Must Reads

David Brooks: The Mother of All No-Brainers

Extreme Liberal: Mark Halperin’s History Of Misguided Rhetoric!

Matt Osborne: Bradley Manning is Still Not Special

Abe Sauer: How Republicans and Tea Partiers Alike Used the Heritage Foundation's #AskObama Script

Justin Rosario: David Duke And The Problem With White Pride

Ian Boudreau: An Alternative Hypothesis on Debt Ceiling Wrangling

Jared Bernstein: June Jobs Report -- Far Worse Than Expected

Deaniac83: MoveOn Joins Three-Ring Media and Professional Left Circus on Social Security

Dennis G., Balloon Juice: A Penny For Your Outrage

Susan Crabtree: Rep. Ryan Tastes The Grapes Of Wrath

The Rude Pundit: Chris Christie Is Your Fat Fucking Future (A Post With a Bunch of Fat Jokes Because He's So Fucking Fat)

Chipsticks: The Professional Left’s Heroine

Allan Brauer: Handcuffing Ourselves to the White House Email Server: A Guide to Online Petitions

Quote of the Day

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

~David Brooks, July 4th, 2011 New York Times Op-Ed

When a dyed in the wool conservative like David Brooks can see the writing on the wall, you know that the GOP is in trouble.

Democrats can not cave to a debt ceiling deal with absolutely no revenue increases.

David Brooks: Hack Of The Worst Kind

Dear Mr. Brooks,

Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy in your latest column, "The Two Obamas"?

Let's take each issue that you take offense with one at a time, and explain it so that even you can understand.

In your "column", you rail frantically against Senator Obama voting "present" while a member of the Illinois State Senate 130 times according to your count. I won't waste time looking for the actual number because it is irrelevant. Anyone bothering to look for an explanation can easily find one, such as this Republican State House leader coming to Obama's defense.

...Obama's former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama's opponents don't understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.

"To insinuate the 'present' vote means you're indecisive, that you don't have the courage to hold public office, that's a stretch. But, it's good politics," said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party's floor leader.

In fact, he said, Illinois legislators get attacked for their "present" votes nearly every campaign season. "It's always been a campaign gimmick, really. If you vote 'present' once in 23 years, somebody will bring it up."

The "present" vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.

"The 'present' vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.

And since we're on the subject of not committing to vote for a bill, I'll be awaiting your article on why John McCain didn't bother show up to vote on the new GI Bill, one of the most important bills to come to the floor this year. You'd think that a former POW and veteran hero like McCain would do all he can to help our soldiers, I mean besides voting against a ban on waterboarding.

In your next statement, you claim that Barack Obama first stood by Rev. Wright and then later "threw [him] under the truck" only when it was politically convenient. Nowhere in your article does it state that he originally stood by him but denounced his inflammatory remarks. Nowhere in your article does it state that because of the controversy that the media perpetuated, he daringly gave a speech considered a third rail in politics, discussing the issue of race and racism in our country that was widely hailed as one of the most important political speeches in the last 40 years.

Only after Rev. Wright continued to fly off the handle, giving a speech at the National Press Club to promote his upcoming book, did Obama finally cut Wright loose; only after another controversial appearance by guest speaker Father Pfleger at Trinity United Church, did Obama decide to leave the church itself not only for his own sake, but to avoid further distraction that it was causing the congregation.

It was a lose-lose-lose situation for Obama. Either he defends Wright and gets lambasted by the right wing, or he denounces Wright's comments which isn't considered good enough by the wingnut pundits, or he disavows him altogether and is accused of throwing him "under the truck." Either he stays with his church and is ridiculed by the likes of you, or he leaves the church is accused of doing it for political convenience.

Next you throw in some stupid line about Obama not being a "workhorse senator" and throwing his duties "under the truck" (always with the truck). Yet you give no examples of what you may be talking about. As for me, I'll refer you to the example above regarding McCain's non GI Bill vote and I'll throw this little tidbit of information your way: Senator John McCain, as of this past May 17th had missed 43 straight votes in the Senate just this year alone. At that point, that equated to missing approximately 50% of the roll calls. Before you try and defend the fact that he's been on the campaign trail, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had only missed just 6.4 percent and 1.8 percent of votes this year, respectively. What a "workhorse" that John McCain, huh? Perhaps he was napping.

As for town hall meetings? Maybe Obama would accept if he knew that the audience was impartial and not vetted or invited by the McCain campaign.

Fox News: The McCain campaign said it was taking random questions from the audience of about 200 people. But the questions and mood were decidedly favorable, as his jabs at Obama were frequently interrupted by applause.

One questioner praised his military service; another called him a “hero.”

The campaign later issued a statement saying it distributed tickets to “supporters, Mayor Bloomberg, and other independent groups.”

What a maverick that McCain is!

But then, Mr. Brooks, you save the best for last: Accusing Barack Obama of flip-flopping and backing out of public financing. Oh no! The evil Obama deciding not to accept any taxpayer money (a "small government" conservative's dream by the way). Weak, David. Weak. Let's slow this down so you can see how ridiculous this argument is.

First, let's talk about what Senator Obama actually did say he would participate in. In his Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, question 1-B asked: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing
system?"

So the operative phrase here is "if... your major opponents agree to forgo public financing..." Here is his full answer after checking the "yes" box:

"I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

You got that, Dave? "Senator McCain has already agreed to accept this fundraising pledge." The only problem is that Senator McCain has been raising and spending unlimited monies in violation of Federal Election Commission laws after opting in for public campaign funds through the primaries (which end with the convention), used that pledge to secure a bank loan, and then opted out of public financing. Something that the Republican Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission calls ILLEGAL.

...McCain's maneuvering seemed to irritate FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, who wrote a letter to McCain in February saying McCain could only withdraw from public financing if he received the permission of the FEC and answered questions about the loan.

"The Commission made clear that a candidate enters into a binding contract with the Commission when he executes the Candidate Agreements and Certification," Mason wrote. "The Commission stated that it would withdraw a candidate's certifications upon written request, thus agreeing to rescind the contract, so long as the candidate: 1) had not received Matching Payment Program funds, and 2) had not pledged the certification of Matching Payment Program funds as 'security for private financing.'"

By the way, McCain was asked the same public financing question that Obama answered from the same organization and didn't bother to respond. Perhaps he was napping.

The fact is that McCain is gaming the system - first planning to opt out of public financing during the primaries. Then when fundraising got rough and he was out of cash, on August 10 McCain asked the Federal Election Commission for the authority to receive matching funds, and the FEC said he was eligible for $5.8 million. Although he never collected the money, he secured a $4 million line of credit with the agreement to reapply for federal matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests. The agreement also held as collateral his list of contributors and a pledge by McCain to seek further cash from those donors to pay of the loan.

So cry all you want about Senator Obama opting out of public financing, or in actuality creating his own system of public financing without using one single dollar of taxpayer money. If the roles were reversed, no one would be batting an eye at the advantage of GOP coffers, but since the shoe is on the other foot, all we hear is whining from "pundits" with agendas.

I suppose that's why your columns are op-eds, Mr. Brooks. You may be entitled you your opinion, but you are certainly not entitled to your own facts.
*************************

I know the public financing fiasco is convoluted - here is Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman explaining it a lot better than I probably did.

Brooks on Clinton: The Audacity of Hopelessness

Very rarely, if ever, do I agree with David Brooks, but this time he's speaking purely within the Democratic circle and he's getting it right.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

...When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

...The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.

If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.

David Brooks: Republicans Fall Looks Dim

I can't believe I'm quoting David brooks here (I can't stand to read his crap most of the time) but at least he was honest in this assessment:

...the Republican prospects in the fall just got even dimmer. I say this not only because a weak general election candidate won a primary, but because Mitt Romney’s win pretty much guarantees a bitter fight for the nomination. If you doubt that, here is what Rush Limbaugh said about McCain and Huckabee on his program today: “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.” This week, Rush and his radio mimics have been on the rampage on the party’s modernizers, from Newt Gingrich on over.

This thing will only get uglier.

Even Limbaugh is this forlorn?! It's says something about the incredibly weak candidtates on the GOP side that the pundits and wingnuts are starting to eat each other.

Op-Ed Death Match Continues

Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher continues the updates of the editorial sparring match between David Brooks, Paul Krugman & Bob Herbert. Lou Cannon now enters the steel cage.

The Reagan Pundit Wars

Rachel Maddow's show started off with a good topic today.

The subject: Paul Krugman's new book, "Conscience of a Liberal" and how it has started a string of right wing attacks on Krugman, especially from David Brooks, for daring to criticize Ronald Reagan. Yes, that right wing diety, Ronald Reagan.

Brooks: Today, I’m going to write about a slur. It’s a distortion that’s been around for a while, but has spread like a weed over the past few months...

The distortion concerns a speech Ronald Reagan gave during the 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., which is where three civil rights workers had been murdered 16 years earlier. An increasing number of left-wing commentators assert that Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign with a states’ rights speech in Philadelphia to send a signal to white racists that he was on their side. The speech is taken as proof that the Republican majority was built on racism.

The truth is more complicated.

Paul Krugman then fires back. Now remember that these men work for the same newspaper, so it's pretty rare that op-eds in the same paper take swipes at each other.

Krugman: So there's a campaign on to exonerate Ronald Reagan from the charge that he deliberately made use of Nixon's Southern strategy. When he went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1980, the town where the civil rights workers had been murdered, and declared that 'I believe in states' rights,' he didn't mean to signal support for white racists. It was all just an innocent mistake.

Indeed, you do really have to feel sorry for Reagan. He just kept making those innocent mistakes.

But was Reagan a racist or does Brooks have it right in saying it is blown out of proportion? Here's Bob Herbert, another op-ed columnist from the same paper!

Herbert: Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew. ...

...And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.

Congress overrode the veto.

Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too.

So was Reagan a racist? In the meantime, what are all those GOP primary candidates going to do? Keep echoing Reagan's name at every debate as the great leader they think he was or shy away from St. Ronald of the Right Wing?

Timothy Noah at Slate has a more complete history of the feud.