TOI - PART DEAUX

So, my friends George and Patrick, didn't even budge a little regarding my argument that the Dems should think about backing off Obama right now. Well, not one to go down without a fight, I decided to devote another post to my comments on their comments. Here goes ...

- You are both poopy heads.

- Okay, I read the Rolling Stone article ... Here are my brief high level thoughts: I totally agree that it's a very thorough account of the history behind this financial mess we're in, and I actually do share the feelings of the author (as well as those of you two). But that was never really my point. I mean, yeah, I'm pissed that the Republicans deregulated everything and that Bush's incompetence made a bad situation worse. And yeah, the rich have been getting richer, and the middle class has been getting screwed. That -- I would argue -- is one of the reasons we elected Obama in the first place. I think the key question is whether or not Barack really intends to maintain that pattern; where his heart is. It is my feeling that - based on his policies and budget -- his intention is to reverse the trend, no?

- I don't know Heilbrunn from Adam; I just enjoyed the post because it sort of mimicked the way I've been feeling about the Left over the last few days. Just because he's a hack, doesn't mean he's wrong about this issue.

- For the record, I am not suggesting that Democrats should be like Republicans and check in their brains at the door. All I am saying is that we should be looking at the bigger picture here. If you analyze Obama's budget, you certainly can't argue with the fact that it is extremely progressive. The main problem in my opinion is that he is going to have this gigantic fight on his hands just to push through all those worthy goals, and the Repugs have already shown that they are going to do everything in their power to stop it and to stop him. So, what chance does he have if the Left is already declaring him an economic failure after only 2 months? No, we don't have to be sheeple, but yes, I think it's important to be generally united behind Barack right now.

- Let me try to put my thoughts into a bigger context ... I am not saying that I agree with Geithner's philosophy. And I am also not saying that Obama is king and that you guys shouldn't say anything bad about him. What upsets me is this idea that Wall Street "owns" Obama and that his approach to the banking crisis is proof that he's in bed with these guys. If you truly believe that, then how can you trust anything he does? Sure, criticize all you want, but call it a mistake or bad judgement or whatever. Because the implication I heard at dinner was that Obama is doling out money to rich banksters as payback for all those campaign contributions. If you really think that's true, then Obama is just some sleazy politician. Well, I'm still all about the hope thing, and I choose not to believe that.

- At the end of the day, the question is not about how angry we are at the past; it's about what do we now. Sure, it would feel great to nationalize all the banks and kick the bastards out. But as I said last night, Obama is already fighting off claims that he's a socialist from every direction. So, taking over the banks could actually be political suicide. And if that's true, then forget about all the other good stuff that you do acknowledge he is trying to do.

- Batman is not Bush.

Sincerely,

Trekking Left

TOI

I have a new motto today: TOI ... Trust Obama's Instincts. Right after the Repuglican convention way back in September, I wrote an entry defending Obama against all the left leaning critics saying that Obama wasn't angry enough to beat Palin ... er, I mean McCain. And, at that time, I told Obama to stick to his plan and to just keep doing his thing.

Well, it's a few months later, and it seems that Obama has a new liberal assault to fend off, and that's the arrows being thrown at his recent economic plan. Now, for the record, I'm not an economist; nor do I pretend to understand the chaotic world that is Wall Street finance. And it's also fair to say that I'm generally not a big fan of Geithner's overall philosophy regarding the solutions to this banking nightmare. Having said that, however, I really do think we tear down Obama at our own peril.

I kind of thought I was the only one having these feelings until I read this recent entry on Huffington Post. I hope Mr. Heilbrunn doesn't mind, but I'm going to break from tradition and print this post in its entirety:

The chorus of criticism of President Obama's economic plan has been almost deafening, and it isn't coming from Republicans but Democrats. Sure, the Republicans are engaging in scare tactics about tens of trillions in deficits, but it's the liberal naysayers such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who've been the real critics.

They should lay off. Krugman's lamentations about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's bank rescue plan simply don't add up. Is the plan perfect? No. But it does provide a road map to recovery, one that can be amended in coming weeks and months. Krugman's complaints, by contrast, reek of theology. The notion that a Wall Street cabal has captured Obama and that taxpayers will be on the hook for the bad bank loans rests on the assumption that the economy won't recover. But if the Geithner plan works -- as I suspect it will -- then these objections will seem picayune and pointless.

Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the liberal attack on the Obama administration is that it betrays a kind of pathological political death-wish among Democrats. When Ronald Reagan was trying to extricate America from recession in his first term, Republicans weren't denouncing him. Democrats, by contrast, seem to have no compunction about flaying their president a few months into his first term as courting failure. No doubt they depict it as concern for his success. But it remains astonishing that a variety of pundits and lawmakers continue to underestimate Obama, who is, by a wide margin, the most shrewd and thoughtful president America has had in decades. Will Obama rescue the economy? Yes, he can. But not if the Democrats try to stop him first.

Here's the thing ... This economic crisis is like nothing we've faced in the history of this country. I may not be happy with Geithner, but he's the man Obama picked, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he turns out to be a disaster, then I'll be the first to say I was wrong. But for the moment, let's stand together behind this guy, because I'm just not all that interested in setting the stage for President Jindal.

MORE FRANKEN WATCH

Interesting interview with Coleman's lawyer yesterday. Here's part of it ...

Joe Friedberg, attorney for former Sen. Norm Coleman's recount effort, seemed to suggest in a MN radio interview yesterday that Democrat Al Franken will wind out on top when the three-judge panel finishes reviewing the counting process. Friedberg says that he's "done" but that the case could drag on for some time.

Q. Joe, are you done?
A. Yes, I'm done.

Q. Let me ask you in a different way. Is Norm done?
A. Well, I think that we have been trying this case with the appeal record in mind, and that's where we're going, and it's going to be a very quick appeal, and then I will know whether or not it worked.

Q. Well, when you say quick appeal, are you confident that you are going to lose the case in front of the three-judge panel? By losing the case, I mean Norm ends up with less votes.
A. I think that's probably correct that Franken will still be ahead and probably by a little bit more. But our whole argument was that it was a constitutional argument, and it's an argument suitable for the Minnesota Supreme Court, not for the trial court. So we will see whether we were right or not.
...

Q. We could still be awhile before this thing gets decided?
A. Yeah, I think that's clearly true.

I have to admit to being torn on this one. I mean, I can't complain about Al being the "winner" by most accounts. But, how long can Coleman drag this thing out?

And, by the way, if Coleman takes this thing to The Supreme Court or whatever, does he realistically have any future in elected politics?

YOU GO, CHRIS!

While most of the world has been focusing (and rightfully so) on the weirdly surreal battle between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer, I've actually been slightly more interested in a couple of recent Chris Matthews interviews on Hardball. For the record, Mr. Matthews runs hot and cold with me ... I have, in fact, read a couple of his books. But, over the last few years, he's generally made me more mad than glad.

Anyway, I think that I may have to give ol' Chris another looksy after I fell upon his interview with Ari Fleischer last week. You can catch it here if you'd like (and you really should), but in a nutshell, Mr. Fleischer was trying very hard to defend W.'s record as president, and Chris would have none of it. The entire interview was incredible, but I really want to focus on how it ended:

Fleischer: "After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance that Saddam might strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed."

Matthews: "I'm proud that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind argument...and the American people are too."


Fleischer: "Well, Chris, we all know where you stand.

Matthews: "And you as well sir."

Now, you might have read that and said yourself, "So what, I know Fleischer is a tool?" No, no, no ... read that first statement again. Who might strike again after September 11th? That's right, after all this time, they are STILL trying to convince us that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Unba-freakin-lievable!

I actually thought I was the only one to catch this. I mean, Huffington Post, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews himself all discussed this amazing interview, but none of them mentioned the huge (intentional) blunder by Ari Fleiser. I really felt the need to write someone (anyone!) and ask why no one is talking about this.

Well, the next day, I got my wish. And I got it in a big way ...




I truly believe that the biggest (and most under reported) story of the decade is how Bush duped the entire country into believing that the Iraq War was revenge for 9/11. It may be too little too late, but at least someone in the mainstream media finally had the guts to call someone out on this BS.

Thank you, Chris!

YOU MAY BE GAY!

RIGHT WING RALPHIE can help ...


Well, I wanted to embed this funny little cartoon, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. Anyway, click here to see it.