The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    Josh Marshall Sees the Democratic Boat Sinking Before It's Hit The Iceberg

    By oldenGoldenDecoy on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 9:32am |

    .

    .

    It's off to the races after Labor Day...


    If you haven't seen it, over on the front page at TPM Josh has been ruminating over the coming elections and... using a most "well... duh..." headline he writes :

    Events Create New Realities

    At this point, if you follow the available evidence, it seems likely that the Democrats will get a severe beating on election day. Absent some rebound, it seems highly likely that the Dems will lose control of the House of Representatives. And it even seems possible now that they could lose control of the Senate.

    --snip--

    And remember, November won't be one senate race in Massachusetts. How well will Democrats stand up to the headline that says Republicans win 50 House seats?

    And remember, it won't be "Republicans win 50 House Seats."

    The headline will read "Angry Country Repudiates Obama Agenda, Embraces Small Government Conservative Values." And that will be the Times. Believe me, it won't be pretty.



    As of the current date, I'll stick with Nate Silver's work long before I'll put faith in Josh's predictions and the next to worthless TPM generic polling prognostications...

    Here's what Nate is saying...

    Republicans Have One-in-Four Chance to Claim Senate Majority

    --snippet--

    Also, although it has become easier -- perhaps more so than ever -- to envision a Republican path toward taking over the Senate, they still remain underdogs and have, in essence, two significant hurdles to clear. The first hurdle is purely statistical: polls are relatively fuzzy instruments prior to the Labor Day holiday, before many voters have engaged with the campaigns. And in the weeks immediately leading up to Labor Day -- when many Americans are on vacation -- they can be especially erratic. If, in two or three weeks' time, the polls continue to show clear signs of Republican momentum, their prospects for a Senate takeover will be more robust.

    FiveThirtyEight @ NYTimes - September 7, 2010


    But the important point in all of this that is going unsaid is, what's all this say about President Obama being the leader of his party? The only answer I have to that is another question. Which party are you talking about?

    And we'll only know that answer when and if President Obama rolls up the sleeves and really comes out swinging for the Democrats that really need his support to help get them over the hump.


    ~OGD~

    Comments

    Josh's crystal ball predictions might not be worth a whole lot, but he does have a way with summarizing the major problem Democrats have created for themselves at this juncture:

    In other words, take a political fight in which the Democrats have the economic argument on their side and in which they most likely have the political argument on their side too and instead of contesting that ground -- just concede the whole argument in advance and start the debate on the basis of the Republicans' maximal position.

    If that isn't a one sentence summary of the political missteps in the Obama era, I don't know what is.


    by DF on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 10:17am

    Hey DF... Thanks for dropping by.

    That is a finely penned and tight synopsis by Josh that you quoted.

    Although it's nothing groundbreaking or new after reading pretty much the same plaint from a myriad of sources in different forms over every issue that has bubbled to the surface over the past 18 months. And especially out of the DC area.

    As for the particular issue that Josh used to bounce that off of? I ask, former White House budget director Peter Orszag? I can't help but chuckle a little while taking note of the source. Some folks from Obama's old circle have well thought out and rational reasons of looking at the reality of a situation for the betterment of the long-term goals without seeing the short-term political ramifications. Even if in Josh's words "...politics is not some meaningless froth hovering over the reality of policy. It's inextricable from it."

    Often people have to point out what they feel, in this case Orszag, the right way to go no matter how hard the right way is to swallow.

    And on that, you know it doesn't hurt to expand Orszag's full position by taking a read of this over at Josh's Lame! article.

    Better yet still. Often it's best to read everything in it's proper order and full context instead of relying on a single source.

    Back to Josh's Lame! article in it's entirety.

    That post sites a link to Brian Beutler's coverage.

    Then Brian links to Orzag's original NYT Opinion article.

    Then we must again go back to Josh's Lame! article.

    Where Josh links us to Greg Sargent getting "Orszag to sorta kinda half not really walk it back."

     

    Holy bouncing blogs there Batman. It's enough to make Sherlock Holmes' head spin to flip through all that and absorb it.

    But through it all Josh did pen a very fine and tight graph in his synopsis.

    I hope this helps others who wish to take the time and read the entire situation in it's overall context.

    I'm going swimming...

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Fri, 09/10/2010 - 4:01pm

    The funny thing is that Orzag is saying that the right thing to do is let the tax cuts for wealthiest expire, while extending them for the middle class.  What Josh is saying is that it would seem that should be not at all hard to swallow for the Democrats, who should probably view that as a political slam dunk.  Instead, Orzag seems to say that they might not be able to get Republicans to agree to that, so Dems should just do what the GOP wants from the outset.

    It's not like Orzag is standing up in the name of hard-nosed fiscal realism here.  He's stated what he thinks the right thing to do is, but also seems to see no margin in actually pursuing it.  I think that's the political puzzle that Marshall identifies with the quote, which is apparent when you read the entire post.

    And Sargent's interview with Orzag further illuminates that his prescription to extend all of the tax cuts two years and then expire all of them is purely based on what he estimates to be politically feasible.  Marshall is simply calling that judgment politically naive.


    by DF on Fri, 09/10/2010 - 4:05pm

    Hello from Two-Harbors at Catalina Island.

    I have one question before proceeding further down this rabbit hole.

    Has Obama, Jeffrey Zients the acting Director of OMB, or any other individual within the administration responded to what Orszag wrote in the Times? Until then, this is nothing more nor less than an exercise in futility trying to figure out what Josh's motives would be to write such a "lame" headline.

    I am more in alignment with John Cole's take on being closer to reality.

    Orszag’s position in his piece yesterday was evident to anyone without an axe to grind or headline to sell- he thinks extending the tax cuts on the wealthy are a bad policy, but he would suck it up and accept it to keep the middle class cuts in place. The only way to read Orszag’s op-ed yesterday and come away with the coverage we got yesterday was to, well, ignore what he actually said in the op-ed and start salivating about conflict.



    That part about "...ignore what he actually said in the op-ed and start salivating about conflict" is where I really agree with Cole.

    Now, be it that over the past week there has been very little coverage or outrage about Orszag's position other than the normal squawking in the various blogs, I personally see this as a much ado about very little when it comes to the general voting population as a whole.

    Although, as Digby wrote, and I do agree with this point:

    According to the polls, a majority of the American people are in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Obviously, the Republicans are not in favor of this. But Greg Sargent reports that increasing numbers of Democrats are coming out against it too.

    I think that may be the saddest comment on Democratic Party failure yet, even including the advancement of the Cheney torture regime. Not because it's worse morally, but because the opportunity to educate people and obtain their support for progressive economics was practically laid at their feet and they whiffed.


    As Sargent points out those are national polls. But currently we're hard up against the coming elections and it's the representatives in the marginal districts right this minute who are in a tough position. From Sargent's piece, here's what a few have to say.

    * Rep Jim Himes of Conneticut  says he supports a temporary extension, because earning $250,000 annually "does not make you really rich."

    * Rep Bobby Bright of Alabama came out against ending the tax cuts, because "a vast majority of my constituents ... don't believe in tax increases on anybody at this point in time."

    * Rep Ron Klein of Florida wants a one year extension of the tax cuts, including those for the rich, because "right now, our top economic priority has to be job creation."

    * Rep Gerry Connolly of Virginia says the tax cuts should remain because the recovery remains "fragile."

    * Rep Gary Peters of Michigan wants the cuts to continue lest we "jeopardize economic recovery."

    * Rep Harry Mitchell of Arizona says he "strongly" opposes letting the tax cuts lapse because "we need to encourage investment, not discourage it."

    They are the one's having to sell whatever plan the administration comes out with and also face their constituents.

    It's real easy for few blogger/journos coming up with trite headlines to keep their readers returning but the reality is those representatives are the ones out there representing the voters.

    Now I'm going scuba diving where it's nice and quiet while I contemplate the meaning of today.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sat, 09/11/2010 - 10:24am

    One question:  How did the rich use their tax cuts to stimulate the economy?  In the eight or nine years they've been in effect, have we seen a trickle-down?  Have they created millions, even thousands of jobs?  Did they share even one little diddly?

    Uh uh.

     


    by Ramona on Sun, 09/12/2010 - 8:04pm