The Prodigal Frum Departs

Not that my personal opinion of David Frum was very high in the first place (the guy did write speeches for Dubya after all) but clearly the guy's widely-quoted "Waterloo" article speaking truth to power got him axed by the famed conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, despite the denials.  TPM's Zack Roth:

According to a source with knowledge of the situation, the split with AEI was not prompted by Frum's criticism of the GOP. Rather, Brooks expressed concern that Frum had been occupied with other projects outside of AEI, and wasn't a sufficiently active member of the AEI scholars community. Out of fairness to other AEI scholars, Brooks asked Frum to forgo his salary -- an offer Frum angrily rejected.

In a statement provided to TPMmuckraker, AEI said:

While AEI makes it a practice not to discuss personnel matters, I can say that David Frum is an original thinker and a friend to many at AEI. 

We are pleased to have welcomed him as a colleague for seven years, and his decision to leave in no way diminishes our respect for him.

Frum declined to comment to TPMmuckraker, but this afternoon he told the PlumLine that Brooks had asked him to work without pay, because of the think-tank's financial difficulties, and had assured him that the move had nothing to do with Frum's recent criticism of the GOP.

None of this has stopped speculation to the contrary, however. In a blog post of his own, conservative economist Bruce Bartlett -- who himself was fired by a conservative think tank in 2005 after criticizing President Bush's policies -- wrote today that Frum recently had told him that AEI scholars had been "ordered" not to speak publicly on the subject of health-care reform "because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do."

Several AEI scholars have gone public on the subject -- though all have been opposed to Obama's plan.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote this afternoon: "One has to assume that this is a response to his outspokenness about the Republican failure on health reform."

Yeah, AEI isn't fooling anyone on this.  Just like politicians never actually resign to spend more time with their families, Frum wasn't actually parting ways because of side gigs, either.  You don't lose a think tank job after being a Republican presidential speechwriter because there's no money in it.  Frum on the letterhead gave the AEI prestige, just like any other ex-White House staffer would do for any think tank (on either side of the aisle).  It's the equivalent of having a famous senior partner at a law firm or on a company's board of directors.

Frum deviated from the program, and they threw him overboard for it.  Critics of Obama say he's a tyrant because he doesn't tolerate dissenting views.  That's hysterical, because many of the dissenting views on his policies come from those on the Left.

However on the Right, it's a different story.  Frum spoke out against eliminationist rhetoric and GOP mendacity, and got his walking papers as a direct result.  Some tolerance of dissenting views you guys have over there...

Schaden-Kroog

Paul Krugman admits to the guilty pleasure of watching the GOP melt down over HCR, but as he says, that meltdown now means the Teabaggers are fully in charge of the insane asylum (emphasis mine):

To be sure, it was enjoyable watching Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican of California, warn that by passing health reform, Democrats “will finally lay the cornerstone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people.” Gosh, that sounds uncomfortable. And it’s been a hoot watching Mitt Romney squirm as he tries to distance himself from a plan that, as he knows full well, is nearly identical to the reform he himself pushed through as governor of Massachusetts. His best shot was declaring that enacting reform was an “unconscionable abuse of power,” a “historic usurpation of the legislative process” — presumably because the legislative process isn’t supposed to include things like “votes” in which the majority prevails.

A side observation: one Republican talking point has been that Democrats had no right to pass a bill facing overwhelming public disapproval. As it happens, the Constitution says nothing about opinion polls trumping the right and duty of elected officials to make decisions based on what they perceive as the merits. But in any case, the message from the polls is much more ambiguous than opponents of reform claim: While many Americans disapprove of Obamacare, a significant number do so because they feel that it doesn’t go far enough. And a Gallup poll taken after health reform’s enactment showed the public, by a modest but significant margin, seeming pleased that it passed.

But back to the main theme. What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.” The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.” And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.

No, to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Obama, Bill Clinton faced a G.O.P. that denied his legitimacy — Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as “your president.” Threats were common: President Clinton, declared Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, “better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.” (Helms later expressed regrets over the remark — but only after a media firestorm.) And once they controlled Congress, Republicans tried to govern as if they held the White House, too, eventually shutting down the federal government in an attempt to bully Mr. Clinton into submission.

Mr. Obama seems to have sincerely believed that he would face a different reception. And he made a real try at bipartisanship, nearly losing his chance at health reform by frittering away months in a vain attempt to get a few Republicans on board. At this point, however, it’s clear that any Democratic president will face total opposition from a Republican Party that is completely dominated by right-wing extremists.

The good news is finally, finally, the Democrats understand the GOP plan is to try to win back political gains by making it literally impossible for the Democrats to actually govern.  If the government is broken by Republicans and it fails to do its duty, the Republicans figure, it's the Democrats' fault.

The better news is that more and more of the Village is finally questioning that "logic" after a year plus of supporting it completely, that the Democrats had to give in to the Republicans and do everything they wanted was taken as conventional wisdom, and the Dems would capitulate.  That's the way Washington has worked since the Contract With America.

Only, the Dems are writing a new script.  And the Republicans have gone completely off their collective rockers in an effort to paint Obama as an Enemy Of The People that the people need to stop.

By what means, the GOP leaves to the bloody imaginations of some of the Teabaggers.  The principled opposition to Obama is the first casualty of this process.  Those who still can compose an argument that doesn't involve Obama being a Socialist, Marxist, Muslim sleeper agent, tyrant dictator or the Antichrist are the ones who should be taking on this eliminationist rhetoric with the most urgency.

StupidiNews!

• The Obama administration will offer additional relief to homeowners who are unemployed and underwater on their mortgage.
• The House and Senate have completed work on reconciliation fixes to the health care reform bill.
• California Gov. Schwarzenegger's emissions reduction bill faces a ballot initiative that would disable the law unless unemployment is under 5.5%.
• A new Bloomberg poll shows 90% of Tea Party voters believe America is Socialist, but 70% want Obama to create more jobs.
• Nearly half of Americans open spam e-mails, and nearly half of those who open them do so on purpose.

Last Call

Jon Chait is both right and dead wrong. 

He's right about the following:

The psychology of victory and defeat is a remarkable thing. A week ago, the Democrats were perceived to have an enormous political problem. Their agenda was stalled in Congress. There was a mass groundswell of public anger they had to contend with.

Suddenly those problems have been flipped on their head. Now Democrats don't have a problem because they can't pass anything, Republicans have a problem because they're obstructing everything. Whereas right-wing grassroots activism represented a public backlash against the Democrats, it's now seen as an extremist element that discredits the GOP. Political reporters are starting to construct a seamless narrative connecting the over-the-top rhetoric from GOP and conservative leaders, the unusual acts of obstructionism and legislative retribution (like canceling unrelated hearings as revenge for health care reform), and sporadic vandalism and threats of violence. For example, see Dana Milbank's column today.

Chait's right about that.  The Village respects a winner, until they can construct the narrative that the current winners are losers.  However, the problem is Chait's still missing the larger point on the GOP themselves:

We should keep a couple things in mind here. Just as the emotion of the moment exaggerated Democrats' panic and fear of action, the emotion of the moment is casting the Republican strategy in the worst possible light. It's not exactly a parallel situation, because Republicans are far less responsive than Democrats to mainstream media narratives. Still, Republicans are going to consider the strategy of refusing to engage Democrats in a different light in the wake of passing health care reform than they would have if the Democrats had fallen a few votes shy in the House.

I call complete bullshit on that.  The Republicans are doing what they always do when losing:  double down to attack the Dems.  If they had defeated this measure, they would still be doing the exact same thing they are now:  calling the Dems traitors, encouraging the fringe elements to rise up, and refusing to work with the Democrats on any legislation.  In fact, we'd be hearing that the Republican strategy of Party of No was exactly what America wanted them to do, and that they should do everything they can to obstruct the Democrats even more than they were.

Chait's mistake is that he still considers the Republican leadership as rational actors that make rational decisions.  They aren't.  All they care about is destroying Obama...that should be self-evident by now.

Karl Rove's Repeal Appeal

Turd Blossom is completely behind this one.

Polls may show a temporary increase in the president's popularity, but underlying public opinion about this law is not likely to change just because the president hits the trail to sell it. After all, he made 58 speeches before the measure passed, including two in prime time.

Before that string of speeches the public was in favor of the concept of health-care reform by a ratio of 2 to 1. Afterward, about 60% of the public was opposed to the president's plan. Those who strongly opposed outnumbered those strongly in favor by 2 to 1 or better in most polls.

Tens of millions of ordinary people watched the deliberations, studied the proposals, and made up their minds. Their concerns about spending, deficits and growing government power are not going away.

Nor is their opposition to ObamaCare. According to a new CNN poll, majorities of Americans believe that they will pay more for medical care, the federal deficit will increase, and that government will be too involved in health care under the president's plan.

Democrats claim they've rallied their left-wing base. But that base isn't big enough to carry the fall elections, particularly after the party alienated independents and seniors. The only way Democrats win a base election this year will be if opponents of this law stay home.

So, he declares, run on repeal!  Rove's had a stellar record so far, yes?  Just like in 2008 when he said "Go even more negative on Obama?"  By all means, as the President said today on repeal:

"Go for it."

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Dan Riehl again on the Winger futility of suing over Obamacare:

But I'm also unconvinced America will be content with a failed court action. The Constitution has been so twisted from its initial intent and from the people still may believe it means, I'm not sure the system can bridge the gap here. At some point, states may have to consider banding together to develop an approach with far broader implications for America in the end. I've never seen the kinds of lines being drawn in America I am witnessing today. And this issue is not going to quietly just slip away.

States banding together...hmm.  Why, that would be a group of states.  A...confederation of them, one might say.

Seems kind of eerily familiar...

Own The Darkness

Oliver Willis lays it out. (emphasis mine)

Looking around at the conservative blogosphere’s reaction to threats and actual violence versus Democratic lawmakers that instead of condemning the actions the right is actually excusing it, and in some ways, egging it on.

When the first dead body turns up as a result of tea party terrorism, they’ll own it, completely.

Nobody’s arguing that on the left there was strong protest to Bush’s ill-guided policies that resulted in the deaths of thousands, but there was no support for violence against Republican lawmakers the way there is today from the right. Democrats were not linking arms with anti-government protesters who entertained assassination fascinations with our leaders.

The conservative movement owns tea party terrorism and whatever may come of it.

No doubt the usual suspects will show up to justify the violence, but the fact of the matter at this point this talk equating the exercise of democracy with treason is going to cause blood to flow.  Even the Senate parliamentarian is under threat now.

Not only do most of the wingers I've seen expect violence, they already are working to blame these acts as "false flag" attacks carried out by "the angry left" to start a war.

Delusional to the end.

Shutdown Sequence

Hey America, want to assure yourselves of a federal government that doesn't work in 2011?  Vote Republican this fall!

A potential Republican majority may not be able to repeal healthcare reform, but they'd probably refuse to fund it, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said today.

Appearing on Fox News, Boehner acknowledged that if the GOP wins control of Congress in 2010, they may not be able to repeal the healthcare bill President Obama signed into law yesterday. Obama would be able to veto a repeal, and Republicans would probably not have the two-thirds majority necessary to override that veto.

"With a Democrat president for the next two and a half years, even if we gained the majority it's going to be very difficult to repeal this bill outright," Boehner said.

Nevertheless, Boehner said Congress could simply refuse to approrpriate the funds needed to execute reform.
"It's going to take appropriated funds to actually come through the process to fund the hiring of new employees to create these new bureacuracies," Boehner said. "I can't imagine that a Republican Congress is going to give this president the money to begin this process."

Orange Julius is already saying "Hell no you can't!"  That's a hell of a platform to run on, the Shut Down The Federal Government Over Funding Health Care Reform plank of the GOP.

At this point the GOP is so utterly bankrupt of ideas that the only thing they have left is threatening to destroy the government so that nothing works for anybody.  This is their big campaign message in 2010.

Good luck with that, Orange Julius.

Cramer Versus Cramer Again

I laughed, I cried, it was better than "Cats".

Cramer during tonight’s show offered a mea culpa to viewers: Despite the horrible effect he thought health-care reform was going to have on stocks, all the major indexes have held up since the bill passed on Sunday. In fact, barring today’s declines – and he didn’t think they were linked to health care – the market dipped for only about 20 minutes after Monday’s opening bell, then continued its bullish move upward.

Possibly even worse, Mad Money viewers who took Cramer’s advice missed a chance to buy that dip. He’d fully expected a pullback to follow the House’s yea vote, giving viewers a great entry point on any number of stocks. But that window of opportunity closed too quickly for most people. And investors who took profits before the vote never got the chance to get back in.

Jim Cramer wrong?  Gosh, that NEVER happens.  You know, except for all the times he's been laughably wrong about mostly everything over the last three years.  Housing market bottomed out in July 2009, remember that?  Dow 15,000, remember that?  No CRE meltdown, remember that?  Banks are stable, remember that?  It's not like Cramer's side gig at TheStreet.com is being investigated, right?

So what happened? Here are his 10 reasons why he missed the health-care call:

Allow me to save you some time. 

1. Jim Cramer doesn't know a goddamn thing about economics, but he's a hell of a scam artist.

Fin.

Blockbuster Flat Busted

A decade ago, Blockbuster Video was arguably the largest media player in the country.  Movie studios, distributors, marketers, game makers, they all lined up to get on Blockbuster's shelves as America's media store. They had an enormous amount of clout.  Everyone made them deals to stay number one and keep them number one.  And when you're number one, people come gunning for you.

How quickly things change.

Blockbuster is in a heap of trouble with nearly $1 billion in debt, and its latest fixes might not be enough to keep the company from filing for bankruptcy.

The movie rental company launched its newest enterprise on Wednesday, beating rival Netflix to the punch in mobile movies. Blockbuster is now offering on demand video via T-Mobile's new HTC HD2 smart phone. The new service is also expected to be available on Android and Windows Mobile phones soon.

That news follows the company's announcement on Tuesday that it signed a new agreement with movie studio Warner Bros., which is owned by CNNMoney.com's parent company Time Warner (TWX, Fortune 500). The deal will continue to allow Blockbuster to offer the studio's new releases about a month before its chief competitors, Netflix (NFLX) and Coinstar's (CSTR) Redbox.

Blockbuster's latest moves are steps in the right direction. But to overcome nearly $1 billion in debt, unprofitable stores and continued losses, what the company really needs is a major turnaround. Blockbuster said last week it may have to file for bankruptcy protection if it cannot lower its debt by other means. 

Video killed the radio star, but the internet killed Blockbuster.  America's video store is Netflix these days.  Netflix really is one of the great American success stories.  And now Blockbuster has ended up as one of America's great cautionary tales.

If It's Thursday...

New jobless claims down to 442,000 and continuing claims down to 4.55 million this week.

We're still in a holding pattern and have been for, oh, months now.  They're not getting worse, but the overall numbers simply aren't getting any better, either.

Yes We Can (Orange Julius Remix)

This vid's been making the rounds this week, give it a look.


Democrats: "Yes, we can."
Republicans: "Hell no you can't!"

Seems like a pretty simple message to me...

StupidiNews Focus

At this point, the HCR reconciliation fix bill is heading back to the House for another vote once the Senate finishes.  It's a hurdle, but it might actually be a major opportunity for the Dems, as Ryan Grim explains:

Senate Republicans succeeded early Thursday morning in finding two flaws in the House-passed health care reconciliation package. Neither is of any substance, but the Senate parliamentarian informed Democratic leaders that both are in violation of the Byrd Rule.

One is related to Pell Grants and the other makes small technical corrections. Why they're in violation of the Byrd Rule doesn't matter; the upshot is that Republicans will succeed in at least slightly altering the legislation, which means that the House is once again required to vote on it. With no substantial changes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should have little problem assembling the same coalition of 220 Democrats who passed the measure Sunday night. That's already four more than the minimum 216 required for passage.
But the ruling might give Democrats another option -- the public one.

Democratic leadership no longer has to worry that additional amendments would send it back to the House, since it must return to the lower chamber regardless. The Senate is now free to put to the test that much-debated question of whether 50 votes exist for a public option. Democrats could also elect to expand Medicare or Medicaid, now that they only need 50 votes in the Senate and the approval of the House.
The question then becomes whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could pass the reconciliation changes with a public option. She has long maintained that the House has the votes to do so. Indeed, it did so in late 2009. Since then, however, two members who supported the public option are no longer in the House.

But with fewer members, the House also needs two fewer votes than the 218 required for a majority in November, alleviating some of that pressure.

Would they have the votes?

The Huffington Post interviewed House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) on Wednesday evening and asked if he thought he could have gotten the public option back through a second time, when the House voted on Sunday, even without those members who had left. "Yes, sir," he said emphatically. Clyburn added that the problem for the public option has never been in the House. The problem has been in the Senate. And now the upper chamber has a chance to vote on it.

Back in the Senate, after the Parliamentarian Alan Frumin had advised the leadership of his ruling, the Democratic and Republican leaders huddled on the floor and agreed to adjourn until 9:45 a.m.

In other words, now there's no reason not to give the Senate an opportunity to get 51 votes on the public option as one of the amendments before the HCR reconciliation fix bill, as the bill has to go back to the House anyway.  I don't expect the public option to pass the Senate, but there's no reason now it shouldn't get a vote...it has the votes to pass in the House.  Should it get through the Senate...well, there's your public option right there, folks.

If Republicans can take hours to pile on amendments to try to slow the legislation down, Democrats can offer one amendment that will have overwhelming support, help lower costs, and create real competition for insurance premium dollars.  Take a swing at the fences, guys.  You'll never have a better opportunity to pass the public option with 51 votes.

StupidiNews!

• Republicans succeeded in forcing the reconciliation part of the HCR bill back to the House for another vote.
• California voters will get to decide this November on legalizing pot for recreational use. 
• Finance reform is gaining momentum in Congress towards passage this Spring.
• Germany's Angela Merkel laid out her conditions for helping Greece's economy if that day comes.
• The latest wireless industry survey shows that 91% of Americans use cell phones.

Last Call

Want to know what's coming?  I won't link to Dan Riehl's tirade.  You can find it yourself if you're curious.  But I will let you know what the average winger is thinking right now about the continuing violence against Dems.

They have no right to feel outraged, these Democrats, after having spent weeks and months fueling outrage across America with the corrupt back room deals, their reconciliation plans and slippery bookkeeping, coupled with an absolute refusal to take the voice of the people into account in passing vile, un-American legislation America doesn't want. Shame on them. Shame!

And now, what? These malignant little tyrants want to play the victim? After victimizing America with their pathetic antics, their corrupt practices, all to push a destructive ideology America has long rejected? The Democrats are the real criminals here. They have torn the fabric of America with a repulsive world view they now hope to thrust upon the American people, whether we like it, or not.

And the American people are beginning to say Not! - which is their God given right their Constitution, not some low rent, half-baked excuse for a politician, ensures for them. You broke it, the public trust, among other things. And now you've bought it. So, own it for once you miserable little cretins. Resign your offices and crawl back under your rocks if you can't take the heat that you and no one else generated. And don't expect us to feel sorry for you, or respect you for the wrath you're now faced with confronting. That may be the only thing you actually deserve for the unjust and un-democratic way in which you've comported yourselves throughout this entire charade.

You can choke on it and rot in hell where you belong after wards for all I care. You behaved like tyrants and now some few are treating you like tyrants. Where in the hell is the big surprise in that? Because I can't find it. All I see is a bunch of miserable creatures unworthy of the offices they hold. And I can't wait to see your sorry asses thrown out of them come this fall.

Riehl is delusional.  His spittle-flecked invective is precisely what I mean by "Obama Derangement Syndrome."  Here's a man who feels so aggrieved, so violated, so victimized by a Democratic majority that was fairly elected by the people actually passing Democratic legislation, that he simply dismisses the threats and hatred, the vitriol and the anger, as something the Democrats deserve for daring to pass legislation in his country.

Passing legislation is a violation of the "public trust".  Democrats are "criminals" to him, "malignant little tyrants" to him, not even human, not even worthy of basic human decency.  Hell, they're not even worthy of the kindness you'd show an injured animal.  "Own it for once, you miserable little cretins."

"Rot in hell" is his advice to people he views as "miserable little creatures."  If you dehumanize your "enemy" then you feel no remorse when you commit acts of violence and anger against them.

All this...for passing a health care reform bill.

The projection here is sickening.  You thought they hated Obama before?  You have no idea.  He won, on Sunday.  He beat them.  And they so utterly despise him, that now the gloves are truly off.  The real violence, the real hatred, those are now going to be on full display.  The mask is broken.  And there are millions like Riehl out there.

The rough beast is no longer slouching.  It's running at full tilt.