liberal, civil libertarian and anti-duopoly poster, which in the eyes of somebody like Steve, probably puts me at about 7.5 on the troll scale, 1-10.

And, I can be wrong at times. I was wrong about the cause of this shutdown. That said, I'll make another, not observation, but guess. Benen probably knew of the shutdown by the time I attempted to post, even if he didn't know the cause. How hard is it to update the last line of a blog post to say that it's no longer open due to spamming?

I've updated this blog twice, since Steve's first e-mail. True, it's a slow Friday at the office, but I do have a day job. And, I'm live-drafting for fantasy baseball at the same time.

One final thought: When I think of Democrats-right-or-wrong bloggers, I am reminded of the Iranian philosopher Idries Shah, who said, “There are never just two sides to anything.” Third parties aren't necessarily the “right” side, but they are a third or fourth or fifth side that deserves a hearing.

Steve Benen, Think Progress go in tank for Obama again

Talking about Chinese (and Russian) discussion about the world possibly needing a second reserve currency besides the dollar, Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen and Think Progress’ Ali Frick both see a Drudge-led right-wing noisemaking conspiracy behind this, as nothing more than airplay.

While it’s true that some religious conservatives may see the Euro as the replacement mark of the best for the UN, Common Market, etc., there’s also serious issues involved.

That’s why, as I posted on Washington Monthly:

This isn’t a conservative vs. liberal talking point, though, Steve.

If the EU is right on its inflation worries, and wanting more Obama financial regulation legislation first, and only then more stimulus plans, the euro looks like a better and better alternative world currency. And rightly so.

No wonder both China and Russia are pushing it.

Too bad neither Steve nor any of the posters here get that.

Especially when the Eurozone is the world’s largest economy, maybe we should listen to somebody outside our own echo chamber a little more often.

And, I’ve already gotten a response there from people who think “my country, right or wrong,” on fiscal policy. One person said, in essence, “no, it’s JUST a social/religious issue. To which, I say:

It’s a geopolitical talking point, as well as an economic one, that has also been made into a religious and social conservative talking point.

And, the fact that it has been made into that in no way negates the actual news, and newsworthy, background, of this.

1. Russia, as well as China, has mentioned the second reserve currency idea. While Beijing still likes to be low-key in leveraging its muscle, nobody's ever leveraged that accusation at Moscow.

2. Re the European Central Bank and the idea of the Euro as a second reserve currency? No, it's not perfect. But, is the Fed? Errr...

3. Let's not forget the eurozone, for all its faults, IS the world's largest economy, and may well be for years to come. Maybe we should listen to somebody outside our own echo chamber a little more often.

4. Given that the BushCo SEC promised more financial regulation and then didn’t deliver, I don’t blame the EU for saying, in essence, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

Meanwhile, as people like Glenn Greenwald also know, plenty of pseudoprogressive will salute whatever Obama runs up the flagpole.

That said, might I be wrong about the fiscal policy of the ECB, etc.? Of course. But, we have no guarantee somebody like Paul Krugman is right when he bashes the EU and ECB, and I get tired of the “my country right or wrong,” let alone the, “my Obama, right or wrong,” view of international finance. It’s almost as simplistic as the conservativism it professes to stand against.

And, one final note. Although I can appreciate the gamesmanship of politics, indeed, even its chess-like strategy, nonetheless, people like Benen, as part of looking at it through the two-party duopoly lens first, the broader political ideas lens second, make it a zero-sum game, duopoly players the only ones who need apply.

That's why it's going to be a long four years with mainstream liberal bloggers like him.

Washington Monthly drinks Obama Kool-Aid on AIG

Steve Benen actually takes Obama’s “righteous indignation” over AIG at face value.

You know how this is feigned, not real outrage?

Rather than using one of more of the plenty of already existing federal regulatory agencies, Obama, as is seemingly his wont, proposes to create a new agency.

On the narrow issue of AIG bonuses, little Timmy Geithner and sock-puppetmaster Larry Summers killed a simple Senate line item five weeks ago. No new, or even current, regulatory agency was needed.

On the broader issue, you want to regulate banks? Just give the FDIC new powers. Trading of investments? Beef up the SEC (remember that little thing called Glass-Steagall) or other financial institutions.

No new inventions needed.

Russ Douthat: Just.Another.Conservative.

Anybody who thinks he’s a kinder, gentler conservative pundit on core issues like Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, needs to STRONGLY think again.

Jesse Jackson Jr. – undercover hero, decade-long snitch or big fat liar?

Updated – Is this an MSLB trying to find the Obama team an out? Or just an MSLBer getting punked?

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly points to two news stories he claims exonerate Jesse Jackson Jr.’s role in the Blagosphere, re Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s alleged corruption, the Blagosphere.

But, we have different spokespeople saying different things!

From one of Steve’s links the AP claims JJJ spokesman Rick Bryant as saying his boss has been working with Fitz since this summer. The Chicago ABC station reports similarly.

But, CNN has a totally different story, starting with a totally different JJJ spokesperson.

Kenneth Edmonds claims Triple-J has been an informant for the Chitown U.S. Attorney’s office, Fitz and predecessor(s), for more than a decade.

AND! … Edmonds said Triple-J was NOT, repeat NOT, involved with Fitz’s current investigation.

Politico, today, also quotes Edmonds, who now is saying it is just five years, not a decade, that Triple-J was a caped crusader. (JJJ himself claims he knew nothing about the Indian fundraiser, per Politico.)

That said, this is amazingly “serendipity” or “coincidental” timing, to be true:

After Blagojevich took office, in early 2003, he told Jackson something to the effect of, “You see what $25,000 would have done?” the sources said.

In 2006, Jackson reported the incident, which he believed to have been an attempt at a shakedown, the sources said.

The report, the sources said, came three three years later because Jackson’s memory was jogged by another case — that of developer Tony Rezko, whose fraud and corruption trial included testimony about $25,000 donations to Blagojevich.

If Jackson really were an informant for more than a decade, wold he need to suddenly have his memory “jogged”?

If you believe that, I have one of two things to say to you:
• I’ve got some palm trees outside Triple-J’s Chicago office to sell you, or …
• Some snitch target of Triple-J’s is going to have him killed in some South Side back alley, if this is the real deal.

I’ll eat crow if I’m wrong, but I’m not firing up my Indian barbecue right now.

So, we have at least one (not limited to just one) lying Jesse Jr. spokesman. (They directly contradict one another as to whether or not Triple-J was working with Fitz this summer.) One confused, and even more off message, Jesse Jr. operation, and a JJJ yet to explain his Indian fundraiser barbecue lunch, speaking of Indian grills.

Jesse? Buy a dog. A cocker spaniel. Name it “Checkers.” Claim one of your Indian friends gave it to your kids.

Steve? Be honest sometime today, since I sent you the CNN link. Tell us whether you’re being a flak, or whether you just went out on a limb, even if not actually getting “punked.” (Note: As of my update on this post, nothing on the blog or in an e-mail to me.)

Irony, hypocrisy alerts and MSLBs reverse spinning on Obama-Blago

MSLBs contribute to two-party duopoly gamesmanship on semi-legitimate issue

The irony and hypocrisy alerts? Former Karl Rove lawyer (in Pat Fitzgerald’s Plamegate investigation) telling the Wall Street Journal Barack Obama should just blow off Fitzgerald’s request that he remain silent until next week on the full scope of his staff’s contact with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s alleged attempt to auction off an appointment to Obama’s former Senate seat.

The irony, at least, is in Ruskin’s former connection with Fitz.

But, Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen and Media Matters’ Jameson Foser doth protest too much, especially Benen.

Benen mentions the irony of Luskin commenting on the case, as well as Wiseman’s hypocrisy for not identifying Luskin’s background. But, he fails to note that Luskin was NOT the only lawyer Wiseman quoted. Long-time Democratic insider lawyer Stanley M. Brand had the same opinion as Luskin. (Insert “bipartisanship alert” worry here.)

So, Steve, especially, and Jameson, whose irony, or hypocrisy, is actually being gored? Or, when the critique is almost as bad as what is being critiqued, perhaps you need to start over?

In other words, this is just more gamesmanship by a couple of spokesmen for the left-hand side of the two-party duopoly. And, it’s why I don’t contribute to these folks.

That said, there’s other problems with the story from a journalistic point of view.

First, does it really take three reporters to do a story that brief?

Second, and of more concern, Steno Sue Schmidt is one of the other two reporters.

Anyway, just because it's an ironic observation on Steve’s part, and even though the Journal was shoddy in not identifying Luskin, doesn't mean that Luskin's — and Brand’s — observation still isn't true.

I mean, Blago’s been under some sort of investigation for two years now, and is already lawyered up. As if he’s not already tailoring his story.

And, Benen and Foser also overlook the fact that Just.Another.Politician™ had the chance to comment right away, with full disclosure, and chose not to.

Washington Monthly undercuts its own ‘Vote Obama, Vote SCOTUS’ article

And ignores evidence that undercuts the story even further

Stephanie Mencimer directly says, especially when viewed through the lens of business law, Obama will point Stephen Breyer-type Supreme Court justices.

In other words, on economic issues, he’s a Bill Clinton neolib, campaign rhetoric aside.

And, Obama’s legal mentor, Cass Sunstein, is centrist more than liberal. Remember, both were at the University of Chicago, whose economics program has been ground zero for much of the economic thinking that got us into the current mess in the first place.

Some difference.

On other legal issues, one of course should also note these several points:

First, contradicting her claim about a strong difference on church-state issues, Obama is already on record as supporting the expansion of many parts of Bush’s faith-based initiatives program.

Second, on presidential power and power grabs:
• Obama is a "FISA 45 percenter" (the percent of Dems who voted Yes on the FISA bill);
• Obama hasn't exactly been Russ Feingold on decrying presidential signing statements.

All of this says that Obama’s vaunted “constitutional law scholar” credibility, under closer examination, isn’t really what it would seem to be at first glance.

Steve Benen gets Obama’s ‘historicity’ wrong

Sorry, Steve, but contra your breathlessness over the alleged historicity of Barack Obama’s nomination …

Cynthia McKinney beat him by a month.

Benen’s exact quote:

Barack Obama, claiming a prize never held by a black American, swept to the Democratic presidential nomination.

Yes, he’s talking about the Democratic nomination to be technical, but, by putting the adjectival clause first, it seems clear to me Benen is referring to the historicity of the moment in general.

And he’s wrong.

Kevin Drum is a DLCer

This post of his last week, approvingly linking to Tyler Cowan and his claim that immigration doesn’t depress wages – without distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration – was the light-bulb moment.

OK with illegal immigration depressing wages? Hiding that fact by refusing to talk about illegal immigration? Check?

OK with “free” trade but won’t ever talk about fair trade? Check?

An Iraq war hawk who never really has apologized for his stupidity? Check.

Democratic Leadership Council, American neoliberal, however exactly you want to parse it, Drum is it.

Of course, so is his employer.

How WM ever settled on him, I don’t know. Atrios (Duncan Black) has government experience and an economics graduate degree. Josh Marshall had a history master’s and journalism experience before starting TPM. Don’t start me on Orange Satan.

Early winner on Kevin Drum’s worst post of the week

The comments, as well as Kevin’s original post, about the possibility of Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama’s VP are what make this one such a doozy.

Commenters proposing her for SCOTUS. Commenters saying she could run in 2016, imagining that sexism in the MSM and elsewhere would lessen with her being an “old woman” of 68 at that point.

Of course, Kevin ignoring the fact that Clinton’s campaign shoved her name into Obama’s face as part of wondering if she really wants it is interesting enough. And, then, there’s the waste of cyberspace by linking to the latest pro-Hillary inanity from pro-corporate shill Armando.

I'll venture that Clinton supporters like Juliet, a poster over at the WM threat, want to be "stroked." And no, not by Obama himself, but by Obama supporters who don't seem inclined to do that yet. Or possibly ever.

That's exactly what Arachnae is saying.

I don't many will vote for McCain, but, will a fair amount stay home? Yes.

If Vegas gave me odds on a certain percentage, I'd even make a small online bet.

Kevin Drum’s weakest post of the week

Anytime you’re a major-league blogger, non-conservative division, and you turn off comments for a post of yours when you first post it, you know you’re in chicken-hawk, or chickenshit, land, take your pick. (The reason I specified the non-conservative division is that a lot of fairly big conservative blogs don’t allow comments, which says something right there.)

But, since Kevin doesn’t want to hear comments about Megan McArdle, I’ll give him one here:

Aren’t she and Amy Sullivan twins separated at birth? Not by how they look, of course, but their twitty, insufferably-earnest blogging?

And, can’t we do an equivalent of the ancient Roman punishment for treason and tie the two together in a bag with a cock, a viper, and a monkey, and then throw the bag in a river?

Washington Monthly ‘weakest post of the week’ Feb. 17-23

This may become a semi-regular thing, depending on how often Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum can come through in the clutch to deliver an especially squishy post. This week, I was at first looking at one or more of his McCain-Iserman posts, but Saturday, Kevin gave us a clear winner.

With this comment: “It’s worth saying this over and over: insurance companies don’t discriminate because they're evil. They do it because it’s what insurance companies do. It’s a core part of their business, and if they don't do it they'll go belly up,” it’s a no-brainer.

Why have they been getting worse and worse at it, Kevin? Why have they themselves not been admitting the system, as it now stands, is broken for many people not on the money-making end?

Because insurance companies, as currently constituted, are evil, Kevin.

What a squish.