Today's Cartoon Twofer With Cartoonish Photo Bonus

(click on images to enlarge)


(David Horsey, Los Angeles Times)


(Jack Ohman, Sacramento Bee)

See the two people in the center of the photo below submissively smiling at neo- fascist authoritarian and Putin poodle Donald "Rump" Trump?  That's Democratic "leaders" Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Is he telling them how he's screwing their base?  Did he grab  Pelosi *somewhere*?  Did he call Schumer a "clown" again?  Hint: The man you're fawning over is a disturbed, adolescent nitwit who has bonkers thoughts that are going to end up as policy. Have some self- respect and stop with the goddamn phony comity, you spineless weasels!

Morning Read - Keep The Pressure On Schumer

Jonathan Chait is keeping an eye on Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D- Wall Street), and isn't liking what he's seeing:

There are good, sound reasons why Democrats in Congress might want to cut some deals with Donald Trump. Maybe they can persuade him to stay in the Paris climate accords, or to preserve Obamacare with some tolerable revisions, in which case giving him bipartisan cover might be worthwhile. But Charles Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader, seems to have a completely misguided understanding of how the calculation works. Obviously Schumer is not providing candid accounts of his political strategy to the public. But a series of reports from Democrats who have spoken with him paints a consistent account of a leader who thinks his party’s best chance of survival lies in working with Trump.  (our emphasis)

Chait goes on to outline the basic elements of a "stop Trump" survival strategy for Democrats, one that Schumer, a retail pol who values dealmaking over standing up for principles, is already in danger of abandoning. It's worth a read.

We admit we're not fans of Schumer's to begin with (to say the least). We were disheartened when Senate Democrats, perhaps swayed by Schumer's ability to dole out campaign funds in his role as DSCC chair, was elected Minority Leader rather than Sen. Dick Durbin, or any other plausible candidate for that matter.  To us, the turning point was Schumer's stabbing President Obama in the back on the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, a disqualifying act of cowardice and petty calculation for a party leader. Beyond that, Schumer's cozy ties to a particular home constituency -- Wall Street -- are sending the wrong signals at a time when the plutocrats are already in full sway in neo- fascist oligarch Donald "Rump" Trump's emerging administration. Ideally, a progressive fighter in that position would have been better suited for these times, but...

Chait concludes,

If Schumer wants to prevent bad outcomes, he might cut some deals with Trump. But those deals are going to put his members at risk. If he wants to protect his red-state seats, he needs to drive down Trump’s approval ratings, which means fighting Trump on everything. It’s unfortunate for the Democratic Party that its most powerful elected official does not seem to understand the basic political dynamic.  (our emphasis)

Given his track record, we don't think Schumer is going to be the rock that garbage scow Trump founders on. That's why we all need to keep relentless pressure on him to stand up for progressive principles in this dangerous environment.

Are You Sh*tting Us? (UPDATED)

(Ed. note 2/25):  Well, so much for that.  Looks like Sandoval has taken himself out of the mix.)

There are reports that one of the candidates being vetted by the Obama Administration to replace Supreme Court "Justice" Antonin Scalia is Republican (!!) Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada, who endorsed secessionist dope Rick "Oops" Perry in 2012, before settling for Willard "Mittens" Romney.  Also, soon-to be-former (thankfully) Senate Minority Leader Harry "Thin" Reid has met with Sandoval and given the White House his nod to the Republican. Hard to believe the utter cynicism and spinelessness on display, even from this crew.

Whether this is just a trial balloon to excite the obstructionist Rethugs in the Senate or whether the Obama Administration has lost its collective mind remains to be seen. But the fact that any Republican politician would even be whispered as a potential replacement for Scalia is showing the white flag to Republican obstructionists in the Senate. For shame, if this is in any way a serious trial balloon.

UPDATE:  Apparently, the Rethugs are not treating it seriously, saying that a rejection of any Obama nominee is pro forma. Once again, the Rethugs are shown to be obstructionists for the sake of obstruction (which was likely the point of this trial balloon exercise).

UPDATE II:  Anne Laurie assembles evidence that this is multi- dimensional election year pranking of Republicans.

UPDATE III:  David Bernstein, too.

UPDATE IV:  Charles Pierce makes it a consensus.

"I'm A Democrat"

Steven Perlstein rightly faults Democrats for their incompetence at not proudly "branding" their party, instead defensively playing into Republican themes.  Economy gathering steam?  Huh, wha?! Unemployment cut almost in half?  Shhh!  More people with affordable health insurance?  Quick, hide!  A twice popularly elected President heading your party? Run for your lives!

Here's what Perlstein would suggest as a "branding" message for Democrats (albeit waaaay too late for the mid-term elections):

“I’m a Democrat. In economic terms, that means I believe we need an active, competent government to ensure that prosperity is broadly shared by protecting ordinary people from the occasional excesses of markets and the undue power of businesses. That’s why Democrats are for raising the minimum wage, closing down corporate tax scams, putting tighter regulation on Wall Street and providing adequate funding for a world-class public education system from pre-K through college. And it’s why we are proud to have passed legislation to ensure that all Americans finally have a basic health insurance plan regardless of income or health or which company they work for. With oil and gas prices falling, it means I’m even willing to raise energy taxes by a few pennies per gallon so we can reinvest in the infrastructure — highways, ports, airports, subway systems, the electric grid, the Internet — on which all of us and the economy depend. Republicans are uninterested in, or unwilling to do, any of these things or in making any of these investments. Are you with them, or are you with us Democrats?”

Doesn't that sound remarkably like Sen. Elizabeth Warren's message?  As we've said before, if more Democrats had even a fraction of Sen. Warren's clarity, conviction and guts, they wouldn't be shaking in their boots every time an election rolled around.

The Democrats' Potential Turnout Problem

David Plouffe is saying, based in part on the results of the recent special election in Florida, that the Democrats have a "turnout issue" that could spell disaster in the mid-terms.  As we noted, the Democrat in that race did little to get Democrats enthused enough to go to the polls, hence losing by less than 2 percent of the vote.

Steve Benen has a prescription we would endorse:

I’m no campaign strategist, but it seems to me Democrats could probably put together some kind of “Four for 2014” platform, telling voters they’ll pass four popular bills – immigration, minimum-wage increase, infrastructure jobs, and veterans benefits, all of which failed due to GOP opposition – if the electorate takes power away from Republicans.  

If the goal is to create an incentive for Dems to show up, maybe the party should give them a reason?   (our emphasis)

Dammit, stop always reacting from a defensive crouch and go on offense.  Don't apologize for Obamacare, hail its successes.  Stress the economic and justice issues Benen lists above.  Get yourselves together and stay on message.

We're not campaign strategists, either, but we think (like Benen and others) that if the party gives Democrats a reason to show up, they will.

UPDATE:  Eugene Robinson agrees.

UPDATE II:  Driftglass, too.

What Democrats Aren't Offering

David Atkins has an interesting piece over at Hullabaloo, "The Souls of White Folk," about why younger and poor white voters are disaffected with the Democratic Party brand (spoiler alert: some of it has to do with not having a strong economic program and a message that you hammer every day, day in and day out).

Good Question

"Washington Democrats have been too afraid and divided to engage compellingly on the fundamentals of what government is there to do and how the burdens of deficit reduction should be apportioned. Wisconsin Democrats have shown that the only way to win arguments is to take risks on behalf of what you believe. Are Washington Democrats prepared to learn this lesson?" -- E.J. Dionne in today's Kaplan Daily. We're wondering what President Obama and Dem leaders will do about the unequal sacrifices being proposed by Rethugs in the Federal budget, and the situation in Wisconsin. Waiting.

Waiting.

Let's (Not) Make A Deal

As the New York Times reports, the White House and Congressional Rethugs are close to a deal on the Bushit era tax cuts that would extend tax cuts for the very wealthy for several years, in exchange for some extention of unemployment benefits. As described by the Times article:

"Rather than extending the tax rates only on income described by Democrats as middle class — up to $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals — the deal would also keep the rates for higher earners, probably for two years. In return, Republicans said they would probably agree to extend jobless aid for the long-term unemployed." [emphasis added]

The word "probably" adds a lovely irony to the scenario. Americans by a wide margin favor extension of the tax cuts for the middle class, but not for the very wealthy. So, the Dems had the wind at their back on this issue in terms of public opinion (like the public option in health insurance), and are proceeding to screw it up. . .again. And the Rethugs are still playing coy over extension of unemployment benefits.

We'll be waiting for the Rethugs to cynically but successfully campaign in 2012 against the growing deficit, one to which they're willing add $700 billion over the next 10 years. Marvelous!

Early Postmortem

Granted, we won't know the extent of Democratic losses until after next Tuesday, but whether it's along the lines of historical midterm losses (25-35 seats) or a Rethuglican tsunami (50+), or something in between, Eric Alterman has what we think is a reasonable analysis of a main reason why it's come to this point (spoiler: his name might be Rahmbo).

As far as what to expect from a Rethug-majority House, Paul Krugman (linked by Steve Benen) has the dire forecast.

VOTE!

"A Specious Act"

We've aired our issues with Dems who won't fight for what they say they believe in. It's not surprising that their problems stem from leaders who disregard their base and cater to Rethuglicans. . .only to have the Rethugs kick them in the teeth when the votes are counted.

Yesterday, House Dem Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was on Fux News Sunday (a problem in itself) stating that the House wouldn't force the Rethugs' hand on tax cuts for the wealthy before the November elections, saying a vote in the House would be "a specious act." Many progressive Dems, including Hoyer's House colleague Chris Van Hollen, were urging just the opposite: the Dems should pass the middle class tax cut, let the tax cut for the top two percent expire, and let the Rethugs defend the wealthiest segment of the population. Hoyer apparently wants to throw the Rethugs a life preserver before the elections. Fine, it's his funeral, but why should this hack have a leadership position in the House?

Playing Post Office

Much of the frustration among progressives is over the weak spines and lack of conviction that Congressional Dems have. While Rethugs are on the offensive with literally nothing to offer in terms of solutions that differ from the policies that got us in the trouble we're in, Dems are running for cover. Instead of touting the benefits of, for example, health insurance reform (no more pre-existing condition games or losing coverage after losing your job), Dems are defensive. Their leadership in Congress is less than stellar, with tired old Harry Reid leading the Senate Dems and low caliber, ineffective Steny Hoyer leading the House Dems. This exchange, reported in the Kaplan Daily today, tells you all you need to know about why the Dems are in danger of losing big in November:

"Your schedule," Linda Scott of PBS remarked to Hoyer at Tuesday morning's meeting, "looks pretty light." She asked whether Democrats are "telling you they need to be back home, rather than naming post offices?"

"We always name post offices," Hoyer replied with irritation. "It's a worthwhile endeavor to do that, and people really do appreciate it, particularly when it's their name and their community."

The Democrats are unable to rally themselves around tax cuts for millions of Americans, and their leader is defending . . . postal namings."

That would be funny if it weren't a symbol of what is wrong with Dem leaders who enjoy the largest majority in years. The economy is turning around slowly, the Dems should have the Rethugs where they want them on tax cuts for the rich, the Rethugs are flailing with extreme candidates, and yet it's the Dems that are nervous.

Time To Fight Back

Or perhaps well past time. The latest Gallup Poll shows a Rethug lead of 51 to 41 percent over Dems for the mid-term elections. Rethugs have led Dems for five consecutive weeks, and the enthusiasm gap is even worse (50 to 25). Digby has the right idea for closing the enthusiasm gap for Dem politicians: pick some fights and show your base you believe in something other than self-preservation.

Another idea: keep reminding voters that the Rethugs caused the economic meltdown, and have no new ideas to get us out of the mess they created. Voters have a notoriously short-term memory, but to reward the Rethugs for creating the mess, and obstructing every action to get us out would be a sad commentary on the Dems' ineptness.

Political Malpractice

It's not enough that the "mainstream media" is actively abetting the Rethuglican narrative that people are scared, SCARED I tells ya, about the deficit when, in fact, jobs and the economy are by far the biggest concern.

It's not enough that conservaDems (hello, Sen. Ben "Dover" Nelson) are aligning with Rethugs to thwart or water down financial reform, additional stimulus spending, and a clean energy bill.

And it's not just the Dems' inexcusable message mis-management (see health care reform; BP oil spill, etc.) and lack of consistent message reinforcement, although that's a huge continuing problem going into November that's not being addressed.

Why do the White House and Congressional Dems have to engage in political malpractice on top of all of this? Why is there discussion in the White House* about whether to focus on economic stimulus or the deficit at this critical juncture in the recovery? Why are Congressional Dems giving up on passing a budget with reconciliation instructions for FY 2011 - which will make it virtually a certainty nothing will get done next year? If anyone has a clue why these Dems have a death wish, please let us know.

*UPDATE: Ryan Grim at HuffPo calls the political advisers Obama's Mayberry Machiavellis.

What Ails the Democrats

Today's Kaplan Daily should be put into a vacuum-sealed container and saved for future generations in order for them to better understand the "old politics" playing out among Democrats these days.

Exhibit A is Jason Horowitz' wet kiss to Rahmbo (Obama's "voice of reason"!). In it, Horowitz quotes numerous anonymous Democratic "leaders" in Congress who throw Obama under the bus, saying essentially "He shoulda listened to Rahm!" Well, Rahmbo isn't a big picture guy; he comes from the Clinton school of triangulation, where you get elected to pass dinky, boutique pieces of legislation that don't rock the boat. To coin a phrase, that's not change we can believe in! (UPDATE: Dan Froomkin has a good rogering of the Rahmbo effect.) One specific whine from a senior Democratic congressman caught our attention:

"There is this growing sense in the House that this White House is tone-deaf and doesn't care about 2010, that it is sacrificing members for 2012 and that the president thinks he doesn't need to get engaged, or that he thinks politics don't matter and that he could care less about what is happening on the streets of our districts. That's not Rahm."

Translation: Saving my precious career is more important that the Nation's welfare!

Juxtaposed in the same edition is Exhibit B, a letter to the editor from a person in Monterey, California, who cites a Democratic congressman, quoted in Ruth Marcus' Feb. 24 op/ed, as saying (regarding his health care vote last year), "This is a career-ending vote." The letter writer then marvels:

"'Career-ending vote?'" Perhaps thinking of their elected office as a 'career' is a significant problem with far too many senators and House members."

Indeed. Those Democrats (or Rethugs for that matter) who think in those terms deserve to be "retired," since they appear to have long ago forgotten what public service is supposed to be about, not to mention what every Democratic platform since 1948 has supported.

Oh Yeah, This Should Work Out Well

The White House is inviting Democratic and Rethug congressional leaders to a meeting on February 25 to discuss possible compromises to move the health care reform process forward.

We must pause here for a moment to catch our breath at the sheer stupidity and destructiveness of this gesture. Who is the White House (and, one must say, Obama) kidding? Itself? Surely, the process has been compromised to death within the ranks of the Democratic Party alone. No single payer; no public option; no universal coverage. What more can the Democrats do, in negotiating with themselves, to weaken an already weakened bill? Meanwhile, E.J. Dionne keeps reminding the Dems of the peril of "assuming the fetal position" in politics.

Once more, with feeling: Pass. The. Damn. Senate. Bill. Now.

"Run For Your Lives"

Only in Washington, and only in the Village in Washington, would 59 votes be less than 41. Eugene Robinson, whose shorts rarely get twisted up his butt, has a more sane view:

"You'd think from the overheated commentary that this was the end of the world (as we know it). Instead of having 20 more votes in the Senate than the Republicans, the Democrats now have only 18 more votes. Run for your lives."

Allow us to further comment along the lines of the post below: Someone needs to clue in the spineless, gutless Dems ("Call for Sen. Evan Bayh") who want to scurry into their holes and await the Apocalypse. Get on the offensive. Get control of your message. Have some discipline. And for God's sake don't look for ways to undercut yourselves. Whether you believe it or not, history is on your side, just as it has been for most of the past 80 years. Act like it.

Meanwhile, here's someone else's take:

Mass. Casualties

You have to hand it to the Rethugs and their recruited army of teabaggers: they aren't afraid of sticking it to the big, bad Dems. Just one year after Obama's inauguration, they've convinced a sizeable number of 'Murcans that returning to the policies that got us into the protracted mess we're in is the right thing to do. And you have to wonder when the Dems will get that spine implant they've so desperately needed for so many years. Trying to be all things to all people makes you weak; if you stand for everything, you stand for nothing. Where the Dems are being described today as "running scared" the Rethugs are defiant and pushing back.

Massachusetts is being touted by the cable gasbags as the end of Obama's agenda. Not once have we heard any discussion of the monolithic obstructionism and falsehoods employed by Rethug politicians that's stalled most of Obama's initiatives. According to the Villagers, it's the Dems and Obama who need to be more "bipartisan," given the vote in Massachusetts. Of course, we know in advance that the Rethug agenda is not to cooperate, but to bring Obama down -- to make health insurance reform his "Waterloo" in the memorable phrase of SC Rethug Jim "Demented" DeMint. Guaranteed the Rethugs will be even less likely to work with the Dems; they've been emboldened by the recent elections in VA, NJ and now MA.

Stay tuned and see if the Dems get the message, and get a spine.