Pat Buchanan said what?

Fortunately, most Anericans don't watch the talking-head political shows. (Thank Providence for small favors.) That's why most of us would return a blank stare if asked for an opinion about Pat Buchanan calling President Obama a "boy" last night. This is a non-story that only the media (and blogs) could love. [Editor's Note: You won't offend me if you stop reading right here. Continuing means you'll never get this time back.] Long story short: In a spirited back and forth, Buchanan referred to Obama as ‘your boy’ to Al Sharpton. “My what? My President, Barack Obama? What did you say?” Sharpton asked, stunned. Buchanan corrected himself: “He’s your boy in the ring.” Sharpton then replied: “He’s nobody’s boy– he’s your president, he’s our president, and that’s what ya’ll don’t get through your head.” Mediaite reported that Sharpton then returned to their debate about ... whatever. But Buchanan likes the checks he gets from his TV gigs. Feeling that he might soon be "squeaking from the freaking" (or "oinking from the boinking," if you prefer) in the liberal press, Buchanan went all mea culpa on MSNBC's Morning Joe today. "Let me clarify," he began. "Some folks took what I said as some kind of slur – none was meant, none was intended, none was delivered." Mediaite, a liberal site, believes him. Buchanan, a paleoconservative, is well-known for his off-color remarks and narrowness of mind. (Clue: He would have voted "nay" on the Emancipation Proclamation.) So, do I believe him? Um, I'll plead the fifth for the sake of comity.

Out-crazy the crazies?

American novelist Henry Miller once said that "there is no salvation in becoming adapted to a world which is crazy." Increasingly, it seems, Democrats disagree. In fact, Jonathan Capeheart says it's time to go all Al Capone on the Republicans (think The Untouchables, Robert De Niro, gangster banquet, baseball bat). To wit: "In the coming fights over the next budget, unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts, I want Obama to show the Republican Party in general and the Tea Party in particular that he isn’t afraid to out-crazy the crazies. If that means vetoing bills, taking the fight to individual districts, shutting down the government, so be it." Has it really come to this? Sadly, Capeheart's "Tony Montana" prescription may be unavoidable. The Republicans are forcing us to make them "say hello" to our "little friend." Amazingly, frustrated Democrats seem ready and able to keep feeding ammo to Scarface, I mean Obama, as they urge him to blast away at Sosa's assassins, I mean, the Tea Partiers. The trouble is, as Henry Miller would agree, we too could end up floating face down in a fountain, the one with the gaudy statue bearing the slogan: "The World is Yours".

Has democracy lost its AAA rating?

Ruth Marcus decries the new normal in Washington: “endless rounds of legislative carjacking” where “[o]ne side wanted the car, had a gun and wasn’t afraid — certainly not afraid enough — to use it. The other had a child in the back seat.” Heck, she writes, even "President Obama questioned whether the country has a “AAA political system to match our AAA rating. If there were a rating agency for political systems, it would be moving to downgrade."

Are liberals their own worst enemy?

For liberals, I'll stipulate that the ground can look distorted when one is perched high aloft on an intellectually- and morally-correct pedestal. But the facts don't lie. A new Pew poll shows 41% of Americans identifying as "conservative" or "very conservative." Only 21% identify as "liberal" or "very liberal".

With that in mind, the Economist observes that "the problem for progressives is that not very many Americans are progressive." The magazine cites Jared Bernstein, a progressive economist who until recently worked for Vice-President Biden: "Those of us who do care about [progressive programmes] will not defeat those who strive to get rid of it all by becoming better tacticians. We will only find success when a majority of Americans agrees with us that government is something worth fighting for."

Kevin Drum echoes the same sentiment: "... I blame the broad liberal community for our failures, not just President Obama. My biggest beef with Obama is the same one I had three years ago, namely that he's never really even tried to move public opinion in a specifically progressive direction. But that hardly even matters unless all the rest of us have laid the groundwork. And we haven't. Wonks, hacks, activists, all of us. We just haven't persuaded the public to support our vision of government. Until we do, the tea party tendency will always be more powerful than we are."

I think all of these critiques of liberals and Obama are fair. (But I also suspect the president, a progressive at heart, may turn to port and go all FDR on us once reelected. Indeed, he'd earn a fitting legacy by finally exorcising Reaganism, the political/economic dogma still chokeholding America's promise.) But American liberals are a thin-skinned bunch. L'Hote’s Freddie DeBoer immediately took umbrage and wonders why the "cosmopolitan globalist liberaltarian" Economist "mocks the American left for thinking that we should try to advance our moral and ideological interests politically." So what if the public is not with us, DeBoer argues. "Shall we give up? [...] You are compelled by conscience, and so you work. Why that deserves mockery, whatever your ideological persuasion, will forever be a mystery to me."

DeBoer is a thoughtful leftist and always worth reading. He's also a covenient avatar for the left (nothing personal, godfather, it's just "bidness"). As such, it's amazing how he (and by extension, the left) habitually misses the point of criticism. No one is saying not to heed Frederick Douglass’ clarion to “agitate." In fact, leftists should double-down in this necessary effort. But talk is cheap. It's time liberals took a basic Peter Drucker axiom to heart: "Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things." Or as any old-school politician might say with tongue in cheek, never underestimate the effectiveness of a straight cash bribe (so to speak). The Tea Party certainly hasn't. So quit whining, lefties, and act. That's the only change I can believe in.

What trolls have wrought

Uncivic (i.e., raving, barbaric) behavior by commenters is the bane of all popular blogs. Talking Points Memo pusblisher Josh Marshall has had enough. He is contemplating banning anonymous commenting. He's conflicted. Yet, he supplies his own answer: "With near total anonymity, all social norms are out the door. People are more insulting, more quick to strike up fights. Quite simply, anti-sociality bears no stigma. So most conversations are cage matches of contending Ids, with everyone else drowned out. Perhaps more perverse still, it makes a lot of quite sensible and civil people into unrestrained ranging crazies." Well, I'd say, the prosecution rests. Go ahead, Josh. Card 'em at the door.

Another inconvenient truth

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." (Abraham Lincoln)

Misery loves company

The president's critics call him “weak and timorous” if not outright cowardly. His actions are "imbecilic" in the face of fanatical opposition. Yet, he does little until "driven to it," his detractors say. One supporter said, "I am heartsick" over his "shambling," her word for dithering. "Nobody believes in him any more.” He'll be a one-term president. Pretty harsh criticism of President Obama, eh? Actually, no. The venomous criticism I cited was spewed at President Abraham Lincoln, circa 1861-65. And misery loves company. For much of his public life, as historian Stephen Oates noted, Lincoln governed under an unrelenting "firestorm of criticism" in his day. Some pundits even called Honest Abe an "infidel." Imagine. Lincoln too was panned for supposedly "leading from behind" (think about his cautious approach to the Emancipation Proclamation). In 1864, Lincoln's reelection too was very much in doubt. It's all eerily familiar. It is a pity that we cannot cut our sitting presidents some slack, esp. the current one. Beyond the yahoos at the political fringes, few doubt Obama's innate abilities or sincerity about fixing what ails us. We all know who the adult in the room is. Gratuitous disparagement of the man is not helpful. In fact, we would do well to remember what Mr. Lincoln once said about tact: "The ability to describe others as they see themselves."

Confessions of a sane liberal

A reader: "I am not enthusiastic about President Obama. I wish he were more confrontational, but I can't abandon my country to the sort of bullies that have been revealed in this debate. If we don't fight for this President (or for another candidate of reason and common sense), then the toxic know-nothingness will have been rewarded! [...] Obama is not a savior. He is not a magician who can magically cause change. But we are adults here, and if we don't fight for a saner group of elected officials, we deserve the misrule that will follow with a President Palin." Amen.

Sulking is not an option

Andrew Sullivan: "The core point is that if you want to disempower the extremists, becoming one is not a long-term option. What Obama is trying to do is represent reason in an age of emotion. The minute he stops doing that will be the moment the Palinites win. Until then, the fight continues. And it maddens me to see so many liberals walk off in a huff." [my italics]

Passion is no substitute for judgment

Conservative thinker David Frum unloads on his brethren: "Republicans and conservatives have worked themselves into a frenzy of rage and contempt for President Barack Obama. ... In their passion, Republicans convinced themselves that the constitutional republic and the free-enterprise system were threatened as never before. Their response? To threaten to blow up the free-enterprise system and wreck the republic unless they gained their point. Republicans have become so gripped by pessimism and panic that they feel they have nothing to lose by rushing into a catastrophe now. But there is a lot to lose, and in these past weeks America nearly lost it. Let's hope that as America steps back from the brink, Republicans remember that it's their job to protect the system, not to smash the system in hopes of building something better from the ruins. That's how student radicals think -- not conservatives."

Great job, Congress! Oh wait ...

As the Washington Monthly notes: "This Congress isn't just unpopular, it's breaking new ground in levels of unpopularity." According to a new CNN poll, only 14% of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job. But I gotta ask: Who the heck are the 14% of folks who think Congress is fabulous? Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I presume their news comes via the Pony Express ― and they're still waiting for it to arrive.

Profiles in Pseudo-Courage

James Oliphant reports that "Bill Clinton says if he were president, he would not hesitate to raise the debt-ceiling himself under authority he argues is granted by the U.S. Constitution." Really? Many if not most scholars -- including Harvard's Laurence Tribe (who once taught a bright young student named Barack Obama) -- think the Big Dog is on very shaky constitutional grounds. Moreover, Clinton's remarks are gratuitous and self-serving. It's easy to wax macho when one's butt is no longer on the hot seat. Clinton had his chance to make a historic presidency. But he left his best work in the sheets. I liked him (sorta) and I supported him (mostly). But I never trusted him. This is why.

2012: Will she or won't she?

Talk about the Comeback Kid. It was good to see Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) back in Congress yesterday. Debbie Wasserman Schultz hit the nail on the head when she observed that her friend has "the heart of a lion." Can Giffords recover sufficiently to run for reelection (either for her current seat or the Senate) in 2012? It may be a bridge too far given the nature of her injury. Aides say "no decision has been made" yet. But this lion-hearted lady obviously has no fear of pushing the envelope of possibilities. I wouldn't be surprised if Giffords goes for it in 2012. After all, as Woody Allen famously put it, "Eighty percent of success is showing up." And Gabby just did.

Never negotiate with 'terrorists'

Joe Biden is wrong. Tea Partiers are not economic terrorists. They just play them convincingly on TV. With that in mind, there's a reason that you never, ever negotiate with folks wearing suicide vests. "It only encourages them," goes the old saw. Which brings us to Joe Nocera's history lesson of the day: "What is astonishing is that both the president and House speaker are claiming that the [debt ceiling] deal will help the economy. Do they really expect us to buy that? We’ve all heard what happened in 1937 when Franklin Roosevelt, believing the Depression was over, tried to rein in federal spending. Cutting spending spiraled the country right back into the Great Depression, where it stayed until the arrival of the stimulus package known as World War II." Kinda scary, huh? The good news is this isn't 1937. The bad news is this isn't 1945 (which brought VE Day).

Obamanesque

"I am a slow walker, but I never walk back." (Abraham Lincoln)

Windy with a chance of baloney

To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, common folk are the best; that's why the Lord made so many of 'em. With that in mind, one of Andrew Sullivan's readers sent in a very interesting note. (Cue Chopin's "Funeral March").

The reader writes: "I got an e-mail from my little sister who does not follow politics closely at all. She was a first time voter in 2008. She is exactly the profile of the type of voter Obama will need again in 2012. Her e-mail to me had the subject line: 'I am done.' I opened the e-mail and she had written only one line: 'I cannot support a President who seems incapable of standing up to bullies.' My sister was not focused on the policy merits of the deal. All she was paying attention to were the atmospherics. ... For someone like her, not a member of the professional left ... to have embraced the meme that this President 'caves' is a terrible thing, I think. The White House should be very worried that she has internalized this impression. It will be difficult (if not impossible) to overcome."

I too have been hearing similar sentiments from "common folk." They wish Obama would emote more. They ask: Is he strong enough to cope with the GOP wolfen? And where's his Superman cape, anyway? The reader's sister reminds me of my own. In early 2008, she was leaning toward Hillary and fretted about Obama's lack of experience. She, like a lot of smart voters then, was under the spell of Hillary's famous "3 A.M. Phone Call" campaign ad. Ten months later, she literally dropped everything to join me at Obama's inauguration. She didn't vote for Hillary.

I'll tackle the Obama emoting thing in a future post (it's complicated, as they say). For now I just say this: Voters easily swayed by the "atmospherics" now will be easily swayed by them in the future. Obama didn't get rolled in the debt fight (Sullivan aptly calls it "Obama's Pyrrhic Defeat"). It just looks that way to low information voters. The Big Game, Election 2012, hasn't started yet. When it does, Mr. Obama will set the record straight, and will do so powerfully. The meme-driven optics will change accordingly. And voters like the reader's sister (or mine) won't be pulling the lever for Romney or Bachmann. Trust me.

Crows with arms

As Andrew Sullivan (whom I owe a hat tip) noted, this is oddly captivating:

"Staring Out The Window" - Fulton Lights from Ninian Doff on Vimeo.

Huntsman thinks Bachmann is hot

Republican (and nearly invisible) candidate Jon Huntsman told New York magazine's John Heilemann that Michele Bachmann "[M]akes for good copy--and good photography." Oops. TPM says the quote came in the context of talk about Bachmann being "more an object of media fascination than a plausible nominee," as Heilemann put it. In our era of super political correctness, Huntsman's remark is ham-fisted. But he's right. One upon a time in a galaxy far far away (i.e., Iowa), Bachmann, 55, was no doubt a head-turner during the babelicious stage of her adulthood. Any fool can see that she is still an attractive woman, esp. in soft-focus. We should all be so lucky. But it's rather amusing how Republican men in late middle age are so obsessed with her physical attributes (ditto for Palin). I wonder what Dr. Freud would say. Anyway, read the entire New York piece here.

Light at the end of the tunnel?

Maybe America really is getting past homophobia after all. And, of all places, this cheeky letter to the editor hails from Texas!

Is news overload killing romance?

The Awl's Jon Methven: Apparently, watching CNN, checking Twitter, refreshing The New York Times' homepage, monitoring online banking [and checking sports scores] during sex is not my wife's idea of "romantic." Heh.

Your Monday Moment of Zen

For penetrating, in-depth analysis of the debt deal, CNN opted to interview - wait for it - The Donald. Time's Joe Klein nearly gagged: "Don’t they have any standards at all over in that corner of Time Warner? I mean the anchor was just saying to Richard Quest [a walking parody of journalism] what a 'circus' this debt ceiling situation was … and then she’s interviewing Donald Trump? I have muted the thing in order to retain my lunch." Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards.

Debt-jacked

TNR's Jon Chait has a pretty good piece about the debt deal. But I chuckled at this line: "Obama should have avoided the hostage scenario, but once he blundered into it, he managed to escape on relatively favorable terms." And just how might Obama have avoided Washington's version of Die Hard? Chait conveniently skips that part. Right now, the Republicans are like the fanatical Russian nationalists in Air Force One. In the movie, the bad guys (led by Gary Oldman) were disguised as journalists and presumed trustworthy. Once airborne, they whipped out the Uzi's and took over the plane. In DC, Republican leaders (disguised as the "loyal" opposition) were presumed sane. Once "airborne" during the debt talks, they too whipped out their Uzi's and took the White House (and America) hostage. But unlike President Harrison Ford, Obama couldn't cue the patriotic goose-bump-inducing soundtrack, mercilessly cut down his GOP nemesis in a blaze of gunfire and dramatically save the day. That's against the law. Which is a pity.

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do

Clarity affords focus. As usual, it takes a political scientist to cut through the debt ceiling bull. In this case, it is Harvard-trained Matthew Dickinson of Middlebury College: "My point is simple. Obama had two imperatives during this fight: prevent a default and get this issue off the table until after 2012. Period. To achieve that he would have gone as far Right as the Democratic Left would allow. And, in the end, he pretty much did and he accomplished his two objectives. In short, this is probably the best deal Obama was going to negotiate. ... I’m not saying Obama handled this flawlessly, although I’m hard pressed to point out obvious specific errors. But the result was always likely to come out pretty much where it did, when it did. I said as much, weeks ago." Once again, Mr. Obama is playing the long game. Optics-wise, the Republicans are the short-term winners. Their hostage-taking approach to policymaking paid dividends. But come 2012, voters will remember the extortion. As the reasonable adult, Obama will emerge as the long-term winner. Yes, winning isn't everything. In the world of politics, to paraphrase the famous riposte, it's the only thing.

A 'Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich'

In a way, the worst part of the debt ceiling deal is the aftermath. Woe is us, cry the pundits. "Obama caved," whines the Professional Left. "A Terrible Deal," lament the newspaper editorials. "Who's up, who's down," laughs POLITICO, cynically stirring the pot. Sadly, most of the righteous indignation will come from Mr. Obama's left flank. It's so tiresome.

Fortunately, Slate's David Weigel has done political observers a huge favor. With great wit, he perfectly captures the tone of left wing outrage ― so we don't have to. This cheeky bit says it all:

My Angry Debt Deal Denunciation! [insert byline here]: "I am [outraged/fed up/fixin’ to vomit] at the news of this [sellout/betrayal/Chekovian drama of political adultery]. While I have yet to see all the details of this plan, it may be the worst piece of legislation since [the Kansas/Nebraska compromise/the Enabling Act/the one that renamed a rest stop in New Jersey after Howard Stern]. We all agree that the deficit needs to be reduced, but it should not be done [on the backs of our seniors/in the dead of night/until we reach 4 percent unemployment again]. Instead, we Democrats are being asked to support a [Satan sandwich/Hitler hoagie/bin Laden banh mi], with a [mayonnaise of betrayal/chipotle glaze of mistrust/pesto of austerity]. If this is passed, our president – whom I [supported/strongly supported/had to suck it up and support, even though I liked Hillary Clinton and saw all this crap coming, because if I didn’t the Daily Kos comment section would have made me out to be a racist, and I’m totally not] – risks becoming a new [Jimmy Carter/Grover Cleveland/Emperor Palpatine]. Let’s [go back to the drawing board/head back to the table/find some new sand, draw a line in it, and borrow a can from my friend Bruce that we can kick around]. America can do [better than/slightly better than/not quite as terrible as] this."

Heh. Enough said. Scanning the papers today, the only sensible assessment came from the Washington Post editorial board: "THIS CIRCUS has lasted way too long." No kidding. By the way, if it's going to keep you up nights not knowing the details of the deal Obama cut, the New York Times' Nate Silver has a very balanced take. Sweet dreams.

Wake me when it's over, dude

Like most Americans, I have one word for the debt ceiling debate: B-O-R-I-N-G. The media (read: cable news and the blogs) have insisted on treating this issue like the Battle of Gettysburg. Yes, the larger political issue is government largesse verses austerity (we're headed for the latter). And yes, the recent machinations in DC do constitute history. But it's mostly been an undignified catfight over accounting methods. The stuff of fond memories it ain't. "Honey, remember the day when Obama and the Congress reached a deal on the US debt ceiling back in 2011? Feels like it was just yesterday." Right. As I noted weeks ago, the US would not shoot itself in the head and default. A deal would be cut. And it would be ugly. Check. Check. And check. In Washington, both sides are bitterly complaining that the deal sucks. That's means it's a halfway decent deal (for now). Yes, that's a cliché. But that fact makes it no less true.