What Digby Said

Paul Begala: Yes but I do think his point about capitulating [and just offering up a freeze on federal pay] rather than negotiating is a valid one with this president. The pay freeze is probably a good idea but should have come out of negotiation. What do the Republicans give, when the president gives…
Gloria Borger: Why not give something first though? People don’t like government and this is an easy gimme for the president.
Begala: What are the Republicans proposing? Then you get it on the Republicans turf. Why don’t you say I’ll freeze federal pay and cut this in return for this and that program but you guys need to come with taxes on the rich at least say people who make over a million bucks don’t get a tax cut. My Lord …
Borger: Well maybe there’s something else he can negotiate.
Digby: I’m sure there is. Why not throw in debtor’s prisons? It wouldn’t be enough to totally appease [the Republicans], but it would go a long way toward proving they are “responsible.”

Throwing Stones

John Kampfner makes some excellent points about the media’s own docility in the face of institutional power being what’s ultimately behind their suspicion of and outright derision towards Wikileaks:

All governments have a legitimate right to protect national security. This should be a specific, and closely scrutinised, area of policy. Most of our secrecy rules are designed merely to protect politicians and officials from embarrassment. Documents are habitually over-classified for this purpose.

[…]

Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.

Throwing Stones

The Authoritarian Media

Los Angeles Times: Shut up and be scanned
Boston Globe: The new “enhanced” patdown by airport screeners has sparked an unfortunate backlash among some fliers and privacy advocates
Springfield Republican: Let’s consider these searches the 21st-century equivalent of a WWII rationing card.
Spokane Spokesman-Review: TSA is on our side. […] [M]odest traveler inconvenience is a reasonable price to pay for a little added peace of mind.

Oh, I don’t know, maybe you should ASK

Former Half-Term Governor Sarah Palin: There’s nothing different today than there was in the last 43 years of my life since I first started reading. I continue to read all that I can get my hands on — and reading biographies of, yes, Thatcher for instance, and of course Reagan and the John Adams letters, and I’m just thinking of a couple that are on my bedside, I go back to C.S. Lewis for inspiration, there’s such a variety, because books have always been important in my life.
Jonathan Chait: Does anyone find this remotely believeable?
Lemkin: No, I do not, but unlike you and your brethren I don’t have access to ask her a (fucking) follow-up. Howsabout you pry ever-so-gently for a little plot information from “The Screwtape Letters” or for a particularly moving or trenchant letter from Adams? I know, I know: shrill. Sorry. But, honestly, it’s hard to tell just what journalists spend their time doing. That time certainly isn’t spent preparing.

Roadmap to Catfood for Dinner

GREGORY: But then, but where, but where do you make the cuts? I mean, if you’re protecting everything for those, the most potent political groups like seniors who go out and vote, where are you really going to balance the budget?
DEMINT: Well, look at Paul Ryan’s Roadmap to the future. We see a clear path to moving back to a balanced budget over time. Again, the plans are on the table. We don’t have to cut benefits for seniors, and we don’t need to cut Medicare.

As many have noted, the Ryan Roadmap not only cuts benefits for seniors, it eliminates Medicare entirely. DeMint is either utterly misinformed about the content of said “Roadmap”, a blithering idiot, or lying through his teeth. Working out the full slate of combinations possible in the previous sentence is left as an exercise for the student.

What I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere is that not only are these new and exciting Ryan Medicare Vouchers initially of lower value than the current benefit, their value never increases against inflation or other cost increases. So, barring some later legislative intervention, you’d have less of a benefit each and every year until you finally saw fit to just go die in the streets. Presumably a number of golden years subsisting on catfood and other low-cost comestibles would precede that fine day you scuttle out into the gutter to die, but still. That’s just not an “America’s Future” that I want a roadmap to.
And I’m confident that the vast majority of Americans agree with me on this one; it’s just that we’re not allowed to actually talk about any of this. Ever. Gregory, who never bothers to follow up on anything actually manages to get close for once, but then seemingly panics at witnessing such undiscovered professional realms and gives it the old “we’ll leave it there.” Top notch work as per usual. Look, a shiny penny!

We had a whole generation of journalists who sat by and did nothing while, for instance, George Bush led us into an idiotic war on a lie, plus thousands more who spent day after day collecting checks by covering Britney’s hair and Tiger’s text messages and other stupidities while the economy blew up and two bloody wars went on mostly unexamined… and it’s Keith Olbermann who should “pay the price” for being unethical?

Matt Taibbi, nailing it.

GOP: Party of Compromise

Greg Sargent talks Bush tax cuts and GOP/Democratic comity and compromise:

There is a way a one-year or two-year temporary extension could represent a compromise of sorts: If Republicans signal a willingness to at least entertain the idea of letting the high end cuts expire after that temporary extension. But many of them aren’t doing that. Their position is that the high-end cuts need to be made permanent. Full stop.

Exactly right. The GOP idea of compromise here is permanent Bush tax cuts. I suspect they might be willing to dump the tax cuts for the bottom 99% of America, but that top 1% isn’t going anywhere and they don’t want some two-year fix, they want it made permanent.

Democrats need to get through their heads that losing the entire Bush tax cuts package is actually the best long-term policy outcome; that this is also the “no deal, time expires” outcome makes it all the more powerful as a bargaining chip. Always be willing to walk away from the entire thing, and always make clear that all blame rests on the GOP by making clear that full-extension is their position, so partial repeal is the compromise position. Yes, walking away means short term harm to everyone making below $250k/yr, but if that’s what it takes to roll back the tax cuts for the richest of the rich: so be it. Only from that position of relative strength do you get the GOP to even approach the table. And, I’ll let you in on a secret: they still won’t.

This is why it’s the perfect issue for the Democrats. It’s important, easy to understand, and directly pits the hyper-rich against the interests of most Americans. Swing for the fences. You’ve got nothing to lose. If you force the GOP to accept short-term, top 1% cuts, it’s a win. If you force the media to face the fact that the GOP has zero interest in compromise on anything, it’s a win, and if you force the true compromise position of time-limited cuts for 99% of Americans and an immediate roll-back to Clinton-era rates for the top 1%: it’s a giant win of the sort that could redefine the terms and dimensions of exactly how policies do or don’t get done over the next two years. So why not try?

I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table.

Nancy Pelosi.  I wonder if we will be so fortunate with Speaker Boehner.  (via jonathan-cunningham)
I’d say it’s actually more important to recall that Pelosi was fairly literally dragged in front of cameras and forced to make this statement before it was even entirely clear just how many laws the Bush/Cheney trek to the DarkSide had broken or denied the existence of. Has Boehner even been asked? Of course he hasn’t. And won’t be. After all, Obama sets the agenda, and the GOP is certainly now pursuing a life of diligent Broderism.

Comfort the Afflicted

This is almost too obvious to point out, but this type of story is great for [former half-term governor Sarah Palin]. It feeds her narrative about how she’s the prey of pointy headed coastal lamestream media elites who have nothing but disdain for her and all the real Americans she speaks for. Having unnamed Republicans express concern about her presidential candidacy only sweetens the deal, allowing her to position herself in opposition to GOP elites in addition to lamestream media ones.

Indeed. What’s worse is that fools like Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen are likely looking at her silly “they’re jokes” line and congratulating themselves for afflicting the powerful and furthermore likely see any pushback on the part of Greg Sargent or others as yet more evidence of “complaints from both sides…so we must be doin’ our jobs!” So sad.

Comfort the Afflicted