You are currently browsing the daily archive for April 23, 2010.

There is an interesting debate between two “R” pundits that have been Obama’s cheerleaders just in time for the busiest day in corruption

In one corner, David-love-his perfectly creased -pants Brooks, in the other Andrew-how dare the bitches-run-against-Obama Sullivan.

In his New York Times column, Brooks decries the “demise of the center” which he was just hoping was over

The center has been losing political power pretty much my entire career. But I confess that about 16 months ago I had some hope of a revival. The culture war, which had bitterly divided the country for decades, was winding down. The war war — the fight over Iraq and national security — was also waning.

(was it? so what happened?)

Anyway, his hopes for the future of the “center” were based on what else? Jr.jr:

The country had just elected a man who vowed to move past the old polarities, who valued discussion and who clearly had some sympathy with both the Burkean and Hamiltonian impulses. He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists whose views overlapped with mine, who differed only in that they have more faith in technocratic planning.

And then, things went wrong, but not Obama’s fault or Brooks mistake. It was just…. well…history’s fault

What happened?

History happened. The administration came into power at a time of economic crisis. This led it, in the first bloom of self-confidence, to attempt many big projects all at once. Each of these projects may have been defensible in isolation, but in combination they created the impression of a federal onslaught.

And the damn history dragged the perfect Obama with it and made him unloveable to Brooks

During periods of government war, the Democratic Party also reverts to its vestigial self. Democrats don’t want to defend big government, so instead they lash out at business. Over the past weeks, President Obama has upped his attacks on Big Oil, Wall Street and “powerful interests,” sounding like an orthodox Reagan-era Democrat.

Oh, David, David David! I thought you knew a thing or two about empty rhetoric.

Oh, well, I guess it was history’s fault Brooks had to chose sides.

Not necessarily so! Says the other former Bushie turned B0bot, woman hater extraordinaire Andrew Sullivan

He of course agrees with his fellow ex-Bushie about “History happening’

I find myself in agreement with David Brooks’ column this morning on how – unwittingly – the Obama administration was forced into the kind of big government action required to cope with several huge crises, after years of negligence and drift. I can see how easy it was for the FNC-RNC to wheel out their exhausted tropes of anti-government rhetoric and for Paul Krugman, say, to wheel out his own pro-government radicalism.

but finds it within himself to forgive Obama for appearing to be a Democrat. After all, Sullivan, a bit sharper than Brooks, sees the kabuki of it all

The truth is: Obama has not caved to the left’s understanding of the role of government. In reality, the healthcare reform was a moderate enterprise, made radical in the public consciousness by a cynical bid to propagandize the whole debate by the FNC-RNC axis. Same with the handling of the banks, the financial regulation bill, the stimulus, and the recalibration of US foreign policy after the failed belligerence of the Bush-Cheney years.

OK, I said he was sharper than Brooks, not sharp. If he sees a “recalibration from Bush-Cheney” he is as literal about rhetoric as brooks is. But he still defends Obama and proof he is still one of them (“centrists”):

If David doubts the moderation of Obama, he might ask his colleague, Paul Krugman, or read more Glenn Greenwald.

His reassurances remind me of Rush Limbaugh reassuring his audience in 2000 that Bush’s talk of “compassionate conservatism” is nothing to worry about. “He can call himself brie cheese, he is our boy, he only says this things to appeal to a larger audience to get elected”.

Of course, in order for the simile to have worked perfectly, we would have had Glenn Greenwald reassuring his readers that all the Reagan rhetoric from Obama means nothing, and he is one of us.

But these days, all the posturing and positioning skews right no matter what. Which is why we have two “R”s discussing their love of a so called “D” POTUS.

The two major cesspools that made Obama’s political career possible seem to gift us

with particularly malodorous emissions today.

There’s Goldman Sachs which is coming to Washington today

Some of the financial titan’s current and former brass will testify in front of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in a hearing entitled “Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: The Role of Investment Banks.”

Not that they were ever very far from it, running the government and all that.

In the middle of it all, Goldman’s boss, whom Politico calls

arguably the most powerful figure on Wall Street,

has a little ego meltdown

Blankfein: Suit Against Goldman Will “Hurt America”

comments Naked Capitalism

Blankfein’s comments sound like those of a narcissist completely unhinged at the idea that he is being criticized. If this neurosis pervades the Goldman executive ranks (which we think is entirely possible, see our earlier discussion), that provides an indirect confirmation of the widespread perception that the firm is concerned only with what it can get away with, and is lacking in any moral compass.

meanwhile, back at the ranch, Blago is still making headlines attaching his name to Obama and Rezko at the same time.

1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko

Blagojevich’s lawyers allege that Rezko admitted breaking the law by contributing “a large sum of cash” to a public official. Blagojevich’s attorneys say that public official is Obama. Obama said that Rezko never relayed a request from a lobbyist to hold a fundraiser in favor of favorable legislative action. But the point may be moot: regardless of Obama talking/not talking to Rezko, Blagojevich’s attorneys say that Obama refused the request regardless.

The story made page one in Chicago Tribune

but then again Rezko was on page one throughout most of the elections and no one bothered to mention it to the voters.

And if that Chicago swamp  is not enough, Politico has another headline about the upcoming senate elections

White House leaves Dick Durbin hanging

Sen. Dick Durbin slipped into the West Wing last week to ask Rahm Emanuel for White House help in saving Barack Obama’s old Senate seat.

It seems though, more corruption requires further distancing, Senate control be damned

At the moment, the White House seems open to the idea of losing Obama’s old seat rather than putting the president’s prestige on the line for Giannoulias, the brash and boyish Illinois state treasurer — and onetime Obama basketball buddy — whose campaign has been rocked by the financial meltdown of his family’s bank.

which of course pisses off the local operatives

“This is [Obama’s] state,” said a Democratic operative who is backing Giannoulias.

“If they keep this up, they are going to lose the majority leader’s seat, the vice president’s old seat and the president’s old seat,” the person added, referring to Sen. Harry Reid’s precarious Nevada reelection chances and the tossup race for Joe Biden’s old Senate seat in Delaware.

And this was “Today in corruption” for the Hope and change administration. Ironically, I found this grandstanding promise cover from February 2009

Anyone remember the names he named? Geitner? Goldman Sachs?

And in view of it all, omeone please remind me: what was Whitewater about again? Travelgate? Filegate? Bueler? Anyone?


The “D” candidate for Obama seat had his bank seized by the Feds today

I’ll give AM-NY cover of the day for representing us in the coverage of Obama’s Wall Street stunt

There are dueling headlines in the other papers, representing their parties:

In the pro corner stands the cheerleader NY Daily News

.In the opposite corner, Washington Times thinks that

.And Rahm’s WaPo is beating its chest

.not unlike Axelrod’s Obama Times

.as Wall Street Journal totally ignores the whole thing – but gives Goldman Sachs some attention now that it looks better for them

.Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the chinese wall between Blago and Obama is punctured

In LA, the South Park tale of terrorism, cowardice and censorship makes page one

.and further, way further, the amazing photos of the sun make two covers

The Examiner

.and what’s becoming soon my favorite newspaper of all, Stars and Stripes


Not Your Sweetie