The much awaited Wisconsin recall elections got off to a favorable start for the Democrats yesterday. Democratic State Senator Dave Hansen trounced his opponent David VanderLeest by a 2 to 1 margin. Quoting Steve Contorno of the Green Bay Press Gazette: “The summer of recalls had its first definitive outcome Tuesday night when Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, handily defeated Republican David VanderLeest with 66 percent of the vote. Hansen’s victory over a controversial candidate wasn’t a shocker. VanderLeest’s legal and financial troubles became the focus of his campaign, dragging down his bid even after he vowed not to discuss them anymore. But the margin of victory and the turnout by voters were a first-round demonstration of the Democratic Party’s ground game going into August, when six Republicans and two more Democrats face recall elections with control of state government hanging in the balance.”

 

With regard to the remaining recall elections, State Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate said the that the two Democratic state senators were in good shape to withstand their recall challenges. With regard to the six incumbent Republicans facing a recall elections later this summer, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel points out: “Tate also said that there's an "opportunity" now for all six Democratic recall challengers to defeat the six incumbent Republicans that they'll face in general recall elections on Aug. 9. He referred to favorable polling data in four of the races that Democrats and their allies have released previously, and said the party would release more Wednesday or Thursday on a fifth race, the one between Rep. Fred Clark (D-Baraboo) and Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon). As for the sixth race, he referred to the fact that Democrat Nancy Nusbaum of De Pere has raised more campaign money than incumbent Sen. Rob Cowles (R-Allouez).” It's important to note that the Democrats only need to unseat three of the incumbent Republicans along with holding onto the three Democratic seats subject to recall challenges in order to wrest control of Wisconsin state government.  

 

It looks like its going to be a long hot summer in Wisconsin, both politically and in terms of the temperatures registering on the thermometer. One thing is for certain and that is that the political overreach of Scott Walker is about to be tested in a big way. Big enough in fact that he himself may be staring down the barrel of a recall election himself before too long.

 

SJG

7/20/11

 

 

 

Sources:

 

Wisconsin recall elections kick off

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/19/wisconsin_recall_election_kick_off

 

Democrats say Hansen victory means they're 'surging'

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/125901683.html

 

Wisconsin Democrat Dave Hansen defeats David VanderLeest in Senate recall election

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110719/GPG0101/110719159/Democrat-Hansen-defeats-VanderLeest-state-Senate-recall-election?odyssey=nav%7Chead

A recent article by David Leonhardt, "Why Taxes Will Rise in the End", directly reinforces the points made earlier in: "The Looming Compromise on Revenues." Leonhardt paints a picture in which revenue increases of some sort have to be an elemental part of fiscal reform, whether they be closing loopholes, the elimination of tax subsidies, an outright increase in taxes or any combination thereof. He points to several factors that make revenue increases inevitable for those who are serious about addressing America's looming fiscal crisis. Lets take a look at his analysis.
 
1. No Free Lunches: "If only we could get back to the past — get spending under control, as the cliché goes — we’d be O.K. The debt ceiling, with its harsh finality, offers the chance. Unfortunately, this nostalgic view depends on a misunderstanding of the budget. It imagines a budget in which the United States indefinitely has the world’s highest medical costs, its largest military, an aging population and, nonetheless, taxes that are among the world’s lowest. Economists have a name for that combination: a free lunch... Free lunchism is ultimately the problem with the no-new-taxes pledge that so many politicians have adopted. A refusal to raise taxes, no matter how principled, cannot take us back to the good old days. It would instead lead to a very different American society. For taxes to remain where they are, Washington would need to end Medicare as we know it, end Social Security as we know it, severely shrink the military — or do some combination of the above."  The aforementioned situation has led Douglas Elmendorf of the Congressional Budget Office to point out that those who are hewing to the "no new taxes" line are simply not seeing the true parameters of the overall situation: "The aging of our population and the rising cost of health care have changed the backdrop for federal budget policy in a fundamental way.”
 
2. Paul Ryan's Plan is D.O.A.:  "Early indications are that Americans don’t like Mr. Ryan’s plan all that much. In upstate New York this spring, a Democrat won a typically Republican House district by campaigning relentlessly against the plan. National polls show huge majorities favor keeping Medicare and Social Security in something approaching their current form — much larger majorities, tellingly, than oppose an increase in the debt ceiling. In the near term, Congressional Republicans have decided to play down the Ryan plan. Most continue to oppose new taxes, without going so far as to explain the consequences. They will have little trouble sticking to that position through the current debt ceiling fight, because the deficit does not need to be solved immediately. Eventually, though, drawing up a credible deficit plan with neither Ryan-like cuts nor higher taxes will be impossible. And you can already see the start of a potential Republican compromise." To underscore the fact that the Republican leadership in Washington is edging towards a compromise position, Leonhardt points to the fact that Speaker Boehner signaled his willingness last week to shrinking individual and corporate loopholes, as just one example. Likewise Conservative economists like Martin Feldstein and Gregory Mankiw favor addressing loopholes as well. There also seems to be renewed interest on the right regarding the approach of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles deficit commission which includes revenue increases in any wide ranging attack on the deficit. To wit: "One obvious compromise along these lines would follow the outline sketched out by the Simpson-Bowles Plan. Marginal tax rates could actually fall. But the closing of loopholes would more than make up for the loss in revenue from lower tax rates. Conservatives might accept the deal, partly because it would satisfy their longtime desire for a simpler tax code with lower rates and partly because spending cuts would still make up the bulk of any deal. Liberals might accept the deal because tax loopholes disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and a simpler code — even one with lower rates — could be more progressive."
 
3. How Might It All Play Out?: "So what kind of tax increases do Americans support? The old-fashioned kind. Seventy-two percent support raising taxes on income above $250,000, according to a recent NYT/CBS poll and a large majority likewise favor raising Social Security taxes on the affluent. In the end, the most likely tax increase may be the one that’s already on the books. On Jan. 1, 2013, all the Bush tax cuts— on the affluent and nonaffluent alike — are set to expire, which would solve roughly one-quarter of our long-term deficit problem."
 
Again, in the final analysis there is simply no way that we can get spending and deficits under control by drastic cuts to social programs alone. Moreover, that's a hypothetical argument to make in the first place as the Democrats will never abide such a thing so other than for the scoring of political points with their base, particularly the Tea Party, what realistically did the Republican leadership hope to achieve? The G.O.P. leadership may seek to avoid dealing with revenues in the short run by allowing Barack Obama to get what he wanted in the first place, an increase in the debt ceiling free of any spending cuts. However, in the long run the Republicans will still be in a no win situation when it comes to raising revenues, unless of course they chose to abandon their goal of overall deficit reduction.
 
SJG
7/15/11
 
 
 
Sources:
 
The Looming Compromise on Revenues
http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2011/07/08/the_looming_compromise_on_revenues
 
Why Taxes Will Rise in the End
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/business/economy/why-taxes-will-rise-in-the-end-david-leonhardt.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Why%20Taxes%20will%20rise%20in%20the%20end&st=cse
 

 

Sources:
 
The Road (Maybe) Ahead
 http://thepage.time.com/2011/07/08/the-road-maybe-ahead/?artId=?contType=?chn

 No Grand Bargain: Boehner Walks Away From Big Deficit Deal; http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/10/no-grand-bargain-boehner-walks-away-from-big-deficit-deal/#ixzz1RlFGsiM2

 Against the backdrop of heightened political rhetoric among conservatives about not being willing to raise tax revenues as part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling, there is a growing acknowledgement among many Republicans in Washington as to the ultimate need to increase revenues. While many on Capitol Hill continue to parrot conservative talking points about not increasing tax revenues, the political leadership within the G.O.P. and outside the Republican Party is sounding more and more amenable to some form of raising revenue, even if it is structured as tax reform.

In an interview that came in under the radar following the collapse of the debt talks chaired by Vice President Biden, Republican insider and former congressman Vin Weber appeared on the PBS News Hour to discuss the emerging cracks in Republican opposition to raising taxes to curb the deficit. This controversy is clearly evident in the ongoing public spate between Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) over what actually constitutes a tax revenue increase and the necessity of increasing revenues. Weber stated of Republicans engaged in deficit negotiations: “And I think, if they're allowed to define, on their own terms, what constitutes a tax increase that opens the door to a broad tax reform that might broaden the base by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions and credits and exemptions, probably coupled with a reduction in top rates to spur economic growth, but resulting in a net tax increase.” As you may recall, Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform had circulated a Taxpayer Protection Pledge to conservative politicians for their signature ahead of the 2010 elections which many, particularly members of the Tea Party, signed. The Pledge includes the following wording “ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and…TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.” Thus the pledge, a document of the utmost importance on the far right, not only prohibits tax increases; it opposes any effort to raise revenue through the elimination of loopholes, deductions and credits “unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

In the time that has elapsed since Weber’s PBS interview Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) has approached the White House with a proposal for $ 1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. According to White house officials, “Mr. Boehner suggested that he was open to the possibility of $1 trillion or more in new revenue that would be generated by addressing tax issues already raised in the talks, like killing breaks for the oil and gas industry, eliminating ethanol subsidies and ending preferential treatment for corporate jets. But those changes would fall far short of the revenue goal, and the source of the rest of the money would, under what they described as Mr. Boehner’s proposal, be decided by Congress through a review of tax law changes. One official said some revenue could be generated by allowing Bush-era tax cuts for affluent Americans to expire at the end of 2012, which would produce hundreds of billions of dollars, though those savings would be offset by the costs of retaining lower rates for those below the income threshold.”  Eric Cantor (R-VA), who had walked out of the Biden talks and who has previously been a staunch opponent of raising revenues was quoted on PBS on July 6 as saying that he was willing to talk about closing loopholes and his fellow Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) likewise was quoted on the same program, “I'm open to tax reform. We need to do it broadly… Everybody's going to have to contribute to it in one way or another.” Why even Tea Party backed Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was on the news this evening saying that he was not necessarily opposed to raising revenues as long as it didn’t involve an increase in tax rates.

There is one other factor to consider in this whole discussion and that’s the current opinion of the American people. The latest Pew Research Polling on the subject: “Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits; GOP Divided Over Benefit Reductions”, reveals an American public that on a two to one basis feels that keeping entitlements the way they are is more important than reducing the deficit. Likewise similar levels of support are evident for other issues such as Medicare cost responsibilities and whether or not poor people should have their Medicaid benefits taken away. In fact if you go inside the numbers what you see is that even less affluent Republicans are now opposed to reductions in entitlements. While the political class and its attendant punditry are embroiled in discussing what to cut and where to raise revenues, the American people, even though they know that some type of reform is required, have expressed an emphatic desire to leave their benefits largely unchanged. Thus the Republican leadership in Washington has to maneuver between a public that wants it’s entitlements left alone, a Tea Party faction that has yet to understand that compromise is part of governing and the prospect of throwing our economy and the world economy along with it, into the tailspin that would result if we were actually to default on our Treasury obligations by failing to raise the debt ceiling.

The bottom line on the issue of raising revenues as part and parcel of a debt deal is that opposing such measures is a lose-lose proposition. Republicans came to power in the House in 2010 with the idea that getting the debt under control was one of the most important issues facing the nation today. Few reputable economists have taken the position that the debt could be reduced by spending cuts alone, thus revenue increases of some sort are required. To forgo increased revenue is to fail in the effort to reduce the debt, which for the G.O.P. is a loser. However, to consider revenue increases after having campaigned on no new tax increases of any type is a loser as well and as such any debt deal compromise that includes revenue increases can only be seen as a setback for the Republican Party. But beyond the fortunes of the Republican leadership are those of the Tea Party movement. Any debt deal that contains a significant increase in federal revenues can only be seen as a major setback for the Tea Party movement as well seeing as opposition to increased federal revenue has been a major reason behind the movement since its arrival on the political landscape.

 

 

Steven J. Gulitti

7/7/11

 

 

Sources:

 

Sen. Cornyn to Obama: Take Tax Increases Off the Table: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/budget_07-05.html

Cracks Emerge in Republican Opposition to Raising Taxes to Curb Deficit: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/goptaxes_06-24.html

Americans For Tax Reform: Taxpayer Protection Pledge;        http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge

Obama to Push for Wider Deal With G.O.P. on Deficit Cuts; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/us/politics/07fiscal.html?emc=eta1

Lawmakers Remain Divided on Deficit Fundamentals as Deadline Draws Closer; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/deficit_07-06.html

Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits; GOP Divided Over Benefit Reductions;http://people-press.org/2011/07/07/public-wants-changes-in-entitlements-not-change-in-benefits/

Boehner Must Navigate Rocky Road to a Budget; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/us/politics/25fiscal.html?emc=eta1

As we head into the final phases of the debt ceiling debate, conservative columnist David Brooks raises an interesting and yet disturbing question. That question simply stated is: Has the Republican Party become so subsumed by the fanatics from within the Tea Party movement that America will miss out on a prime opportunity to put the country on sound fiscal footing and default on its debt to the longer term detriment of the nation.
 
Lets look inside Brooks' analysis, what's on offer:
 
1. "If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases."
 
2. "The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary."
 
What are the obstacles:
 
1. "But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms."
 
2. "The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it."
 
3. " The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor."
 
4. "But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol."
 
In the final analysis David Brooks is simply articulating what most of the rest of us right thinking individuals have concluded long ago, and that is that if the leadership of the G.O.P. can't impose some sort of order on the chaos within their own party, in an environment where the public wants compromise and the Democrats on Capitol Hill are willing to do just that, then the Republican Party will be seen as being not fit to govern. The concomitant fallout from that will be that we miss out on an opportunity of a lifetime to secure our financial future and the abandonment of the G.O.P. by the mass of independent voters, a prospect that will only handicap the party in future elections. The leadership of the Republican Party will have only themselves and the Tea Party to thank for that.
 
SJG
7/7/11
 
The Mother of All No-Brainers
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html

South Carolina's Governor, Nikki Haley is a Tea Party darling, a Sarah Palin favorite and touted as one of the most fiscally conservative public officials in America today. That said, it must have come as nothing less than a virtual thunderclap when here own Republican dominated state legislature voted to override Haley's drastic cuts in Clemson University's agricultural outreach  programs and deferred capital maintenance. Clemson is a state university that relies on public funding.
 

Quoting the university directly: "The veto of $15 million for agricultural research in Clemson PSA was overridden by the House in a 106-3 vote and in the Senate by a 32-6 vote. The Legislature also overrode the veto of $250,000 for PSA Agency Operations by a 92-19 vote in the House and a 31-8 vote in the Senate. Legislators overrode the governor's veto of Capital Reserve Fund spending, including $6.2 million one-time funding for deferred maintenance for Clemson. The vote was 112-1 in the House and 32-8 in the Senate."

 

Thus one is left with one overriding question: If drastic cuts are considered by the far right to be the only way to attain balanced budgets, then why has the state legislature, in state as so thoroughly conservative as South Carolina, decided to hand its ultra conservative governor such an astounding rebuke and political defeat?

 

SJG

6/30/11

 

 

Source: Clemson University Media Relations; inside@clemson.edu

A few recent articles on the subject of the Iowa caucuses, citing the influence of evangelical Christians in the process, suggest that the traditional Iowa caucuses may be losing much of their influence in the presidential selection process. Moreover, their fundamental role may be changing in another important way as well. Quoting Michael Shear of the New York Times: "But there are signs that its influence on the nominating process could be ebbing and that the nature of the voters who tend to turn out for the Republican caucuses - a heavy concentration of evangelical Christians and ideological conservatives overlaid with parochial interests - is discouraging some candidates from competing there... Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, announced Thursday that he would skip the state's Republican straw poll this summer, saving his resources - and lowering expectations - for the state's caucuses next year. Earlier in the week, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former governor of Utah, conceded that he was likely to skip the Iowa caucuses altogether, noting that his opposition to ethanol subsidies makes him unpopular in a state where support for the corn-based fuel is all but demanded... In addition to his stand on ethanol, Mr. Huntsman, who served in the Obama administration as ambassador to China, says he believes in global warming and has not embraced the Tea Party movement like some of his rivals. And like Mr. Romney, Mr. Huntsman is a Mormon, a religion viewed with wariness by some conservative Christians. At the same time, the implosion of Newt Gingrich's campaign this week, with the resignation of his entire Iowa staff, could take Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, out of real contention in the state's contest."

Thus the question that arises is to what extent is the penchant for socially conservative issues among the Iowa caucus crowd at variance with the more pressing issues of the economy and fiscal rectitude which have now come to dominate the national discussion? That's not to say that social issues have faded completely from the political scene, it's just an acknowledgement that presently they have been relegated to the back burner. An analysis of polling results over the past year on what constitutes the primary concerns of the American people reveals scant evidence that social and moral issues bulk large in the minds of the electorate. None the less, the fixation among Iowa caucus goers with issues of a socially conservative nature appears to have had a net negative effect on the importance of the traditional Iowa caucus process. Doug Gross, a Republican activist and former nominee for governor bemoaned this very development back in March: "We look like Camp Christian out here. If Iowa becomes some extraneous right-wing outpost, you have to question whether it is going to be a good place to vet your presidential candidates." What also has many Republicans worried is that the controversy arising between fiscal and social conservatives may serve to do nothing more than muddle the G.O.P.'s message as it seeks to defeat Barack Obama.

There is however, an interesting side effect from the potential demise of the Iowa caucuses among conservative front runners and that is that it allows second tier socially conservative candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann to gain a little breathing room and possibly some much needed momentum in propelling their candidacies forward. However, that windfall of newfound or added momentum will probably only last so long due to the fact that social issues are currently out of vogue having been swamped by issues of economy and fiscal responsibility. Thus the unique nature of Iowa's socially conservative evangelical Christians within the larger national electorate may have had the net effect of altering the very role that the Iowa caucuses play in the politics of presidential elections.

S.J. Gulitti
6/11/11




Sources:

With Abstentions, Iowa Questions Political Role
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/us/politics/11repubs.html?emc=eta1


Iowa May Turn G.O.P.'s Focus to Social Issues
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/politics/27iowa.html?_r=1


PollingReport.com: Problems and Priorities
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

 

SJG

6/9/11

 

 
Sources:
 
Newt Gingrich's Dream, Driven by the Winds of Folly?
http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2011/03/04/newt_gingrichs_dream_driven_by_the_winds_of_folly_1
 
Gingrich presidential campaign implodes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/gingrich-senior-aides-resign/2011/06/09/AGN77VNH_blog.html

 

 

At some point all one can do is laugh at both Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann when either of them suggest that they might run for president. I mean after all, if you legitimately want to be this nation's chief executive, you might first want to exhibit a modicum of understanding of the basics of American history. Ironically, for all of the advice that these two shinning lights regularly offer the American people, and their allusions to the founding fathers, their grasp of American history leaves much to be desired.
 
Quoting Jonathan Martin and Kendra Marr of Politico: "Michele Bachmann’s suggestion that the Revolutionary War began in Concord, N.H., rather than Lexington and Concord, Mass., marks the third time in recent months that the potential GOP presidential hopeful has committed a puzzling gaffe about history and current affairs. Addressing a  crowd of Republicans at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire Bachmann stated that, “You’re the state where the shot was heard around the world at Lexington and Concord.” Oddly enough, Bachmann made a similar statement just days before the Manchester gaffe, at another fundraiser: "It’s your state that fired the shot that was heard around the world, you are the state of Lexington and Concord, you started the battle for liberty right here in your backyard.” All of this coming on top of Bachmann's misunderstanding of the role of the founding fathers as it relates to the problems posed by the existence of slavery at the founding of the republic. Again to the Politico article: "For Bachmann, who leads the House Tea Party caucus and champions a return to the Constitution, to get such basic facts wrong about the country’s birth is revealing." What it reveals first and foremost is Ms. Bachmann's complete and total lack of intellectual heft to even aspire to run for the presidency, let alone a seat in Congress.
 
Not to be outdone by her sister Tea Party darling, Sarah Palin has now chosen to redefine Paul Revere's midnight ride. To wit: "He warned the British that they weren't going be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells, and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." Again the variance with historical facts is just too much to ignore and too comical to overlook. Having been caught in yet another public blunder, Palin tried to talk her way out of her latest self inflicted disaster only to make matters worse: "Here is what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming, and they were going to try take our arms and we got to make sure that we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all of ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn't take it. But remember that the British had already been there, many soldiers for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere's ride – and it wasn't just one ride – he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we're already there. That, hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have. He did warn the British." Well perhaps Sarah Palin was just trying to make up for her previous self inflicted fumble, her latest definition of what the Statue of Liberty actually represents, a soliloquy in utter incoherence for anyone who had heard it: "This Statue of Liberty was gifted to us by foreign leaders, really as a warning to us, it was a warning to us to stay unique and to stay exceptional from other countries. Certainly not to go down the path of other countries that adopted socialist policies.” Again, like Bachmann, Palin has done nothing but reaffirm the public's belief that she just doesn't have what it takes, intellectually, to aspire to the Oval Office.
 
So there you have it, two of the Barack Obama's harshest critics, both of whom have been toying with the idea that perhaps they could do a better job of running the country, yet all the while continuing to exhibit not a lick of basic knowledge as to what their own country is all about. Now if that's not a ringing endorsement for either of their potential candidacies, then what would be? More to the point, if this is the caliber of leadership that we can expect from two of the Tea Party movement's biggest stars, how can we ever take the movement seriously as an alternative to politics as usual. Apparently at this moment we can't.
 
SJG
6/6/11


 
 
Sources:
 
For Michele Bachmann, a pattern of getting facts wrong

I know this sort of summarization will set the fringe full mooners on the right all atwitter but the last month or so has been pretty good to President Obama: 
 
1. He received a rock star reception in Ireland and now in England Barack Obama has made history by becoming the first American president in history to address both houses of Parliament.
 
2. Chrysler pays back bailout loan to the feds: "SERGIO MARCHIONNE, Chrysler: We have received confirmation this morning at 10:13 a.m. from Citigroup that Chrysler Group repaid, with interest, by wire transfer to the United States Treasury and by bank transfer to the Canadian government, every penny that had been loaned less than two years ago: Chrysler Pays Back Billions in Bailout Loans: Is the Comeback Complete?: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june11/chrysler_05-24.html   
 
3. The unwinding of TARP continues with the federal government making a small profit on the sale of part of its A.I.G. stock: Treasury Gets Small Profit From Sale of A.I.G. Stock; http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/a-i-g-underwriters-price-stock-sale-at-29/?scp=1&sq=A.I.G.&st=cse
 
4. In spite of the far right-wing media bleating aloud that Obama had essentially "thrown Israel under the bus", Benjamin Netanyahu in an address before both houses of Congress indicated that it's his responsibility to compromise so as to effect a lasting peace in the MidEast.  Cablers Cover Netanyahu Speech to Joint Session of Congress; http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cablers-cover-netanyahu-speech-to-joint-session-of-congress_b68067  While Netanyahu reiterated that he would not support a return to the pre-1967 borders or the wholesale return of Palestinians into Israel, his willingness to compromise is evident in his comments: "I stood before my people and said that I will accept a Palestinian state; it’s time for President Abbas to stand up before his people and say, ‘I will accept a Jewish state. Those six words will change history, With those six words, the Israeli people will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise.” Netanyahu Gives No Ground in Congress Speech; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25diplo.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=netanyahu&st=cse
 
5. Osama bin Laden dead on Obama's watch in what represents the greatest triumph of American intelligence since the discovery of Russian missiles bound for Cuba during the Kennedy Administration . Obama was gracious enough to give George W. Bush the requisite credit for the changes made to our national security apparatus in 2005 that contributed to the eventual demise of Osama bin Laden. He also invited Bush to attend the Ground Zero commemoration. However, in spite of this, much of the far right media refused to give Obama any credit at all for the death of bin Laden, choosing to only focus on that aspect of the event that could be traced back to the Bush era. This lack of tact and grace on the part of far right talking heads does nothing to diminish the fact that the actionable intelligence which led to the decision to kill bin Laden came only eight months ago and the ultimate decision to engage in this high risk mission was made by none other than Barack Obama.
 
6. The victory of a Democrat in the N.Y. 26th Congressional District can only be seen as a setback for the efforts by Paul Ryan to restructure Medicare and thus a victory for Obama and the Democrats: "There’s no way to spin this result. Both the reality and the perception are in sync: Republicans’ bet on pushing the Ryan Medicare plan through the House has cost them what should have been a totally safe GOP seat. All the other factors – a third-party candidate and the weakness of the Republican nominee – are meaningless. The crazy thing for Republicans is that they walked the plank for a policy that has no chance to become law as long as Barack Obama is in the White House, much like Democrats did on cap and trade...While it is impossible to predict with certainty, it is clear that like much swirling about in politics today, the outcome of the 2012 election (for both president and control of Congress) will be determined in large part by whether there is a grand bargain on deficit reduction (including Medicare changes), and, if there is such a bargain, what the terms of it are;  An Omen, Not a Predictive Event   
http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/25/an-omen-not-a-predictive-event/#ixzz1NQIJdqBJ 
The Bigger Message From NY-26; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/the-bigger-message-from-ny-26.html

 7. The defeat of the Ryan budget proposals in a procedural Senate vote today that saw five Republican senators side with the Democrats: Ryan Budget Goes Down; http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/25/ryan-budget-goes-down/ 
 
No matter how you cut it, Obama is now on a bit of a roll after having presided over the Democratic defeat of 2010 and the bristling attacks from the far right that have lamely tried to paint him as everything from Fascist to Marxist an angry post colonial black man. His approval rating is the highest it's been since November of 2009: President Obama Job Approval; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html   Is any of this guarantee that he will be re-elected in 2012, no, but it's a hell of a lot better for Obama then things have been since the November 2010 Congressional defeat.
 
SJG
5/25/11