Maybe, but I have reason to doubt

*

This guy, whomever he may be, thinks Obama may be launching a campaign to draw Main Street's attention to the  sharp contrast between Democrats, who are trying to conduct the people's business, and Republicans, who have no goal other than to prevent the majority party from governing.

Well, maybe. If so, then Obama is beginning a thrilling gambit in his game of 10-dimensional chess --- maybe analogous to deliberately ceding the lead to the other team at halftime, then launching the third quarter with an onside kick and blinding touchdown drive that leaves the bad guys befuddled and deflated. And the crowd goes wild.

In order for this hypothetical tactic to work any magic, congressional Democrats in both chambers would have to get behind the quarterback and mash some Republican heads without worrying about how it might look to the Washington Post editorial board. In other words, the President and congressional Democrats would have to start ruthlessly working on a constructive agenda so regular people could have a taste of what progressive good government has to offer in contrast to the zombie Reagan agenda.

Nope, I don't see it happening. Just expecting more 1-dimension tiddly winks as usual, as Big Hussein Otis has called it.

On pandering, roping dopes, and the hidden message

*
My apologies for not providing an pre-Obamacare-speech analysis before tonight. My punishment is loss of any predictive cred I could have gained by being punctual, but I've been a little run down for a few days. Anyway, the text of Obama's speech is here for your reading pleasure in case you're interested.

First, the pandering: people much more clever than StuporMundi, including the Chief himself, determined that the speech had to include a dram of denouncing "partisan spectacle" and a small overdose of "the time for bickering is over." It makes the President look diplomatic, which is a high priority in this hateful environment, but it also panders to right-wingers by implying that liberals were behind some of the fear, uncertainty, and distrust (and bare hatred) we've been reading and hearing about for months. No: the incivility and lies are the exclusive creation of people who call themselves conservatives, paid for and incited into violent expression by organizations with strong ties to the Republican politburo. OK, whatever. At least he got it out of the way early.

Second, the dope-roping: I think he did a pretty good job of taking down the big Republican lies about healthcare reform, namely the "death panels," the "free lunch" for brown-colored illegal immigrants, and the "government takeover" canards. He and every Democrat will have to repeat these points relentlessly every day from here to eternity in speeches and news network appearances, of course, but his concise handling of them made the official Republican rebuttal afterward sound especially puny. It won't matter, though, without public pushback each and every day. Because this current breed of Republicans will never, ever stop lying about anything, period. (Big dope-roping bonus: here's the website of the troglodyte from South Carolina who called Obama a liar during a joint session of Congress on national television. Tomorrow he'll be the new Sarah Palin.)

Third, the hidden message: I think it was real, but admittedly it may have been perceived by StuporMundi in his zeal to find friendly faces in the wallpaper. Starting four paragraphs from the end, BHO seemed to fire a warning shot in the direction of Ronald Reagan's casket. Honestly, I hope that I'm correct, and that he's loaded for bears, and that he has a bad-ass (and highly caucasoid) posse help him take it to the streets. In my view, Obama may have explicitly opened up on the entire malignant premise of the Reagan Revolution by proposing that "the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little," and by supporting this novel point with references to the collapse of our predatory economy. Hundreds of thousands of middle-class, middle-road Americans are going bankrupt or insane from worry about their loss of financial stability.

Obama better not have stirred that pot without being prepared personally to lead the emancipation of us unwashed masses, and especially those loathsome political creatures called "centrists" and "Blue Dogs," from the delusion that the market can provide everything a democracy needs. He can't accomplish this using traditional leftist-sounding rhetoric, though. I'd expect him to edge toward a sort of civility-tinged populism, undeniable in its intent, but performing a sort of lethal surgical strike on the Reaganomics Mother Ship while tastefully avoiding the blanket demonization of Establishment players whose indulgence he needs in order to survive. I think Obama may see his historical task as the repair and even advancement of a national consensus where everyone understands that government, corporate, and individual interests must be well enough balanced for all to coexist and prosper. That would be a huge job after 30 years of American political dementia, the Reagan gift that keeps on giving.

Cuddling enemies, losing friends [updated]

*
Big Otis referred me to this Jane Smiley column on HuffingtonPost, which says pretty much what I've been feeling about Obama over the past 2 months. My own thoughts have been bifurcated, with clarity recently provided by Niccolo Machiavelli during my rereading of The Prince (Everyman's Library edition, which rocks!).

First, Obama has inexplicably been pandering to his worst enemies during this so-called healthcare reform debate. Instead, he should read what Machiavelli wrote about the folly of sparing adversaries who have reason to hate you: you don't reach out to them for approval and empowerment --- you go on the TV and point out to craven media talkers and their audience that Republicans and "Blue Dogs" are willful liars who don't want regular people to have it as good as everyone in the TV studio has it. I have been planning future posts on this topic so I won't belabor it here.

Second, Obama is either disregarding the positions his mainstream supporters elected him to fight for, or else he feels he can be extremely coy, with no negative consequences, toward hundreds of thousands of small donors such as myself who made his ascendancy to the White House possible. Machiavelli stated repeatedly, with clarity, that the Prince must never lose the support of the people; Niccolo's much-misunderstood advocacy of treachery in the building of political power largely did not countenance deceit and abuse of the people. Again, I've been planning some writings on this topic for a later date.

I'll simply conclude here that Jane Smiley, as usual, is on target in the way she writes about her Obama trepidations. Barack Obama --- who has a hardcore vocal minority expressing open hatred for his ideals, his background, and his racial heritage on Main Street, around the office pop machine, and on corporate news networks --- cannot afford to end up in a position where he literally has no friends. I haven't written him off just yet, but I'll (generously) give him until the day after his first State of the Union address. This coyness shit will not work with his regular, everyday supporters forever... especially after a major political defeat by the very scum we elected him to neuter and tame.

Update: I just noticed that Paul Krugman blogged about these same two points this morning, but from the very specific perspective of the "public option" and its rhetorical place in the so-called healthcare reform debate. If Obama's electoral based trusted him, it would not necessarily see the public option as a litmus test for Obama's good intentions. But owing to the President's apparent lack of interest in forcefully promoting universal healthcare coverage or denouncing right-wing lies about it, Obama hasn't consolidated the trust of many of the people most active in getting him elected --- progressive volunteers and contributors.

No point in "bipartisanship" [updated]

*
Now that Democrats have sleazed up the economic stimulus package with regressive GOP measures, such as tax cuts targeted at the wealthy, Republicans have predictably withheld their support of it completely along party lines in the first House vote. The linked article predicts that at least a few Republicans will vote for the parallel bill in the Senate. Democrats need to stop worrying about Republican support now; they need to worry about voter support in the next round of national elections.

Maybe congressional Democrats will surprise all of us by using some strategy, brains, and guts now. One move that would demonstrate those qualities might be to strip all compromises they previously made with Republicans out of the stimulus package when it goes to the conference committee. Compromising with modern Republicans is ridiculous... unless its for the purpose of laying a trap to show that Republicans lie about bipartisanship and will do anything to prevent the majority party from rehabilitating the economy. Democrats should hit all the blab shows pounding on the theme that Republicans wasted almost 2 weeks extracting compromises on the stimulus package in bad faith solely for purposes of obstructing the new political majority in this country. They should explain that all compromises made with Republicans in the stimulus package now have been overcome by events, and that Democrats will restore the bill to its original intent in order to jolt the economy back into action in ways most aligned with the national interests.

I did not vote for Barack Obama or Dick Durbin to be bipartisan... unless it is part of a cunning strategy to be highly partisan on my behalf.

Updates: Maybe --- who knows???

Asymmetric presidential pardon tactics

*
If I were President Bush and I were a total dick, at about 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on the morning of 20 January 2009 I would pardon Rod Blagojevich.

More slick politics by Harry Reid

*
Senate President Harry Reid says that Senate Democrats will not "attempt" to seat Al Franken, Minnesota's certified Senator elect, when the new session of Congress opens tomorrow. Maybe Reid thinks Franken's election was "tainted" by the fact that Franken actually won the recount, as opposed to losing it like Norm Coleman did. Perhaps Reid does not want to risk seeing his good Republican friends across the aisle humiliate themselves by filibustering the conclusion of a federal election, as certified by a bipartisan state election commission. Reid must think that Mitch McConnell can still get 40 Republicans to vote in lockstep against cloture on an asinine, futile filibuster against the U.S. electoral system.

Harry Reid does not appear to understand which political party holds the majority of votes in Congress these days. I hope liberal activists will consider rechanneling their outrage about Rick Warren into a $20 million fundraising effort for a Democratic primary fight against Reid next time he's up for re-election.

I don't need this kind of aggravation at bedtime. Now I need to heal my brain with more liquor.

Just seat Burris, already

*
I believe that Harry Reid will be making a stupid and avoidable error if he refuses to seat former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris in the U.S. Senate Tuesday. There are two problems:

1. Burris is the official appointee to Obama's vacant Senate seat as selected by the duly elected Governor of Illinois. The U.S. Senate does not have the power to usurp the executive authority of a state governor irrespective of how crooked or insane he is accused of being. Rod Blagojevich has not been impeached, indicted, or convicted.

2. By pulling a stunt like barring Burris from the Senate, Reid and his Democratic supporters forfeit any moral high ground they may have in the face of Republican efforts to block Al Franken from taking his seat.

3. Burris is famous in Illinois only for having been the state's first African American Attorney General and for not having been accused of political corruption. But as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2010, first in a Democratic primary election, Burris will have his tailbone handed to him by current Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan or just about anyone else with statewide name recognition this side of Lieutenant Governor and professional bozo Pat Quinn. No one in the Illinois Democratic Party is interested in sending a 70-year-old freshman to the Senate who will achieve meaningful seniority for the state about the time his last artery hardens, so that makes Burris an excellent 2-year caretaker for the seat.

So just seat Burris, already. It's not up to the Senate President to choose between tainted and untainted Senators when allocating the deck chairs. Burris would be harmless to the Democrats during a short term in the Senate. He would be totally out of his league as a Senate freshman, and therefore totally dependent on direction from senior Senator Dick Durbin, not to mention Rahm Emanuel and President Obama. Therefore, Burris presents no significant political problem either for the statewide Democratic Party or for the Obama administration. The voters of Illinois can purge the taint themselves, so to speak, in the senatorial elections of 2010.

Unfortunately for Burris on a personal level, he sort of doofed into this appointment, and he hasn't handled it with the acumen or grace of a real professional. Burris could have capped off his career with a noble gesture of public service by declaring that he'd accept the Blagojevich appointment reluctantly, and only to ensure that Illinois has full representation in the U.S. Senate during this difficult time; and that he would not seek permanent election to the post in 2010. Opportunity: blown. Advantage: taint. Oh: well.

Meanwhile, could we have DHS check the Senate plumbing system to determine whether someone is putting stupid pills into Harry Reid's water cooler?