Wake Up, Virginia Democrats

by Dan Sullivan

Brian Moran denies the reality he represents an industry that preys on the unfortunate. He defends businesses promising outcomes that are highly improbable; betraying the goodwill and trust of the American people. As their agent, he facilitates what is de facto fraud. Where's the outrage from Virginia Democrats? Here's mine. Benson Rollins wants a college degree. The unemployed high school dropout who attends Alcoholics Anonymous and has been homeless for 10 months is being courted by the University of Phoenix. Two of its recruiters got themselves invited to a Cleveland shelter last October and pitched the advantages of going to the country's largest for-profit college to 70 destitute men. - Business Week What we have here, is a state party chairman who shamelessly defends an industry that dredges federal funds by trolling for the homeless and despairing in an effort to siphon entitlements and grants you and I provide in the belief they may rehabilitate fellow citizens. What is more worrisome than Moran's (and, thus, the DPVA's) vulnerability to criticism for hypocrisy (because it will be hard to find a Democratic candidate who will defend these thugs) in the next cycle, is that Moran may lead the Party lurching backwards. Recall: Brian Moran unabashedly supports Virginia's "Right-to-Work" laws. It all fits nicely: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Dan Sullivan :: Wake Up, Virginia Democrats

This is about the heart and soul of the Democratic Party in Virginia. This is a moral issue. It is an issue of character. It is a conundrum for progressives who expect camaraderie and common purpose when among Democrats. Accepting any of the rationalizations for the for-profit "educational" sector is contrary to logic, good sense, and fairness. Fairness: something that used to reliably separate the two major parties. The for-profit "educational" sector is filled with oxygen thieves and charlatans. And the Democratic Party in Virginia, by embracing Brian Moran's "leadership," stands ready to march rearward in league with the Republican Party, away from the values that once distinguished it. "For-profit colleges took in $7.6 billion last year in Pell Grants -- federal higher-education money for low-income individuals -- more than triple the amount in 1998-1999, according to Education Department data. In the 2008-2009 school year, about 25 percent of the 6 million students who got Pell money attended a for-profit college, according to the department." - Bloomberg Business Week points out that a real college education couldn't deliver the elusive promises of these vulturine predators. In one case a recovering crack cocaine addict who has served several prison terms for drug offenses was in a shelter and looking online for work when she saw an ad that led her to the Web site of for-profit school ECPI College of Technology based in our very own Virginia Beach. She applied, passed a placement test, and started ECPI's medical administration program last March. The mother of four is borrowing about half of the $23,000 tab from the federal government, with grants and scholarships paying the rest. ECPI officials are aware of her background. They "guarantee (her) a job in the field." That is simply not realistic. Her history is a red flag for health-care employers. But ECPI President Mark Dreyfus said she has a shot because not all employers check backgrounds and she could process records in a back office where drugs aren't accessible. ...because not all employers check backgrounds...; a threshold confession that her background is a barrier to employment in the field the "institution" accepted her for admission. ...schools see nothing wrong with reaching out to the disadvantaged. "We don't exclusively target the homeless," says Ziad Fadel, CEO of Drake, which also sends recruiters to welfare and employment agencies. "We are in a community that is low-income and happens to have a lot of people on welfare." Brian Moran has the "right-to-work" for whomever he desires; family to feed, bills to pay, all that. That is not the issue. It is quite possible that he believes the drivel he delivers about for-profit "education." That further disqualifies him if he does, by the way. The issue is that if the DPVA can hold him up as a representative, it can accept the tarnish of his associations. If it can do that, it can betray any or all of its constituency. In the end, Benson Rollins didn't succumb to Phoenix's hard sell. He is taking a class for his high school equivalency degree and hopes to study law enforcement in college. For now, he would like a job so he can pay child support for his one-year-old daughter, whom he rarely sees.The Phoenix recruiters, he says, failed to mention a critical point: He would have to take out a government loan at 5% to 7% interest to pay the $10,000-plus annual tuition. "I'm in a homeless shelter, and money is hard to come by," Rollins says. "It's not worth going to school to end up in debt." The facts point to Benson Rollins being stronger, smarter, and truer to his values than Brian Moran. Or maybe Brian Moran doesn't hold Democratic values. Maybe the DPVA should invite Benson Rollins to Virginia.

Poll Results: What's With "Sideshow Bob" and Gay People?

Here are the results from our latest Blue Virginia poll, this time on the ever-important question of why Del. "Sideshow" Bob Marshall is so (unhealthfully) obsessed with All Things Homosexual. According to Blue Virginia readers, one thing is absolutely for sure: Marshall is not - repeat NOT! -  motivated by "careful study of the subject" or "concern for the health and welfare of society."  No, this is bad, no matter how you look at it. The only question is, in what specific way(s) is it bad? On that question, there was no majority, but there was a strong plurality, with 44% selecting the "repressed homosexuality/'closet case' syndrome option.Trailing significantly behind "closet case" syndrome were three other possibilities: 1) "all of the above" (20%); 2) "deep moral/religious beliefs about homosexuality" (20%); and 3) "pandering to his right-wing base" (16%).  I can't decide if "pandering to his right-wing base" is better or worse than some of the other options here. On the one hand, if Marshall's "only" pandering, then maybe he himself doesn't believe the insane s*** he puts out on this subject? In that case, of course, he's being a demagogue, stirring up bigotry for his own political gain, and that's even more heinous than actually believing in it himself. Alternately, perhaps Marshall both believes what he says AND is pandering to his right-wing base?  Either way, it's not good. Perhaps the option which puts "Sideshow Bob" in the best light is that he has "deep moral/religious beliefs about homosexuality." The only problem with that one is, why would "deep moral/religious beliefs" about anything justify bigotry and hateful rhetoric? Also, I'd love to have Bob Marshall point to the passage in the New Testament where Jesus condemns homosexuality, homosexuals, transgender people, whatever. Oh wait, there isn't anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus condemns homosexuality or GLBT people? But then, where would Marshall's "deep moral/religious beliefs about homosexuality" come from, exactly? Perhaps the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, which also states that "every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death;" that "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death;" that "he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death;" that "the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Obviously, these are not laws we follow - or that most of us wish to follow - in modern civilization. Bob Marshall, on the other hand? Who knows...

Arlington Sun Gazette Now Reprinting GOP Blogs as "News"

by: TheGreenMiles Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:04:36 AM EST

This morning the Arlington Sun Gazette website printed a "news" article that simply explains what an Arlington conservative blog posted as its best/worst of 2010. That's it. Doesn't do any additional reporting, or get reaction from anyone else, or even print what the blogger's name is. Ever have a friend tell you about a blog post they read? That's exactly what it reads like.Look, this is going to give Lowell an aneurysm, but I actually like reading Scott McCaffrey's opinions. He's been following Arlington politics long enough to have a great sense of the county's political establishment. I may disagree with 95% of his opinions, but I like knowing how the other side is thinking. And if nothing else, his stories about his cat never fail to crack me up. But good god man, keep that stuff on the editorial page. Considering ArlNow.com is bringing Arlingtonians news faster & in a vastly more visually compelling way, you'd think the Sun Gazette would avoid blurring the lines between its news reporting & its conservative opinions, which are so out of step with the Arlington community. Who knows, maybe in the wake of the Sun Gazette's epically dumb scheme to tear down the wall between news & advertising, maybe that's part of the plan. As McCaffrey himse

Perriello on the NewsHour: "We Walk Away With Our Heads Held High"

Rep. Perriello most certainly should be walking away with his head held high, "very proud of what we did, and with a lot of respect even from those who disagreed with us in the district." Other highlights from the NewsHour interview: *"People had hoped perhaps for too much with us coming into power." *"At the end of the day, jobs trumps everything else." *We prevented an economic depression, but could have done "something bolder, to really reinvent America's competitive advantage...we didn't do that"...instead went with a "much tamer stimulus." *Virginia is "certainly not" out of Obama's reach for 2012. *"This [election] was not a mandate for Republicans." *People hoped for "an era of post-partisanship", what they're getting "is at best bipartisanship, and there's a difference" *"This tax deal, unfortunately, is an example of bipartisanship; let's take the goodies from one side and add them to the goodies from the other side...post-partisanship says 'what solves the problem'?" *"I was really shocked by the way the Republicans acted...when your country's on the verge of a crisis...the response from Republicans was, 'hey if this works, you're gonna get the credit; if it doesn't work, we don't want any part of it, that's not statesmanship, that's not engaging with the problems of our country...saw that in this campaign as well." *"We have real structural problems in our democracy right now." *Stimulus plan was supported by Chamber of Commerce, approach to energy was developed by first President Bush and supported by John McCain, health care proposal supported by Mitt Romney and Bob Dole's plan back in the day; this was an attempt to actually get beyond the old partisan divisions. *"It helps to have politicians who don't mind losing elections." *"I am not optimistic about the next 2 years in terms of the 2 sides working together; I certainly hope people will do some soul-searching." *"I'm interested in serving...the next 2 years are incredibly important."

A Few Good and (Really) Bad Bills Prefiled for 2011 General Assembly Session

As usual this time of year, Virginia legislators are gearing up - and prefiling legislation - for next year's session, which begins on January 12, 2011. Also as usual this time of year, there are some really good and really bad bills that have been prefiled by members. Here's a short list, a few good ones followed by some really bad pieces of...er, legislation.On the positive side, there's HJ 543 by Del. Charniele Herring (D-46th), providing for a constitutional amendment that "{a}uthorizes the General Assembly to provide by law for the restoration of civil rights for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies who have completed service of their sentences..." That seems like an obvious one that everyone should support, but something tells me Republicans will find a reason not to. Then there's SB 747 by Sen. Donald McEachin (D-9th), which "{p}rohibits discrimination in state employment based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or status as a special disabled veteran or other veteran covered by the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended." That one also seems like a no-brainer, except of course for the Bob Marshalls of the world, who will go ballistic that GLBT people can't be discriminated against. Finally, Del. Patrick Hope (D-47th) has prefiled HB 1488, which would prohibit the use of "restraints on any prisoner who is pregnant during labor, transport to a medical facility, delivery, or postpartum recovery unless...there is a compelling reason to believe that the prisoner poses serious harm to herself or others, is a flight risk, or cannot be reasonably restrained by other means." Again, that seems like a no-brainer, which probably means it won't happen. Now, on to the bad, the ugly, and the truly heinous category. For starters, check out the following three "Sideshow Bob" Marshall (R-13th) specials: 1) HB 1398 (prohibits the governor "from enforcing any climate change international agreement until such agreement is part of an international treaty that has been approved by the U.S. Senate"); 2) HB 1397 ("Exempts any residential building or manufactured home in Virginia from being subject to federal "cap and trade" legislation if such buildings comply with the Statewide Uniform Building Code."); and 3) HB 1440 (makes "unborn children" the equivalent of "persons" under Virginia law). Then, there's our friend, Del. Dave "Abuser Fees" Albo (R-42nd) and his anti-illegal-immigrant crusade (HB 1420, HB 1421 and HB 1430). Oh, and check out Del. James LeMunyon (R-67th) and his  call for a constitutional convention in order to propose an "amendment that permits the repeal of any federal law or regulation by vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures." Oh joy. Anyway, those are just a few of the good and bad bills prefiled for 2011. I'm sure there will be a lot more of both coming soon, so stay tuned...

How Did DCCC Polls Perform?

The following are "independent expenditure polls" performed for the the DCCC in October 2010 and posted on the DCCC blog. Here's how they did.Poll (10/26, CA-20): Rep. Jim Costa 47%-Andy Vidak 41%. Actual Result: Undecided, Vidak currently leads 51%-49%. The poll appears to have gotten the winner wrong and to have overestimated the Democrat by about 8 points. Poll (10/18, AL-2): Rep. Bobby Bright 51%-Martha Roby 39%. Actual Result: Roby won with 51% of the vote. The poll was wildly off on both the winner and the margin of victory. Ouch. Poll (10/18, AR-1): Chad Causey 44%-Rick Crawford 42% Actual Result: Crawford won by 9 points, 52%-43%. The poll got the winner wrong and was off on the margin by 11 points. Poll (10/11, NC-07): Rep. Mike McIntyre 52%-Ilario Pantano 41%. Actual Result: McIntyre won by 8 points, 54%-46%. The poll got the winner right and was pretty close on the margin of victory Poll (10/11, HI-1): Rep. Colleen Hanabusa 48%-Charles Djou 44%. Actual Result: Hanabusa won by 6 points, 53%-47%. The poll got the winner right and was within 2 points on the margin of victory. Poll (10/11, NC-11): Rep. Heath Shuler 54%-Jeff Miller 41%. Actual Result: Shuler won by 8 points, 54%-46%. The poll got the winner right, overestimated the Democrat's margin of victory by 5 points Poll (10/11, IA-3): Rep. Leonard Boswell 49%- Brad Zaun 41%. Actual Result: Boswell won by 4 points, 51%-47%. The poll got the winner right, overestimated the Democrat's margin of victory by about 4 points Poll (10/11, AZ-5): Rep. Harry Mitchell 46%-David Schweikert 39%. Actual Result: Schweikert won by 9 points, 52%-43%. The poll was wildly wrong on both the winner and the margin of victory. Poll (10/11, PA-15): Charlie Dent 45%-Rep. John Callahan 43% Actual Result: Dent won by 15 points, 54%-39%. The poll correctly predicted the winner, but was wildly off on the margin of victory Poll (10/11, IL-14): Rep. Bill Foster 48%-Randy Hultgren 38%. Actual Result: Hultgren won by 6 points, 51%-45% The poll was wrong on the winner and off on the margin of victory by 16 points. Poll (10/4, NY-20): Rep. Scott Murphy 51%-Chris Gibson 38%. Actual Result: Gibson won by 10 points, 55%-45%. The poll was wildly off the mark, getting the winner wrong and also the margin of victory by 23 points. Wow. Summary: These 11 polls were all over the place, performing well in several cases but abysmally poorly in others. Of the 10 races that have been called, the polls got the winner right in 5 races and wrong in 5 races (and probably another one as well). Margins were wildly off the mark in several races as well. In sum, I wouldn't bet the ranch - to put it mildly - on DCCC "independent expenditure polls." UPDATE: A reader emails me to point out that at least some of this could have been the result of "selection bias," in that the DCCC "would only release the favorable polls and not the unfavorable ones, so you get a bias towards the Democratic candidate." What do you all think?

The "Daou Triangle" and the Democratic "Shellacking" of 2010

First, here is how Peter Daou explains the "Triangle." Looking at the political landscape, one proposition seems unambiguous: blog power on both the right and left is a function of the relationship of the netroots to the media and the political establishment. Forming a triangle of blogs, media, and the political establishment is an essential step in creating the kind of sea change we've seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.Simply put, without the participation of the media and the political establishment, the netroots alone cannot generate the critical mass necessary to alter or create conventional wisdom. This is partly a factor of audience size, but it's also a matter, frankly, of trust and legitimacy... In sum, as Nate Wilcox and I explained in our book, Netroots Rising, "a story that managed to 'close all three sides of the triangle - press, bloggers and elected officials' would dramatically impact the public debate," while "any story that only closed one or two sides of the triangle would have diminished impact."Let's look at the 2010 election results from a "Daou Triangle" perspective. First, recall that in 2005-2008, Democrats had a strong "Triangle," fueled in large part by opposition to the Iraq War and the Bush Administration on a wide variety of issues.  The narrative, conveyed by all three legs of the "Triangle" - corporate media, new media, the political establishment and candidates - was all about George W. Bush's deep unpopularity, a strong desire for change by the American public, the Hurricane Katrina debacle and specifically the Bush administration's incompetence/callousness in handling it ("heckuva job!"), Republican scandals (Tom DeLay, "K Street," Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, etc.).  Given all this, the progressive blogosphere - aka, "the leftosphere" - was strongly united against Bush and the Republicans, as were political candidates (Jim Webb, Paul Hackett, Ned Lamont, many others) and even, I'd argue, the corporate media. Clearly, anger and intensity were on the Democratic side during the 2005-2008 period, with Republicans increasingly demoralized and divided.  Out of this came "movement" candidates and campaigns, not the least of which was the Jim Webb for Senate "Draft" and campaign right here in Virginia in 2006. With Webb's 14,000-strong "ragtag army" and a constant drumbeat of George Allen's 97% voting record with George W. Bush, Webb did what many thought was impossible back in 2005 - defeat the invincible George Allen and take back the U.S. Senate for the Democrats. The 2007-2008 presidential campaign season demonstrated the same themes as 2005-2006, but even more intensely.  Adding strength to the anti-Republican, pro-change "Triangle" narrative was a newly collapsing economy, with a recession officially beginning in December 2007 and a frightening financial meltdown in September/October 2008. The end result of all this - a perfect firestorm against Republicans and for Democrats, an incredibly strong progressive "Triangle," and an overwhelming victory for Barack Obama and the Democrats in November 2008. Flash forward to November 2010, and the situation couldn't be more different. What happened?  Follow me to the "flip" for that analysis. In contrast to 2005-2008, the corporate media narrative for the 2010 midterm elections was all about how expectations hadn't been met, how Democrats were demoralized and lacking "enthusiasm," and how the right wing - the Tea Party, particularly - was super energized and "angry."  In the leftosphere, Democratic and progressive activists were divided, demoralized, and exhausted from the fight against Bush, DeLay, etc. In many ways - and I made this mistake myself - the progressive netroots believed that the election of Obama and a Democratic Congress meant "mission accomplished."  The problem is, once Democrats were in power, the totally predictable happened - as the common enemy disappeared, Democratic divisions over actual governing mushroomed. With no common "villain" figure to unite around, with the winding down of hated (by most progressives) Iraq war, with disappointment among progressives over legislation or lack thereof - health care reform that lacked a public option, no comprehensive immigration reform, no clean energy and climate legislation, no "card check," continued "Don't Ask Don't Tell," continued "Gitmo," etc., etc. - the frustration quickly mounted, but this time against Democrats.  In contrast, all the intensity and narrative energy in the 2010 cycle - whether in the new media, the political establishment, or in the corporate media -  was on the right.  For its part, the corporate media - including propaganda outfits like Faux "News" - fueled, validated, and generally reinforced the narrative of populist anger against "spending," deficits, "death panels," "government takeover of health care," "cap and tax," "climategate," etc., etc.  It should go without saying that almost all of this was utter nonsense, and that the corporate media was wildly irresponsible. Basically, what happened was that the right-wing blogs and the Teapublican political establishment pushed the "Big Lie," while the corporate media completely failed to do its job as a seriously objective watchdog and truth teller. Meanwhile, the progressive new media, which at best constitutes one solid leg of the "Daou Triangle," was never able to generate enough force to counter the "Big Lie" effectively. In part, that's because one leg of the "Triangle" Is inherently not powerful enough to handle that big a lift. Making matters worse, progressive new media attention was sharply divided among many different issues, let alone on how to approach them. The result - one weak, wobbly leg of the "Daou Triangle" was mostly what was available - to counter the full force of an assault by a powerfully energized right-wing "Triangle." As if all that wasn't bad enough, the Democratic "base" - the working class, African Americans and Hispanics, young people, women - were hurting economically, focused (correctly) on their families and keeping afloat financially. The Democratic political establishment, meanwhile, was confused and divided against itself, with "Blue Dog" Congressman/candidates like Glenn Nye seriously undercutting the Democratic "brand," along with the message that Democrats accomplished a great deal and should be proud of what they did.  Nye, for instance, ran an ad bragging that he opposed health care reform because it "cost too much." Nye also made it clear that he had no love for Democratic leadership in Washington, including the demonized (by Republicans) Nancy Pelosi. That was wildly unhelpful, not only to Democrats in general, but also to Blue Dogs like Nye, who lost in huge numbers on Tuesday despite their distancing, playing into Republican "framing," etc. As for the "Teapublican" political establishment it certainly had its divisions, and those hurt it in the end (see Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Tom Tancredo, several others). Still, I'd argue that overwhelmingly, the Teapublicans were in lockstep on the major issues, from health care ("repeal and replace") to dealing with global warming (many of their candidates were skeptics or even outright climate change deniers) to the the "stimulus" (which they opposed unanimously) to President Obama ("socialist," "Muslim," etc.), to...you name it.  Along with the "Teapublican" political establishment, there was echo chamber reinforcement on a 24/7 basis from the right-wing corporate media and an angry/energized rightosphere new media. The combination result: a powerful, almost unstoppable, "Daou Triangle" on the right-wing vs. a splintered, weakened, demoralized and distracted "Triangle" on the left. The result - heavy losses for Democrats on Tuesday - was not surprising. A few other related thoughts to end this overly long article: 1. The corporate media has fractured into thousands of little echo chambers, "narrowcasting" to their particular audiences. Candidates these days tend to appear on "friendly" forums - TV, radio, new media - where they won't be asked tough questions.  As a result, views tend to be reinforced instead of being challenged/crosscut by facts and reality. Today, there's no more Walter Cronkite, who a huge percentage of the country watched every night. Today, it's atomized. 2. Obviously, "it's the economy stupid."  If the unemployment rate had been at 5% instead of 9.6%, the "Daou Triangle" for Republicans wouldn't have been nearly as strong as it turned out to be. 3. In the leftosphere, it's worth noting that there wasn't just division, but also strong voices that relentlessly pounded Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Democrats in general for their perceived/actual failings on health care, clean energy/climate, etc., etc.  For instance, see Joe Romm's latest piece on how Barack Obama "let die our best chance to preserve a livable climate and restore US leadership in clean energy -- without a serious fight."  Also, see Jane Hamsher, David Sirota, Cenk Uygur, and numerous other voices from the left who routinely excoriated Democrats over the past 2 years. Was there any equivalent on the right in 2009-2010? One doesn't spring to mind.

Votes for Clean Energy, Climate Bill Did NOT Defeat Democrats

Thanks to great work by NRDC's Rob Perks, we can dispose of the theory that Democrats' votes for clean energy/climate legislation -- which Republicans demonized as "cap and tax" (despite it being their own idea!)  -- hurt them at the polls on Tuesday. In fact: ...a whopping 84% of Democratic representatives who voted for the House climate bill won their elections yesterday.  (This does not include four races that are still too close to call as of this writing.)  On the other hand, nearly 60% of those who voted against the bill went down in defeat. (This excludes two races that were not decided as of this writing.) Here in Virginia, Glenn Nye voted "no" on ACES (and also "no" on health care reform) and lost on Tuesday. Gerry Connolly voted "yes" on ACES and won on Tuesday.  On the other hand, Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello voted "yes" on ACES and lost on Tuesday. In the case of Perriello, it's extremely unlikely that vote had anything to do with his defeat, as you barely even heard it mentioned by the Hurt campaign.What about Rick Boucher?  Now, that's an interesting case - possibly the proverbial "exception that proves the rule?" - and one worth looking into further. My guess is that Boucher was hurt somewhat by his vote for "cap and trade" in "coal country," but he was hurt even worse by his failure to explain what role he played in that bill - watering it down and larding it up with the coal industry wish list; basically, doing what the coal industry corporate overlords wanted, then getting little if any credit (or support) from them for doing so. Ouch. P.S. I'd love to see this same analysis for health care reform. UPDATE: Statistical analysis backs up NRDC's case, big time.

Speaking of Messaging

by Eric

Has anyone else noticed that the Democrats are already screwing the pooch for the 2012 elections? While we should rightly be humbled after Tuesday's losses, we should not be buying into this self-proclaimed Teapublican mandate bullsh*t.Failing to Finish Off the 2010 Elections While Democrats are busy trying to figure out what went wrong, how to fix it, or just kissing up to the non-existent mandate, the Teapublicans are busy trying to convince the American People that the American People really did give them a mandate.  They're trying to make us feel good about our new purchase after the sale. That's smart marketing, especially when the American People, as a whole, really didn't buy the product in the first place. ATTENTION DEMOCRATIC LEADERS: Get out there and start convincing the American People that they just got hoodwinked by a bunch of extremists. In sports proper "follow through" is coached constantly and in the aftermath of the election the Teapublicans are doing just that. Unfortunately Democrats are actually helping them follow through instead of disrupting it. Giving into Teapublican Demands Democrats are already giving in to the Teapublican demands before they've been sworn in. For example, Harry Reid on tax cuts for the upper income brackets: "If we need to work something out with the people who are really rich, I'll have to look at that." ATTENTION SENATOR REID: You are still the MAJORITY leader. Were the Republican leaders in the early 2000s, who held very slim margins, talking about caving in to Democratic demands? Hell No. Grow a pair or turn over leadership to someone who already has them. Er, make that a Democrat who has a pair. Given the current mentality I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats in the Senate simply handed leadership to the Teapublicans. Jeesh. Talking about Compromise Democrats have been (foolishly) trying to compromise for the past two years and look what it got us. Democrats watered down a number of bills with Republican demands only to have them a) vote against the bills and b) demonize the Democrats for those same bills. Do our Democratic leaders really think that the Teapublicans mean it when they say "compromise"? ATTENTION EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T ALREADY KNOW: Compromise means one of two things to the Teapublicans: "NO" or "Do it EXACTLY like I say and I might vote for it. But I probably won't until a conservative is in the White House." The only way to make Tuesday's losses worse is to help set up the Teapublicans for victories in two years. And Democrats are doing just that. Doh!

Obama - One and Done?

by Eric

I'm not sure if Obama is going to get to serve another term.   In fact, if things keep going the way they've been going the past year, I'm positive Obama will be one and done.  It's not because I cower in fear of our new Teapublican overlords after their history making, freedom loving, glory inducing, red, white and blue tour de force of Americana that pulled us from the brink of the abyss of patriotic damnation.  It's not because the will of the people spoke, nay, wielded the sword of unyeilding and uncompromising truth, honesty, and justice to slay the foes of peace, democracy, and freedom.   No, I'm worried about the Democrats uncanny ability to, as the saying goes, pull defeat from the jaws of victory. The Democrats just got slapped around.  Big time.  No doubt about that.  That's something we should be somewhat concerned about.  But it's not something we need to be very concerned about, provided the Democrats in power and those running the show get their sh*t together and start taking advantage of wonderful opportunity the Teapublicans just handed to us.  Make that three opportunities... 1. Mandate? The Teapublicans are certain of the mandate they were just given.  Unfortunately for them it really wasn't an all powerful mandate, but that won't diminish the bravado or self righteous power trip they're high on.  Polls are divided about whether this was even a referendum on Obama's policies - much less a rebuke of his efforts, Teabaggers were elected in a number of races but were also crushed (as loons) in other high profile races meaning they don't have the across-the-board appeal they think they do, the American people have been giving Congress ridiculously low approval ratings so some change had to come, the economy still isn't good (better than it would have been, but many are still hurting) so some change had to come, Obama's huge victory two years ago put some Democrats in power that normally wouldn't have been in those districts so it's natural that those seats would be in great danger, the Democrats in general have done a HORRIBLE job messaging and marketing (see Lowell's post on the issue), the minority base is usually more motivated and was so in this case with rank-and-file Republicans showing higher enthusiasm, and so on.  Point being, any rational analysis of the Teapublican victory would have to conclude that the reasons for their various victories are many, many of those reasons have nothing to do with their platform, and there is certainly no mandate.

Eric :: Obama - One and Done?

They are going to act like they've just been elected run the entire Country, instead of the more modest gaining control of the House.  Which means they will be trying to shove their agenda down everyone's throat.   And thanks to the influx of the Teabaggers, that agenda is even more extreme than ever before.  In short, the Teapublicans are going to do their thing without hesitation or reservation, so the Democrats can make huge strides by simply making sure the American people see that agenda for what it really is.  In fact, it's so simple that I'm sure the Democrats will find a way to f*ck it up (again, I refer to Lowell's post about messaging and marketing).   Seriously, this shouldn't be difficult given the personalities (with chips on their shoulders) who are coming to Washington.2. Infighting.  It's going to be a bare fisted slugfest to see who can take the mantle of most extreme in the Teapublican party.   While the old Republican party was VERY good at controlling their people, it's not looking quite so good this time around.  Not only can the Teabaggers sense that they are not far from toppling the old leadership, but they are also sure enough of themselves that they'd go it on their own if their agenda isn't strictly adhered to.   Neither branch of the Teapublican party is willing to compromise with the Democrats (see above for how that's an advantage), but they're already showing signs of not wanting to compromise ANY of their individual beliefs, which will certainly place members of the party at odds with each other.  They're even talking about it in sound bites, with the vague (and sometimes not so vague) "my way or the highway" rhetoric. Because the Teapublicans are so dead set on their principles, there will be plenty of opportunities to drive the wedge in deeper.  And the deeper it goes, the uglier the infighting will be.   They'll be on the look out for this scenario so it won't be easy to take advantage of, but there will certainly be opportunities.  Can the Democrats make the most of those opportunities?   If the recent past is any indicator, the answer is no - the Democrats will probably step in and try to forge a compromise for the two sides and in process make themselves look like idiots. 3. Incompetence.  Some come from the Palin school of mis-education while others will be blinded by ideology.   Either way the end result will be very bad governance.  Since we're still in a time of economic crisis, and we've still got corporations screwing up the environment, our savings, our housing, and our credit, and we're still fighting wars on terror and drugs, and we've still got immigration issues, and on and on, it should be easy to spot bad leadership.  In fact, compared to Obama's (usually) good leadership these guys should look like absolute morons. But this all gets back to messaging and marketing (yes, see Lowell's post again).   If Faux News can convince their loyal followers that bad leadership is actually good, and then those followers make such noise that the MSM actually starts believing it (or is too scared to confront Faux and the Right), then their bad leadership will be rewarded again in two years.  So again, the Teapublicans incompetence will be a golden opportunity for the Democrats, but only if they figure out how to take advantage of it.  And again, history shows that the Democrats will find a way to let them off the hook. Seriously, I'm thinking if the cards are played well, the pendulum will swing back just as far to the left in two years.   But they need to be played well, not dropped on the floor - face up.  So given the recent track record of the Democratic party (see yesterday's election results if you need a refresher) I'm going to have to lean heavily toward Obama being a one-and-done President.   Please don't misunderstand - I really do hope I'm wrong.  And I will be if the Dems can take advantage of the bounty of political opportunities the Teapublicans will provide.  But they've got to nail the opportunities they've been missing so often.