Must Reads

Ezra Klein: What Romney doesn’t understand about personal responsibility

Davis Corn: Romney's Video-Debunking Claim Is…Debunked

Alec MacGillis: How Paul Ryan Convinced Washington of His Genius

John D. McKinnon: Romney's Tax Plan Fails to Gain a Foothold

Zewlina Maxwell: Now a campaign issue: Sonia Sotomayor

Michael Lewis: Obama's Way

Must Reads

Deaniac83: Paul Krugman's Pre-emptive War on Obama

AP: Obama prevents budget cuts to favorite programs

John Cook: More Pentagon Papers Donald Rumsfeld Doesn't Want You to See

James R. Horney: Ryan Budget Plan Produces Far Less Real Deficit Cutting than Reported

Paul Krugman: Who's Serious Now?

Eugene Robinson: The Selfish Budget? Or the Selfless One?

David Corn: Ryan Budget: GOP Death Wish?

Charles M. Blow: The Pirates of Capitol Hill

Must Reads

David Corn: Sarah Palin, Wall Street Bailout Hypocrite

Gin and Tacos: At Long Last, Have You No Sense Of Decency?

Paul Krugman: Axis of Depression

Bob Cesca: When Your 'Junk' Is Touched at the Airport, Thank a Republican

Charles M. Blow: Let’s Rescue the Race Debate

Jim Lobe: Will Pentagon Be Exempt from Budget Cuts?

Circular Criticism Squad

Posted by JHW22

I have made it pretty clear that I find a lot of the "professional left's" criticisms of Obama to be short-sighted, unproductive and harmful to the party. Frankly, I could give a rat's ass if someone calls me a bot for it. I'd rather speak out for reality than be a bot for talking-point criticisms that sound good to the cynical. I try to avoid the superficial complaints about Obama because, honestly, my blood pressure goes up and I get Hulkified with no outlet for my rage. So, for the sake of my sanity, my marriage and my son's respect for me, I try to stick to reading only that criticism that is legitimate, fair and non-something-up-the-ass random.

So I was reading Andrew Sullivan today. I enjoy Sullivan because he gets it. We may not agree on everything but, for the most part, he provides sound reasoning and stays pretty calm. I like thinking about an issue without having to calm down first. He writes in a manner that lets me think from the first sentence through the last without me trying to "refudiate" each sentence along the way.

His post, "The Best Analysis of Obama's Dilemma" starts out like this:

It comes from Obama himself:

"Given how much stuff was coming at us, we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right... I think anybody who's occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion."

That sounds pretty good. I agree. I hate to agree with the President on this but I do. I'd prefer a policy be right and the American people figure out on their own that it's good, but I realize we're stupid and lazy and need to be massaged into understanding why a good policy is a good policy. I wish he weren't right but he is.

The next paragraph is about a Liberal (keep in mind that Andrew Sullivan is a Conservative):

David Corn complains that this is the kind of self-criticism that does not help before an election, and that in arguing that his biggest error was under-estimating Republican obstructionism, the president cannot also argue that he can work with the GOP, if necessary, in the next two years.

David Corn opened that particular article with THIS paragraph:

With a little over two weeks to go to the critical elections, why would the Obama White House want reporters (and voters) to fixate on what it got wrong in its first two years?

Yeah, why would Obama want reporters to fixate on something they already fixate on just fine without his help? Why would he want to state the very point they have fixated on all along? Doesn't he know that their fixations are so automatic that they will fixate on the very thing they have been fixated on just because now he mentioned it?

Perhaps David Corn is just pissed because now Obama has addressed it and that takes some of the cynicism out of the fixation. Damn. How can people like David Corn possibly criticize the President when he's criticizing himself? That's just not fair, gosh darn it. The only people who should be able to criticize are the very people who make a living criticizing. Each time Obama criticizes himself the "professional left" loses their bearing.

What I don't get is why the "professional left" can criticize Obama daily, without merit most of the time and at times seeming as if they are basing their opinions on someone else's reporting rather than doing the due diligence of thinking for themselves -- oh, but Obama can't criticize himself.

THIS is exactly the kind of crap that the left has been pulling for over a year. And it's exactly the kind of crap that has led me to avoid more and more of the "professional left". I stopped following David Corn on Twitter about two weeks ago because of shit like this. It's called stoking the fire. And as they say, if you can't stand the heat, stop reading the firebaggers. Okay, "they" don't say that but I am going to start saying it. Care to join me and create the "they"?

Say it with me, "If you can't stand the heat, don't read the firebaggers". Save your blood pressure for something that really matters. Use your precious time reading people who offer something legitimate to discuss.

Now, I need to get back to reading the rest of Andrew Sullivan and stop fixating on the firebagging.

edit: I was just reminded why I rarely watch MSNBC anymore. Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd are discussing the fact that Obama criticized himself in such a crucial time. Two people who have repeatedly criticized Obama are now criticizing Obama for criticizing Obama. Do these people hear themselves? Where's the remote?

Zero Attacks!

Another Republican strategist/Cheney apologist on Hardball expounding on the favorite Bush administration myth. Terry Jeffrey from CNSNews.com (I won't link it, but visit if you dare) trying some more revisionist history and boy, we should thank our lucky stars that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were in the White House to keep us safe! The proof is in the pudding because we've had "zero attacks" since 9/11. It really is a shame that these imbeciles either A) don't know that the Bush administration lasted a full eight years, and not the seven years and four months that they'd like us to remember, B) always dismiss the anthrax attacks or C) think that we're stupid enough to have forgetten that we were attacked on their watch.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Check out the full segment in which Jeffrey also infers that Afghanistan is Barack Obama's war, and since he won't appease either political side with the proper troop levels, history will remember that it will be his failed policy. An astute Matthews make a comparison to Nixon's Vietnam, another inherited war which was a slow bleed, but Jeffrey suggests that it might have turned out differently had the Democratic congress not "turned and ran out on the whole country" after Nixon left office in disgrace. So, you can't blame Nixon because he inherited a war, but you can blame Obama. And you can't blame Nixon for not sending enough troops to Vietnam, but you can blame Obama if he falls into the same situation in Afghanistan.

Brilliant!

Must Reads

Dr. Biobrain: All RedState, All The Time

The Rude Pundit: John McCain: The Town Hall Stalker

David Corn: Is McCain More the Populist than Obama?

Must Reads

David Corn: The Gramm Gaffe: The Real Problem for McCain


Rude Pundit: A Condemnation of Barack Obama Preceded by a Defense


John Avarosis: McCain was still married to his wife when he got married to his mistress


Bob Cesca: Killing Iranian Civilians Isn't Hilarious, Senator McCain


Steve Benen: McCain calls the Social Security system a ‘total disgrace’


Digby: The Liberal Village Speaks


Carol Kreck via HuffPo Blog: McCain=Bush

In-the-Ground Truth in Iran?

This is direct from David Corn's website. I've copied and pasted instead of linking because, for some reason, you can't link to a specific column, only the main page, on Corn's site. Fix it, Dave!

David Corn: "The most important news story of this week (so far) was an 8-paragraph piece buried on p. A9 of [the Dec.26] Washington Post. The Associated Press story reported:
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published Monday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
Iran's economic woes could make the country unstable and vulnerable, with its oil industry crippled, Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University, said in the report and in an interview.
Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. In less than five years exports could be halved and then disappear by 2015, Stern predicted.

Hold on. If this is true, it changes the popular conception of the ongoing Iran crisis. In the conventional view, Iran is enriching uranium for one reason alone: so it can become a nuclear power, dominate the Middle East, and threaten the Israel and the United States. The Iran war hawks (formerly known as the Iraq war hawks) scoff at the notion that Iran might have other motives for enriching uranium. They dismiss Iran's claim that it is processing uranium as part of a civilian nuclear energy program. With all that oil? the hawks argue. No way.

The supposed implausibility of Iran's argument has been fueling the move toward confrontation--that is, war. And in recent weeks I've spoken to several outside-the-administration Iran experts who believe the Bush White House is intent on military action against Iran--probably air strikes. Yet what if the Iranians are essentially telling the truth?

I have no sympathy for the repressive theocrats of Tehran and do not counsel taking them at their word. But before there is another march to war, there ought to be close scrutiny of the reasons for that march.

The rest of the AP story depicts a more nuanced situation than the one depicted by the beaters of the drums of war:
Stern's analysis, which appears in this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, supports U.S. and European suspicions that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of international understandings. But, Stern says, there could be merit to Iran's assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes "as badly as it claims."
He said oil production is declining and both gas and oil are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates. At the same time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production.
"With an explosive demand at home and poor management, the appeal of nuclear power, financed by Russia, could fill a real need for production of more electricity."
Iran produces about 3.7 million barrels a day, about 300,000 barrels below the quota set for Iran by the oil cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
The shortfall represents a loss of about $5.5 billion a year, Stern said. In 2004, Iran's oil profits were 65 percent of the government's revenues.
"If we look at that shortfall, and failure to rectify leaks in their refineries, that adds up to a loss of about $10 billion to $11 billion a year," he said. "That is a picture of an industry in collapse."
If the United States can "hold its breath" for a few years it may find Iran a much more conciliatory country, he said. And that, Stern said, is good reason to belay any instinct to take on Iran militarily.
"What they are doing to themselves is much worse than anything we could do," he said.
"The one thing that would unite the country right now is to bomb them," Stern said. "Here is one problem that might solve itself."

Doing nothing--starting no war--and solving a problem? That sounds pretty damn good. Whether Stern is right or not, what's happening within Iran deserves far more coverage within the US media. Without more information, the public will not be able to evaluate--or challenge--the next case for war."