Good Job

The job numbers released on Friday were uniformly good news for the economy.  Employment was revised upward for November and December, and January saw the addition of 243,000 jobs and another drop in the unemployment rate to 8.3%.

This led to the highest stock market total since before the Great Recession began in 2008, and the highest NASDAQ (tech stocks) in 11 years, since 2000.

At the Washington Post Ezra Klein concluded: "The bottom line is that this isn’t just a good jobs report. It’s a recovery jobs report. It’s showing the sort of numbers that win elections."

Rightward Politico quotes a banker: "We appear finally to be in an economy where hiring begets spending, which begets corporate profits, which begets hiring. That’s the virtuous cycle we need.”

 All the internals of the jobs report were good, as jobs were added in all sectors. Though President Obama warned that these numbers "will go up and down" in the coming months, he challenged Congress to feed the recovery and don't "muck it up."  That certainly means passing the middle class tax cut extension and it also means other programs such as the ones for returning veterans
he announced Friday.

Whenever there was an economic downturn, my father would say the same thing: they oughta revive the CCC.  In his 20s he worked in the Civil Conservation Corps and its successor, as the Great Depression met World War II.  Now after all these years he may get his wish: President Obama has proposed a new CCC of sorts, but brilliantly--in political as well as economic terms--he's made it for veterans.  Plus other proposals involve supporting local firefighters (as in Arlington VA, where he spoke on Friday) and others who are endangered by state and local budget cutbacks.  Here's the White House release on the subject:

"First, President Obama is working to help state and local communities hire veterans to work as first responders. The administration will make available $166 million in 2012 Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Grant funding and $320 million in 2012 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants and award that money with a preference to communities that recruit and hire post-9/11 veterans. The President's budget for the 2013 fiscal year will include additional $5 billion for these grant programs.

Second, the President is working to develop a Veterans Job Corps conservation program that will put up to 20,000 veterans to work over the next five years. They'll work to restore habitats, eradicate invasive species, maintain public lands, and operate public facilities.

Third, President Obama wants to expand entrepreneurship training opportunities for service members and veterans. Back in August, the Administration established a two-day course in entrepreneurship as part of the Transition Assistance Program with the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, along with the Small Business Administration. The SBA also offers an eight week online training program that will teach the fundamentals of small business ownership to more than 10,000 veterans every year."

"I'm Crazy and I'm Right"

Presenting Rick Sanctimonious in the  funniest Bad Lip Reading video since Michelle Bachmann.

The Circus of Overreach

Sometimes the circus act more than fills the big top--it's over the top, and the tent collapses.  That may be happening now, as the extent of overreach becomes obvious. It's becoming especially obvious in the fatal mixture of big money politics by the obscenely wealthy and Rabid Right ideological politics.

For example, the Religious Right Meets Class War of money for poor women's health in a society that makes health depend on wealth. The reaction from the Susan B. Komen Foundation decision to stop its longstanding financial support for Planned Parenthood breast cancer screenings continued to get even stronger on Thursday, with several prominent resignations from the Foundation, protests from U.S. Senators and many individuals--and this story that fleshes out the right wing political agenda behind the foundation's act.  Friday Update: It appears that the Foundation has reconsidered and will continue funding the Planned Parenthood screening programs, although some warn that it's not clear how solid this commitment is now.

The continuing influence of money on political policy got the curtain torn back in Florida on Thursday.  Florida is just one of the states where an extreme Tevangelical plus Big Money agenda has been trying to destroy political, organizing and women's rights since that combination took over their governments in 2010.  It is distinguished only by how the obscenely wealthy Rick Scott (probably the wealthiest pol short of Rich Richney) bought the governorship with his own millions.  And now it has revealed just how organized the changes in these states have been.   The rightward American Legislative Council has been providing direction and "model bills," but though their influence has been hotly denied, that's going to be harder when a Florida legislator forgot to remove their mission statement from their template bill that she introduced as her own.

In the GOPer presidential circus, news organizations continue to study the report of superpac donors, fleshing out the extent to which just a few of the obscenely wealthy--just 41, by one count--are supplying Richney's millions.  But in a revelation that surprisingly didn't get headlines Thursday, the Richney campaign has 14 lobbyists bundling cash for his campaign, including at least one who lobbies for foreign nations--including a Middle Eastern oil-producing member of OPEC.   So big foreign money buying access and self-interest joins big corporate money and big money in general in trying to buy the U.S. presidency.

Richney is easy enough to parody, simply by sticking to the facts: "you and a few buddies with names like T. Coleman Andrews III made pots of dough by starting up a venture-capital firm with other people’s moolah and then spent the rest of your life living off the "carried interest" proceeds at a low, low, low tax rate of 15 percent, upgrading your $12 million vacation home in the ritzy San Diego suburb of La Jolla and running for president because you can’t get elected to any other office..."

It could be that Richney is getting so defined right now that he won't be able to overcome this impression later.  But a lot can happen, and a lot of bucks are yet to happen. Big money, already way too influential, is trying to buy the place outright, and that campaign is just getting started.

To Whom Much Is Given

Things have changed a lot since I was a student at Sacred Heart School, St. Paul's School, the Most Blessed Sacrament Cathedral School and Greensburg Central Catholic High School.  Though I'm no longer intimately acquainted with it, it seems the American Catholic Church has changed, and the role of religion in politics has vastly changed.  When I was at Central Catholic, the second Catholic in the history of the U.S. to be nominated for President, Senator John F. Kennedy, made a major speech to Protestant clergy asserting that, no, he wasn't going to take orders from the Pope, that he was not going to let his religious affiliation interfere with his oath as President of all the people.  Today, presidential candidates seemingly must prove that they will take orders from their religious affiliation in order to qualify for office.  That's not just a little different.

The Catholic Church's doctrine on contraception hasn't changed, though perhaps their attitudes towards it and other such issues has.  (It was also then, as it is now, the most widely ignored ban among Catholics.)  The federal government decision on requiring American hospitals and other health care institutions caring for the general public, regardless of the institution's religious affiliation must offer insurance that covers contraception I believe one that would have been understood in the Catholicism of my youth.  We used to hear the phrase, you can't legislate morality.  That a Catholic hospital is required to cover contraception services does not require anyone to accept those services if they violate their religious beliefs.  Sin, forgiveness and redemption are individual matters, for freedom to sin or not to sin under any circumstances is pretty the whole point.  (For other views on this recent policy decision, here are some collected by Andrew Sullivan, himself a Catholic, with links to even more discussion.)

In the Catholicism of my youth--and to some extent today as well--there were different degrees of emphasis on moral lessons derived from the teachings of Christ and his disciples, leading to different approaches to public policy and action.  But major lessons were felt to support what may be considered "liberal" policies (and "liberal" was an acceptable and often admirable description then, particularly in the years of Pope John XXIII, one of the great voices of the 20th century.)

I mention this now because the major lessons President Obama described as the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday that drew from his Christian faith were lessons I learned then, through Catholic teaching.  They remain bedrocks for me, especially as they are supported by so many other teachings,  from many religions as well as from ethics that require no divine authority.   Yet these moral statements were either dismissed or ignored, or interpreted only in the politics of Washington.

Love your neighbor as yourself, and the action program resulting from that--otherwise known as the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount--and "the least of these," as well as the verse President Kennedy quoted--"To whom much is given, much is required"--were commonplace in my Catholic education.  Are they so radical now?

There's no question that they are relevant to the moment--that's the point of moral standards, that you apply them to situations of the moment.  And President Obama did that in talking about them, as he said that he does in informing his actions.  The video of this speech speaks volumes.  Wearing soft brown in contrast to his usual dark blue or black, the President was speaking from the heart--speaking strongly, but seeming to know how vulnerable he was being.

Dorothy Day

"We can’t leave our values at the door. If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel -- the majority of great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis, or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action -- sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance."

Dorothy Day--how brave to mention her, and a radical Catholicism that eclipsed even mine in high school, though for some reason a subscription to her newspaper that I never bought, The Catholic Worker, followed me from residence to residence for years. The others he named suggest how his faith informed his community organizing days, and vice versa.  But it is equally important that with each example from the Christian Bible he gave, President Obama noted parallels in other religions (although he neglected to mention the very strong Buddhist call for compassion.) 

"Treating others as you want to be treated. Requiring much from those who have been given so much. Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old. They can be found in many denominations and many faiths, among many believers and among many non-believers. And they are values that have always made this country great -- when we live up to them; when we don’t just give lip service to them; when we don’t just talk about them one day a year."

He began his remarks with a plea for the relevance of these ethics rather than parading political affiliations with particular ideologies endorsed by particular religious groups. "At a time when it’s easy to lose ourselves in the rush and clamor of our own lives, or get caught up in the noise and rancor that too often passes as politics today, these moments of prayer slow us down. They humble us. They remind us that no matter how much responsibility we have, how fancy our titles, how much power we think we hold, we are imperfect vessels. We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to Him. Avoiding phony religiosity..." 

The heart of his message, simple and yet complex in its rejection of a certain kind of religiosity while grounding his moral beliefs in his faith:

"Now, we can earnestly seek to see these values lived out in our politics and our policies, and we can earnestly disagree on the best way to achieve these values. In the words of C.S. Lewis, “Christianity has not, and does not profess to have a detailed political program. It is meant for all men at all times, and the particular program which suited one place or time would not suit another.”

Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us. Michelle reminds me of this often. (Laughter.) So instead, it is our hope that people of goodwill can pursue their values and common ground and the common good as best they know how, with respect for each other. And I have to say that sometimes we talk about respect, but we don’t act with respect towards each other during the course of these debates.

But each and every day, for many in this room, the biblical injunctions are not just words, they are also deeds. Every single day, in different ways, so many of you are living out your faith in service to others."

Though I do not share his faith, I share his values, and I recognize their grounding in the Catholic teachings that informed JFK and--though he was either ridiculed or ignored for his statements on faith and works--Senator John Kerry when he ran for President in 2004. 

Certain clergy were asserting that the Constitution is a Protestant document (another way of saying that America is a "Christian" nation within their narrow definition of Christianity) during JFK's campaign in 1960.  Catholics in those days largely saw the separation of church and state as protecting them.  Now it is being challenged in ways I wouldn't have believed possible, with the Catholic Church among the challengers.  But these so-called religious wars should not distort or distract from the moral basis of our public life.

You know what day it is---no, not that one, Bill Murray fans.  It's James Joyce's birthday, of course.

Never heard of him?  Well, you've heard of him, but...With Ulysses, Finnegans Wake and the books more people are likely to have actually read, A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man and Dubliners, he was once revered as the greatest writer of the modern age.  But his reputation has been in something of an eclipse.  That's partly been due to his own descendants, or at least the ones controlling his estate.  They've apparently raised litigiousness to a high modernist art.  They've reputedly tried to stop or control every excerpt, quote, fact, observation or mention of his name for years.  I read somewhere that his work was dropped from an important anthology of Irish prose because of their mercurial demands.  They apparently drove the scholarly biographer of his daughter Lucia half mad, and seriously weakened her otherwise excellent book--and then they sued her anyway.  That she finally won may or may not have slowed them down.

Joyce did enter popular culture for awhile, with the many Bloomsday readings in June.  And reputedly the family put a stop to that.  Notice I keep saying reputedly.  They've reputedly intimidated everybody, and may have intimidated away their future income in the process.

 It may well be that Ulysses is not the greatest novel of the 20th century after all.  Then again, we're in a philistine age.  A Portrait of the Artist will always remain an important book to me, personally and as a writer.  I revered his dedication to his craft, as chronicled with such grace in the classic Richard Ellman biography.  Now there's a new biography, which sounds pretty awful.  There really aren't many good new literary biographies.

 Maybe Joyce's example did me more harm than good, but so what?  His birthday was important to Joyce--he tried to schedule the publication of his books for this date, and I believe he succeeded with Ulysses at least.   So even if he screwed up my life, got me drunk too often and encouraged me to stay poor, while setting standards I couldn't match so I never published even a little novel. He still was a friend.  So happy birthday, James.  Your day will come again.

Rich Richney and His Class War

How rich is he?  Double the combined fortunes of the last eight Presidents.  But it's not just money.  He's rich in his soul.  And not in a good way.  In the eye of a needle way.  Tough to get into heaven.  Richney can't even get to Earth.

Rich Richney, the likely GOPer candidate for Prez, thinks rich.  This means that he lives in a world where it is accepted, in fact expected, that he would structure a $100 million trust fund for his sons so exactly zero taxes would be paid on it, in defiance of the U.S. gift and inheritance taxes that lesser mortals (including mere millionaires) must pay.

Rich Richney has the eyes and heart of extreme wealth.  He managed to mangle his post-Florida message  about being for the middle class with the immortal statement, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."  It could be called a kind of Freudian slip, except that he repeated it.  Twice.

But the GOPer class war for which Richney is the poster boy goes beyond Richney's announced tax reforms, which would mainly benefit him and his insulatedly superrich ilk.  For example, another Wednesday story that seemed to be about the culture war, or the war against women: the major foundation (run by a GOPer, the senior vp of which is a Rabid Right pol) that cut off funds to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening.  Of course it is Rabid Right politics and culture war and war against women, but it is also and perhaps more basically class war.  Because rich women will still get their breast cancer screenings.  They don't need Planned Parenthood. The women who won't get breast cancer screenings are poor women who depend on Planned Parenthood--but who don't concern Rich Richney.  Class war is a subtext elsewhere as well.

Not that all this is new.  We've been here before.  Only now much, much worse, and getting worse than that.

Superpacs reporting their funding sources showed many million dollar donations to Richney's superpacs, especially from the Wall Street class.  They helped Richney crush the otherwise execrable but merely sort of rich Casino Newt with three or four times the few millions Newt got from his sole Casino daddy (who is himself so rich, somebody figured out, that the $10 million he threw Newt's way works out to be a proportion of his income that for someone making the U.S. average would amount to $45.)  Brute money as brute force.  Welcome to Obscenely Rich Guys United.

The class war of the Richney class, which plays the poor GOPer Tevangelical base like a fiddle (a base fiddle?), adds geometrically greater warping to the already skewed values of our decadent "democracy."  The rich may be different from you and me.  But the Richney rich are different from you and me and the Vulcans and Klingons. 

How all this plays out is described in this classic commentary by Lawrence O'Donnell, which uses an interlocking tale involving American Airlines, pensions, the federal government, and Bain Capital to expose the values universe we're trying to navigate.            

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Enjoy Your Planet

Yosemite HD from Project Yosemite on Vimeo.

As part of our after-circus cleansing, here's this video.  It's pretty spectacular full screen, the bigger the better.  Personally the time lapse was sometimes too much--I'd rather linger in some of those spots, with this gorgeous resolution.  But when it gets to the meteor shower--well, the experience wouldn't be the same without the waiting in the cold, the looking in the wrong place and looking back too late, the sudden surprise, the hot tea, etc. but I have to say, it was very satisfying to see a night's worth of shower in this compressed form.  Anyway, enjoy your planet.

At the Circus: Total War

With a turnout lower than the last presidential primary, Florida GOPers favored juggler Richie Richney over high wire artiste Casino Newt.  About 40% of Richney's voters also wished for a different candidate.  Newt Gingles took the Tevangelical north of the state, while Richney prospered in places that will probably go Dem in the general.

But the move of the night was Gingles talking about his Inauguration Day, unveiling "46 States to Go" signs, and failing to congratulate Richney in his speech, or concede that Richney had won, or to call Richney afterwards.  In case you didn't get the message, that's tripling down on common courtesies he meaningfully violated.

Richney slimed Gingles with $16 million in negative ads ( over 90% were negative, and less than 1% made any positive case for Richney.) It was an ultra rich man's demonstration of the power of money to destroy someone (It turns out that Richney is twice as rich as the last eight U.S. Presidents were at their richest, put together.)  It's the cynical horror to teach a merely rich man like Gingles where the real power is.

 Gingles clearly is in no mood to forgive or forget.  If there was doubt that the revenge thesis offered yesterday by several pundits was accurate, it's looking pretty certain now.  Gingles got the deeply Rabid Right vote, did his racist dog whistles in his speech to further confirm his hold on the Grand Old Confederate White Southerners Party, which votes on Super Tuesday in March.  By asserting that this was a campaign of People vs. Money, he signaled that even if the Casino millions falter, he'll keep going, debate by debate.  Rick Sanctimonious and Ron St. Paul seem comfortable in staying in the race as well.

Though some MSNBC commentators thought Gingles was suggesting he might run anyway if the GOPers don't nominate him, I'm less certain of that--he spent the first part of his speech talking about the need to have a conservative GOPer majority in Congress.  But it is hard to see Gingles endorsing Richney. Even former McCain pro Steve Schmidt, not exactly a raver, predicted that the nomination process was now "total war" in the GOP.

Now the action goes to arcane caucuses,  maybe leaving a few weeks for circus goers to wipe the elephant shit off their faces.  On the other hand, this is a circus without limits--it probably doesn't even seem all that weird anymore than FOX news would slime the latest Muppet movie for being anti-capitalist, and the latest critique of the credibility of FOX News would come from Miss Piggy.      

Pet Sounds

People's feelings about each other are often conflicted.  But people's feelings about their pet animals mostly are not. They may have complex feelings about their dogs or cats, but mostly those feelings are strong, direct and pure.  Especially under stress, almost everything can come down to that relationship---as it did in this story about a young actor who felt forced to have his dog put down, and soon after ended his own life.

  People have very direct relationships with their pets, and they tend to judge other people on how they behave towards pet animals. So while the politics of pets is presented lightly, people don't take the topic lightly.  It's a test of basic humanity.

The story of Mitt Romney's summer vacation many years ago has been quietly making the rounds.  He drove 12 hours with his family in the car, and the family dog in an air-tight carrier on top of the car.  The dog got sick, and his diarrhea dripped down the car windows, so Romney pulled off the highway at a gas station, hosed down the car and the dog in the carrier, and resumed driving.

The reaction has been growing, with stories often referring to this Dogs Against Romney website. 

That was the context when David Axlerod tweeted a photo of President Obama with his dog Bo with the message, "How loving owners transport their dogs." 

Cute, right?  But another story suggests how potentially powerful this really is--a story of wanton cruelty that explains the mindset of the Rabid Right to those who don't get it when illustrated by stories involving just people, or even less impressive, politicians.  I won't reproduce the photo here, but it's in the story: the children of a campaign manager for an Arkansas Democratic congressional candidate came home to discover their pet cat dead on their front porch, obviously murdered (the story gives the graphic details) and with the word "liberal"written across its body.

What this says about what humans are capable of is depressing enough, or how far we have not come in being civilized and empathetic.  But the message of where Rabid Right politics are is pretty clear.  It says it for some people perhaps even more directly than attempted assassination, or the vile and racist words of Republican officials including their party chair, or the implications of the cruel policies these folks favor. 

How we treat animals is often better than how we treat each other, and certainly better than we treat the rest of life and the future of life on this planet that provides us with our life.  So the effects of certain policies and beliefs, as well as the hearts of those that sell them, is exposed through attitudes and behavior towards the pets that bless us with their presence.      
  

At the Circus: Now It's Personal

His Romneyness is ending his Florida campaign with triumphant condescension, while Casino Newt is continuously livid.  Though some observers suggest the race has tightened in the past 48 hours (the final tracking poll has Romney's margin down to single digits from the 10 to 15 points most recent polls average) it seems that the relentless attacks on Gingles have again taken their toll.

And it has been one seriously ugly circus down there.  Romney spent 16 million dollars trashing Gingles, who spent 5 million dollars trashing Romney.  Romney had five media ads for every one of Newt's.  He trashed Newt in person as well as through his superpac millions.  And Newt is not taking it well.  By several accounts, it's gotten personal.  No fellow candidate has ever expressed much affection for Romney, but Newt is channeling as much hate as he can possibly muster for a white non-Democratic non-President. 

So despite the expected Florida loss, Gingles has vowed to go on to the convention--and though all candidates say this, John Heilemann suggests he means it, for one central reason : "so much has he come to despise Romney and the Republican Establishment that has brought down on him a twenty-ton shithammer in Florida, and so convinced is he of his own Churchillian greatness and world-historical destiny. The same antic, manic, lunatic bloody-mindedness that has made him such a rotten candidate in the Sunshine State may be enough to keep him the race a good long time."   Chris Matthews at MSNBC expects Casino Newt to stay in "long enough to exact revenge."

Though the "establishment" attacks were fierce again last week, they may have goosed Tea Party types to coalesce around Gingles.  Herman Koch-Cain endorsed him, as did Queen Sarah and her chancellor/court jester Todd.  She even said something about Romney being Stalinistic.

So two things are happening here: the Final Conflict between the establishment GOP and the Tevangelist neolithic conservative GOPers, and since these folks are so used to scorched earth tactics and getting off on Armageddon, it could be like Biblical.  That's unlikely to enhance their chances in November.

The second thing is already hurting them, in poll after poll: the mudfest, plus the actual mud they are feasting on, is sending negative ratings for all the candidates and GOPers in general soaring.  Not to flip flop or anything but soaring negatives means positives falling down down down, all the way to hell. 

The Dreaming Up Daily Quote

"We shall never achieve harmony with the land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people.  In these higher aspirations the important thing is not to achieve, but to strive."

Aldo Leopold

photo: NASA's latest hi def photo of Planet Earth, which scientists believe may harbor intelligent life.  In the oceans anyway.  The top land animal is rubbish.

Circus Weekend: Mr. Inevitable Returns!

Once again by popular demand in the center ring of the GOPer circus here in downtown Florida for only four more days: he goes up, he goes down, but he's back (maybe): MR. INEVITABLE!

Yes, circus fans, Mr. Inevitable is back!  A new and even fiercer fusillade of fire from da Establishment, which these days apparently includes not only Bob Dole but Drudge and talk radio (except for Rush) against high-flying Gingles climaxed on Thursday, but fear not!  The daring old man on the flying trapeze had his best act coming up: another GOPer debate!  On CNN with a loud audience!

But a funny thing happened on the way to the presidency by acclamation: Casino Newt fell off the high wire and down down down.  At least according to all the live bloggers, the dead bloggers and that guldurn media in general.  They all gave the fight to his Romneyness, who moreover won this time not by default, but by punching, landing blows, etc. etc.  as the metaphor quickly breaks down.

So promptly on Friday the latest round of polls showed Romney in the lead, by around 9 points.  So that's it, it's over!  Romney will win FLA and the nomination! Mr. Inevitable!  It's all over but the counting!

  But wait! Haven't we heard the Mr. Inevitable cry before?  The election isn't until Tuesday!  Sort of (lots of absentee and early voting in FLA, so...who knows?)  Anyway, there's time for more spills and chills and thrills and above all, comedy.

Here's what we do know: Romney got credit for besting Gingles by relentlessly attacking him.  That may have indeed destroyed Gingles in FLA, and deeply wounded his candidacy (though some suggest Gingles can survive and win more primaries in the South.)  But it did nothing for his Romneyness.

In fact, the more Romney talks, the more questions are raised, the more lies are lied and exposed, and the more his negatives go up.  What has particularly hurt him and may stick to him and haunt him the rest of the way is being the poster boy for rich guys who don't pay their fair share in taxes--which is going over really badly.

Here's the joke that is supposed to be true. Newt: Why do people dislke me so
instantly?  Dole: It saves them time. 

Gingles meanwhile feels even more aggrieved and is launching fresh aggressive attacks on Romney.  So this weekend here is what Romney faces: new charges on his involvement in a company convicted of Medicare fraud, from both Gingles on FLA TV--and the Democratic National Committee.

Meanwhile the economic news continues to be good and President Obama is solidifying the Democratic coalition.  He told Dem House members that they should work with Rs to pass needed laws but "Where they obstruct, where they’re unwilling to act, where they’re more interested in party than they are in country, more interested in the next election than the next generation, then we’ve got to call them out on it,” Obama said. “We’ve got to call them out on it. We’ve got to push them. We can’t wait. We can’t be held back.”

But back to the circus. Rick Sanctimonious reputedly had a good debate, but he's so far back in the polls and so close to broke that he's taking the weekend off and leaving FLA.  Ron St. Paul has hardly been in FLA at all except for debates, but he's made news when a Washington Post story quotes folks who were involved claiming that he indeed approved those racist newsletters--he even proofread them.

So here's how it looks now: Gingles' latest rise energized the Rabid Right, they got a taste of triumph but if Romney takes the nom now, they are going to be very aggrieved.  But it seems unlikely they could agree on a third party candidate (Trump?  Hermaniac Cain? Sarah?) so it seems more than possible to me that a lot of them will just stay home in November.

Update: Speaking of Queen Sarah, here's what she had to say Saturday about Mr. Inevitable getting the nom too soon: "Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up."

But there's plenty of circus still ahead.  War on the Sunday shows,  FLA will arise groggy by TV ad onslaughts to vote Tuesday, and the pundits will dance, dance, dance!        

Light Show

The latest solar storm did its worst on Wednesday, with apparently little effect other than creating some spectacular northern lights, as here in Norway, in a photo by scanpix.

State of the State of the Union

On Wednesday, the conventional pundit wisdom (cpw) changed a little on the State of the Union, as available evidence came in that non-pundits liked it.  (Even Andrew Sullivan reconsidered and recanted some.) 

For example, the results of a CBS News poll: 91% of viewers surveyed approved of the policies President Obama proposed and discussed.  The pool for the poll was 45% Dems, 25% Rs, the rest presumably that amorphous group discussed as if it were a real identity: Independents.  Since Dems were more likely to watch the Dem prez, this rating suggests the base is solid, but this was statistical verification of anecdotals on various sites that suggested that the speech had broad appeal, even to some conservatives.  The poll details are full of good news for Obama, with big jumps in approval for his approach to the economy, jobs, even his health care law.

A couple of other followups: it became part of the cpw today that Obama said nothing about health care.  It's true he didn't single it out, but he also never mentioned the Recovery Act by name--just its effects.  He also mentioned the first effects--being felt now-- of the health care law, much of which hasn't yet taken effect.  And he did so in a context that said he was resisting the calls for its repeal: "I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny your coverage, or charge women differently than men." 

But in my summary last night I left out one conspicuous and important set of statements: where President Obama explicitly described the accomplishments of his administration.  And these were some of the most effective passages.  They told Democrats that he was going to defend his record, and that he could effectively communicate that narrative.  They told people who had been under the spell of the FOX version of reality that a lot has been accomplished.

It's seemed to me that the obfuscations and outright lies told by GOPer pols and their media overlords provided an interesting opportunity for the Obama campaign, once the country is paying attention.  If Obama and his campaign could tell the story of his accomplishments, of the promises kept, then to much of America it would be a new story, an eye-opening one.  So I consider the State of the Union a preview, and a boost of confidence to Dems, because President Obama clearly can tell that story effectively.

And as it turns out, so can Joe Biden, who summarized it in tweetspeak: Osama bin Laden is dead, General Motors is alive.

But it turns out the evening wasn't complete. Before the speech, President Obama made the decision to send in a Navy Seal team to rescue two hostages from Somali pirates.  The opportunity was there, and the health of the Danish man was deteriorating.  The team was parachuted in, they engaged and killed the captors with no injuries, and the hostages were helicoptered out.

The mission was underway during the speech, although the rescue itself had apparently happened, because President Obama was seen congratulating Secretary of Defense Panetta. After the speech, when the mission was completed, President Obama (with Michelle at his side: see photo) phoned the father of the American woman who was rescued, to tell him his daughter was safe.

One of the most moving moments at the Capitol was President Obama embracing Gabrielle Gifford before his speech.  As the L.A. Times story notes, it was both a welcome back to Giffords, and, for now at least, a farewell, as she leaves Congress to concentrate on her recovery from gunshot wounds.

It wasn't the only notable embrace.  The other was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who lifted her arms to embrace the President.  Could it be that she feels she might be attending her last State of the Union?  In any case, it was clearly a significant moment for her.

Here's video of Gifford's moment with President Obama.

Build to Last

The theme of President Obama's third State of the Union address could be characterized in various ways, but to me it was about building--not winning, but building the future.

 " Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded."

He invoked the period of building after World War II, when government managed the transition from a wartime economy and used both the wartime spirit and the experience of using public funds to create public good that would serve the people and private enterprise: the GI Bill, the housing and highway programs.

Later he invoked the Depression programs, when as Rachel Maddow has so eloquently said, America built its way out of economic collapse.  He even used an example right out of her promos: Hoover dam.  He talked about building infrastructure, about building cars, about rebuilding the middle class.

But his proposals demonstrated an appreciation for political realities.  Despite the equal appreciation of electoral politics, the proposals he specifically made were incremental and should be doable.  But he did not stake everything on possible if unlikely action by Congress this year.  In each area he named an action he will do by executive order, or by federal administration initiative working directly with states, private companies, other countries. 

President Obama began and ended his address with reference to the war in Iraq and the raid resulting in the death of Osama bin Laden.  Aside from the not exactly accidental reminders of his two most impressive achievements with the electorate, he used these as a metaphor for the country working together, regardless of differences, on the same mission.  He began:

"These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. "

He ended: "No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we are joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong."

The theme of working together and the theme of fairness are intertwined.  Only a country where the fruits of effort are fairly shared can truly be one nation, working for the good of each and all.

 The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. (Applause.) What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.

Casting this characteristic theme with this new metaphor was more than a connection to his famous 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention--it expressed the same conviction.  If you simply listen to this State of the Union, you may well hear what I heard: the strong resemblance to what that 2004 speech sounded like, even in vocal delivery. 

But this time he is President, and his call for collaboration was accompanied by strong statements of where he stands and what he will and will not do. Noting the hard choices and tough fights that resulted in coming back this far from the realities and the further threats of the Great Recession:

And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. 

He proposed measures to further encourage the expansion of American manufacturing, and trade. " I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules."

He emphasized the need and the great advantages of  rebuilding American infrastructure, something the two parties used to agree on as obvious.  Not any more, but he isn't going to wait. "In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home."

He made specific proposals on education, job training, immigration reform and research and development. He made proposals on energy, both fossil fuel and green energy.  " But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy...  I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs."

He asked for congressional action, but announced his own executive actions: expansion of green energy projects on public lands, and through the U.S. armed forces.

He proposed reforms to make refinancing mortgages easier.  "A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit and will give those banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.  Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody."

He spoke about our broken politics in blunt language: "The greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?"

He talked about government regulations, about getting rid of the dumb ones, but he defended the ones that worked, especially in regulating the financial industry, and now consumer protection. "So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail – because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again."

And he announced a new administrative initiative: "And tonight, I’m asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorney general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. (Applause.) This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans."

The part of his speech that seemed most topical (given Mitt Romney releasing his tax returns on Tues, and the bitter charges on the GOPer campaign trail) and will probably be the most discussed had to do with taxes.  President Obama first called on Congress to extend the middle class tax cut for the year, without drama and without strings attached.  He called for the end of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  He proposed that the tax rate on an annual income above one million dollars be no lower than 30%.  (Mitt Romney paid less than 14% on his $21 million income, or less than half the rate that middle class Americans pay.)  And he made the case for these policies:

" We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get a tax break I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference -- like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know that’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to the future of their country, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last. (Applause.)

He talked about reforming the federal government, consolidating executive departments and functions, and also fixing Congress so that a majority in the Senate can actually pass something.  He decried the influence of money in Washington and politics.  He made modest proposals in both areas, but the White House announced that other actions will be proposed as well.

He spoke then in more detail about America's position in the world, and defended his administration's approach, both with detail and with this withering assertion: "From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about."

In terms of response, one focus group noted by the LA Times was broadly positive about the speech and its proposals, across the political spectrum. But the full influence of this State of the Union won't be fully known until November.  Pundits pointed out that few of these speeches immediately move public opinion, though a surprising amount of legislation does emanate from them.  In a campaign year, the influence of this speech may well be in the soundbites that get amplified in campaign ads.

Pundits were generally unenthusiastic and mostly cynical about the speech.  Notably, Andrew Sullivan--author of "The Long Game" Newsweek article defending Obama--was bitterly disappointed.  Political pundits felt it was all too poll tested, but also made the contradictory observations that it was all a campaign speech and not geared to doable legislation, and that it was too conservative as a grand goal-setting visionary campaign speech, and too much of a laundry list of proposed legislation.

One dissident to this early pundit consensus (aside from the commentators on MSNBC)  was Sahil Kapur who wrote at TPM: "The prescriptions lay out a decidedly progressive vision of government."

Pundits admitted however that in contrast to the GOPer nominees, President Obama was more authoritative, eloquent, presidential and optimistic.  The speech arrived on a day that poll numbers show the truth of Lawrence O'Donnell's quip last night that Republicans are about to nominate a candidate who can't defeat President Obama--they just don't know his name yet: both the major GOPer contenders are slipping badly with the electorate, particularly independents.  But though conventional pundit wisdom says that the more optimistic candidate usually wins, GOPers are clearly betting on disaffection and anger (Mitch Daniels so-called rebuttal echoed the GOPer candidates in this.) 

The economic news continues to be good, especially rising consumer confidence.  But the recovery is fragile, and so is the world economy.  Europe is still lurching towards a possible crisis, and disarray in the Middle East--particularly Iran--could still send oil prices into the stratosphere.  Even so, though I recognize that my perceptions are not necessarily shared by the US electorate, I can't see how anyone could witness this speech after witnessing a GOPer debate, and conclude anything but that in bad times as well as getting better, the presidency can only be safely entrusted to Barack Obama.

Here is a video of highlights from the speech, and another of the specific proposals.   Here's the official transcript.  And for the politically minded, here's something I noticed--several instances of President Obama directly refuting Mitt Romney statements without saying so.

Courage and Consequences

This is the Gabby Giffords video in which she announced that she's leaving Congress.  If you haven't seen all two and a half minutes of it, it's worth your time on so many levels.  Giffords will be at President Obama's State of the Union address tonight.

War and the American Electorate

Before the State of the Union and its focus on the economy, I wanted to say something about foreign policy issues, and particularly the issue of war and peace.  The GOPer debates are showing clearly that their candidates (except for Ron St. Paul) are clueless Cheny clones, pandering to a delusional and perhaps illusional base.  The candidates' generally warmongering attitudes could very well plunge the world into more wars, even nuclear wars, while bankrupting the country in the process.

That's the good news.

Because part of their cluelessness is totally misreading the majority of American voters, who are clearly sick of stupid wars and all their costs.  Barack Obama won the presidency largely on his promise to end the war in Iraq.  He ended the war in Iraq, and that's going to be a major reason he will win reelection.

The GOP candidates arguments are the same as the Cheneyites, except cruder, if that's possible.  But this time the counter-arguments are going to be made by the real President and the real Secretary of State, with solid foreign policy accomplishments, including one that has to be obvious even to the generally uninterested voter: they got rid of Osama bin Laden and crippled al Queda and its ability to harm this country or its citizens.  Less obvious--though just as ignored by the GOPer candidates whose only possible tactic is lying, which they do regularly--is the success so far of U.S. strategy on Iran.  It's still a dangerous situation, but efforts short of war now underway are effective.  A little demonstration of that, and it will bolster the public's clear opposition to engaging in another war.

The Obama administration hasn't been perfect.  They haven't succeeded in closing Guantanamo, and it remains a stain and a scandal and a moral tragedy. Many of the excesses of the Patriot Act and so-called anti-terrorism tactics that violate civil rights, human rights and any civilized conscience, still remain.  But it's interesting that a journalist has chronicled President Obama's relationship with the military hierarchy, a story of progress resulting in reasserting civilian control after eight years of abuse.  Other parts of the bureaucracy have changed slowly and unevenly to match actions with the goals and principles the Obama administration brought with them.  I have high hopes for real progress on all these matters in a second term.

In a way it is similar to another story--by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker-- which purports to follow President Obama's learning curve on the limitations of presidential power.  As a student of history, I doubt he was entirely surprised by either the power of the generals or the lack of presidential power, although it's likely that the lessons are a lot more impressive in reality.  But at least in the abstract, I understood these as a teenager avidly following the Kennedy administration.

 Newsmagazines followed JFK's disenchantment with the generals after the Bay of Pigs, and his amazement at their Doctor Strangelove-like advice during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Between the two he learned to trust his own judgment and assert his control.

In end of the year interviews--I think even after the first year, and certainly the second--he stressed the limitations of presidential power.  It was a theme of two popular political books of the time, which I eagerly read, naturally, and still have: Presidental Power  by Richard E. Neustadt and Decision-Making in the White House by his own long-time advisor and presidential assistant, Theodore Sorensen.  (Since Sorensen also supported Obama and they met, I'd assume he knows of this book.)

 Yet it was after understanding these limitations (and successfully defying the generals in the Cuban Missile Crisis), that JFK engineered his two boldest initiatives: the successful effort to get the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed and ratified, and introducing the Civil Rights legislation that became the basis for the historic laws passed after his assassination.  Both changed America and American politics.

So there are two points here, I suppose: President Obama will be an even better President in the next four years, having learned what he learned in the first four.  That's not unusual, but in our times, it could be very important for the country and the world.

But the point I started with is this: Americans are for all intents and purposes anti-war.  If the economy offers some hope, President Obama will be re-elected simply on the strength of his record in ending the war in Iraq, winding down the war in Afghanistan, and his largely successful efforts to achieve justifiable American goals without the bluster and bullying and especially the whine of bullets.   GOPer candidates are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the electorate on this.

The Circus Comes to Disneyworldland

Apparently "The Word" of the circus debate in Florida Monday was Romney's: "self-deportation."  Several live bloggers excused themselves saying they were self-deporting.  At Kos there were other tweeted glosses: solution to economic problems: self-employment.  Solution to the GOP debates: self-immolation.  Self-deportation is what Romney does with his money, to the Caymans.

Otherwise most of the bloggers and pundits scored a modest win for Romney, though Josh Marshall thought Gingles held his own and so the dynamic hasn't changed, and he will continue to lead in Florida polls.  But there's another circus act on Thursday!  If Romney stopped the bleeding, that's when he'll have to turn things around.  Otherwise, our circus critics graded the entertainment value as poor, perhaps because the audience was so sedate that the Economist guys in the UK thought there wasn't one.

But momentum is with Gingles, even though he continues to take credit for the Clinton administration's accomplishments, including the first balanced budget that Gingles directed House Republicans to oppose.   Fred Thompson (R-Law & Order) endorsed him, and more importantly, most importantly, his Vegas sugar daddy ponied up another five million bucks for Florida!  Casino Newt rides again!

Meanwhile, Romney's tax return shows he paid a 13.9% tax rate on income of $42 million, and in a factoid sure to please the Tevangelist base, he gave more in "charity" donations than he paid in taxes--most of it to the Mormon Church (he tithes, as Mormons are supposed to.) 

But the line of the night belongs to Lawrence O'Donnell: "Tonight the Republican Party is on its way to nominating a presidential candidate who cannot beat President Obama.  The only thing we do not yet know is that candidate's name."

Stormy Weather

There's rage on the sun, and it's resulting in the strongest solar storm heading this way since 2005. Scientists don't expect electrical problems on Earth as a result, though that's still a possibility.  But it could affect us in other ways.  Does this for example explain raging Casino Newt Gingrich?  Maybe.  But Andrew Sullivan writes what I've been trying to say:

"This now is the party of Palin and Gingrich, animated primarily by hatred of elites, angry at the new shape and color of America, befuddled by a suddenly more complicated world, and dedicated primarily to emotion rather than reason. That party is simply not one that can rally behind a Mitt Romney...This is Gingrich's party; and Ailes'; and Rove's. They made it; and it is only fitting it now be put on the table, for full inspection. Better sooner than later. Obama is a poultice. He brings poison to the surface. Where, with any luck, it dies."

A True Bright Star



Gabby Giffords with husband, space shuttle astronaut Mark Kelley

Gabrielle Giffords announced on Sunday that she is giving up her seat in Congress in order to concentrate on her recovery from the assassination attempt last year in Arizona.  It is a reminder that however miraculous her recovery so far, such violence has enduring consequences.  It is a measure of our political decadence that the enormity of this act, and the atmosphere supporting gun violence and violent politics, was not confronted even after this incident that killed a federal judge, a public servant, and a child born on 9-11, among others.

Of Giffords, President Obama said: Gabby Giffords embodies the very best of what public service should be. She’s universally admired for qualities that transcend party or ideology – a dedication to fairness, a willingness to listen to different ideas, and a tireless commitment to the work of perfecting our union."  House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called Giffords "a true bright star."  It is a phrase worth contemplating--a bright star that points true.  

This gun violence, enabled by cowardly politicians and their at best deluded and at worst hate-filled constituents, silenced an exemplary voice in Congress, a voice that this Congress badly needs, and now that silence will continue.  But there will be one more opportunity to acknowledge some of this, as well as to honor Giffords, when her last act as a Member of Congress will be to witness President Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday. 

Aye of Newt , the Casino Candidate

Gingles cleaned Romney's clock in the South Carolina GOPer primary.  He got more than 40% of the vote to Romney's 29%.  Sanctimonious got 17%, Ron St. Paul 13%.

The rejection of Romney was led by Tevangelicals who didn't vote for a Mormon--this was clear from exit polls.  They coalesced around Gingles' rage rather than Sanctimonious' sanctimony.

Pundit and political pols are split on whether SC was a fluke, a special case, or whether Romney is in trouble, with most moving towards the latter view.  Next up is Florida, and if Gingles wins that one (says Steve Schmidt, former McCain campaign manager), the GOPer establishment will go into full panic mode between then and Super Tuesday five weeks later.  Gingles negatives are so high that many believe--including many GOPers-- he will never be elected President. 

On the other hand, there's the rage, and others are coming around to the pov I expressed yesterday: Gingles could feed it and ride it to the nomination, and it would all be out there to see.

Roger Simon at Politico had an ascerbically funny characterization of Gingles.  "He is not the best-looking guy in Republican race or the best-funded or the most ideologically pure. But he has found his shtick, and he is shticking to it. Newt Gingrich is the angriest man in America." "Anger, umbrage and bitterness are so much a part of Gingrich’s public persona that he likes to attack the very concept of happiness.."

This has always been Gingles rhetoric stance--I remember it from the 90s.  And it has never been more in line with the raw anger and hatred of a rabid and racist GOPer core.  Gingles victory speech was his usual mixture of anger and contempt, and grandiosity--having won exactly one primary, he spoke as if his Inauguration were tomorrow.  He complimented his GOPer rivals, though he suggested anyone who had voted for them had voted in error or by accident.  He again insulted the intelligence of President Obama.   He takes his election as a given. “It will shock the country,” Newt says. “It will shock the world. And shock is what we need.” 

That's the Gingles Shock Doctrine.  He has to hope that Americans will forget they don't like or trust him (his disapproval rating is 60%), or that most sober and intelligent analysts rate his policy proposals as catastrophic or insane, and just go with a generalized rage that things aren't going well enough with that non-white man in the White House.  So what the hell, roll the dice.

Next comes Florida, where the campaign will engage with an even greater ferocity.  Romney won Iowa when he poured millions into ads attacking Gingles, and Gingles didn't and couldn't respond.  Then Gingles got $5 million from his Vegas casino sugar daddy, and won SC after going negative on Romney while Romney tried to stay positive.  Ain't nobody going to be positive in Florida, and a hurricane of  Super Pac paid negative ads will flood that state.  The Romney campaign has already said that it's going after Gingles even harder than in Iowa, and Gingles may well have the millions to exploit Romney's exposed weaknesses (the Bain stuff seems to have hurt him in SC.)  Romney has millions, and I saw a report that Gingles is getting millions from other billionaires as well as his Vegas daddy.

Two years after Citizens United, the coming ten days before the Florida primary will be the biggest and most graphic demonstration yet of what that Supreme Court decision has unleashed.  Right now Newt owes his SC victory to one man with a $22 billion fortune who can spend $5 million on a ego-inflating election in any and every state he wants, at least as much as to his debates and the luck this time of timing.  He's Casino Newt, a bought candidacy.  These are likely to be ten days that will shake democracy.  That's the Supreme's Shock Doctrine.