Recommended Weekend Reflections (Updated)

By John Ballard

November 2 is five weeks from next Tuesday, followed by a lame duck session of the 111h Congress.
Let the post mortems begin...
Here are some provocative readings I have come across lately.

(First item is the update)
�

?It's not fair, but I'm adding this commentary by Tom Watson a day late. (The reason it's not fair is that the Jane Hamsher link appears last and Watson's commentary is something of a rejoinder.) The departure of Rahm Emanuel from the White House staff inspired a comparison with the late Tony Curtis (who died about the same time) as well as a few observations of the Obama style worth considering. 

...Emanuel wasn't even a glint in the President's nascent brand when the 2008 version of Barack Obama was selling hope and change to a hungry nation - he was the living antithesis, in fact, of what liberal Obama supporters projected on their candidate: a profane, centrist, DLC type with scars and combat ribbons from the hated Clinton Administration. Rahm was a candidate for a new Clinton administration - along with people like Gates, Jones, Holder, Lew, Summer and Hillary Clinton herself. From the first "WTF!?" moment of John Podesta's appointment to run the transition, there was a sense among the progressive voices who'd supported Obama through the long campaign that the matador had pulled the cape away and nicked them with the knife.

I had no sympathy whatsoever. They always projected upon Obama their ideal Presidential qualities, rather than the perfectly fine strengths the living candidate actually possessed. They were all waiting for Superman and thought Obama wore the cape. What I saw was a serious, considered, centrist Democrat who made practical decisions and compromises in the course of attaining power - a fine and powerful speaker with a fairly wide intellectual perspective, and the Senator's instinct for compromise (and a Columbia man to boot). While I was disappointed that President Obama did not deliver a more forceful agenda during the early days of his term when he clearly possessed the people's mojo to force several important issues - particularly the thin gruel of phased health insurance reform that served as the understudy for actual healthcare reform - I was not unhappy with the rather easy choice of Barack Obama over any living Republican politician.

Tom Watson is one of the good guys and I have great respect for his measured and insightful opinions. If more people had his sense of balance the world would be a more rational place than it seems to be. His oblique reference to Rick Sanchez is not central to his theme, but it is worth noting.

?Peter Daou's insightful list of all that's awry with the Left is repeated in a longer essay Friday with a title that says it all, Liberal bloggers are bringing down Obama, part II: It�s NOT the economy, stupid, it�s Obama�s character. That's right, Part II. Take a look at all he says, drill into the links and peruse the comments threads.

...Contrary to the straw man posed by Obama supporters, [those whom Robert Gibbs tagged the "prefessional Left"] aren�t complaining about pie in the sky wishes but about tangible acts and omissions, from Gitmo to Afghanistan to the environment to gay rights to secrecy and executive power.

The essence of their critique is that the White House lacks a moral compass. The instances where Obama displays a flash of moral authority � the mosque speech comes to mind � these bloggers cheer him with the same fervor as his most ardent fans.

There follows extended ruminations about policies and polls with an endless murmur of morality, legality and principles bent or compromised playing in the background.

Careful, reflective reading is called for here. Skimming won't get all that's there.

�

?When yesterday's story broke about Pakistan  shutting down the Khyber Pass in retaliation to yet another US incursion and attack in their territory (before today's followup, "militants"  setting fire to a couple dozen tanker trucks halted elsewhere on the way to Afghanistan) my first reaction was to recall a timeless essay by Steven den Beste which appeared about seven years ago in the Wall Street Journal as well as his blog. The Intertubes seem to have been scrubbed clean by the Wall Street Journal, but Wikipedia has this.

The Tooth to Tail Ratio is a military term that refers to the amount of military personnel ("tail") it takes to supply and support each combat soldier ("tooth"). While both "tooth" and "tail" soldiers may find themselves in combat or other life threatening situations "tooth" soldiers are those whose primary function is to neutralize the enemy. The ratio is not a specific measure but rather a general indication of an army's actual military might in relation to the resources it devotes to supply, upkeep, and logistics.

An army's tooth to tail ratio is often inversely related to its technological capabilities and subsequently its overall power. While an army with a high tooth to tail ratio will have more personnel devoted to combat, these soldiers will lack the support provided by the tail. Such support includes the supply and communication infrastructure on which modern armies depend. An army with a higher tooth to tail ratio may have more combat troops, but each will be less effective.

We can talk all day about technology, drones and all, but never underestimate the importance of old-fashioned components like geography, history and those always unmanageable human elements -- insurgents, politicians not yet on the take, and civilians with family and friends getting killed and injured.

But surfing around I found out that den Beste (forced to stop heavy-duty blogging and analysis due to a degenerative hereditary disease) is still blessed with a richly analytical mind.  His mind is one of the treasures of the political Right, as this piece at Hot Air ten days ago illustrates, analysing the Obama presidency. It is as valid as any I have read.

A long time ago I came to the conclusion that one of the motives driving Obama is his concern over his legacy. How will he be seen once he leaves office? In particular, given that he�s the first President who isn�t white, what kind of record will he leave behind for the next non-white to make the attempt?

Will voters say, �Oh boy! This guy might be another Obama!� or will they say, �God help us, he might be another Obama�? Obama doesn�t want it to be the latter.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly looking as if that will be his legacy. The Obama administration is rapidly shaping up as a good bad-example. Obama has done nearly everything wrong that he possibly could do. Those that follow will learn from his example not what to do but rather what not to do.

Here�s some of what not to do:

1. Believe your own press clippings. An obsequious press wouldn�t lie, would they?


2. Staff your entire administration with people out of the ivory tower. No one needs any practical experience if they�re smart enough, and virtuous enough.


3. Value world opinion above all other things. Everywhere you go, apologize. Bow and kneel.


4. Believe that weakness is a form of strength. If you disarm, everyone else will, too.


5.  Your face and voice are your most important weapons. Use them. Keep using them. Your main job is public appearances!


6. Believe in miracles. If you order the world to cool, the oceans to fall, the economy to grow, the nation�s enemies to vanish, well, it�ll happen.


7. Never admit mistakes. Everything bad that happens is someone else�s fault. Make sure to identify exactly who, and tell everybody incessantly.


8. Always keep in mind that it�s all about you.


9. Spend! Spend! Spend!


10. Push your agenda through, by hook or by crook, even in the face of voter opposition.

Obama wanted to be a transformative president, the left�s answer to Reagan. Unfortunately for Obama, he�s going to transform the country, alright, but in the long run it will be the same direction as Reagan.

I think it will take decades to undo most of the damage that Obama has caused (mainly by out-of-control spending and expansion of government) but it�ll happen, and this country will survive it. At the end of Obama�s one-and-only term as president, the country will be wounded but still standing.

Obama�s main legacy is going to be to utterly blacken the reputation of the �Progressive� political program for the next fifty years, if not even longer.

History will judge Obama�s biggest historical effect to be the backlash he will inspire against him among voters. His most important legacy will be the Tea Party movement, which wouldn�t have happened without him.

Right there among a cluster of generic or Republican talking points are four or five observations (my bold and highlights) worth a closer look. I'm not the only old-fashioned Liberal Obama supporter wincing when I read stuff like this.

�

?Before I come to Jane's pi� de r�stance, I need to embed this mystifying snip found at The Wonk Room. Maxine Waters (and others, I'm sure) were too shocked to say WTF aloud, but this blew me away.

 

Talk about cognitive dissonance. This one is whiplash city!

I think Murdock is a reincarnation of Phineas T. Barnum. He is simply laying the groundwork to capture another market segment and is innocent of anything resembling principles. No one should accuse this man of having too many scruples.

Barnum's American Museum was so popular that people would spend the entire day there. This cut into profits, as the museum would be too full to squeeze another person in. In classic Barnum style, old P.T. put up signs that said "This Way to the Egress." Many customers followed the signs, not realizing that Egress was a fancy word for "Exit." They kept on looking for this strange new attraction, the "Egress". Many patrons followed the signs right out the door! Once they had exited the building, the door would lock behind them, and if they wanted to get back in, they had to pay another admission charge!

�

?Finally, this latest from Jane Hamsher is more forceful than anything I have come across. The first line of this famous quote applies here more than the second.

Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.

Jane's gender is far less important here than the substance of her criticisms.

Privately, the closed wallets of Democratic billionaires like George Soros and Peter Lewis is all that the poobahs of the DC fundraising world have been talking about for weeks. But now it�s hit the New York Times

Many wealthy Democratic patrons, who in the past have played major roles financing outside groups to help elect the party�s candidates, are largely sitting out these crucial midterm elections.

Democratic donors like George Soros, the b� noire of the right, and his fellow billionaire Peter B. Lewis, who each gave more than $20 million to Democratic-oriented groups in the 2004 election, appear to be holding back so far.

And she's just getting warmed up.

Two of George Soros�s biggest issues are torture and weed. He�s been called �the Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization,� and shortly after Obama took office his Open Society Institute started pushing for a commission to investigate America�s use of torture since 9/11. Obama and Harry Reid poured cold water on the idea of a torture commission, and the administration �firmly opposes marijuana legalization.�

The attention of Mr. Lewis, chairman of Progressive Insurance, also appears to be elsewhere this year. Jennifer Frutchy, who advises Mr. Lewis on his philanthropy, said he was focused at the moment on �building progressive infrastructure and marijuana reform.�

 

�That�s just where his head is right now,� Ms. Frutchy said.

Two billionaires � and the majority of those under age 29 � enthusiastically support marijuana legalization. Maybe appointing former Clinton policy adviser Rahm Emanuel to be Chief of Staff, the guy who threatened doctors with jail time for prescribing marijuana to their patients, was not the swiftest move.

For donors, there is certainly an element of fatigue from giving cycle after cycle, as well as an economic squeeze brought on by the recession, the operatives said. But some more ideological donors are also upset that the Obama administration has not been more aggressive in pushing a liberal agenda.

Translation: Gay men, pro-choice women and environmentalists are probably the three biggest issue-based donor groups for the Democratic Party, and all three are absolutely ripshit at the way the Democrats have squandered their majorities. They�re also furious at the veal pen outfits that collaborated with the Democrats and gave them cover for their actions and have cut them off, too. Guess that weekly invite to the Common Purpose meeting turned out not to be such a hot ticket after all.

Labor unions are still promising to spend large sums of money backing Democrats. But they are not keeping up at this point with the flood of money going to Republican-leaning organizations.

So, let�s see if I have this straight. After the unions put hundreds of millions into getting Obama elected, and they get played on EFCA, the Democrats lay the blame off on ConservaDem Senators like Blanche Lincoln. So the unions spend $10 million trying to send a message to Lincoln, working within the Democratic party to support a primary opponent.

When Lincoln wins, �senior White House officials� are instantly calling journalists to taunt the unions as �absolute idiots� who �just flushed $10 million of their members� money down the toilet on a pointless exercise.� Which creates huge problems for unions at the local level when it comes to putting money into political races in the future because members are always dubious about such outlays to begin with.

As I read this post I wanted to stand and cheer at the monitor.
When she said "Sucking up to our Wall Street overlords while dog whistling to your base is not as easy as the GOP makes it look" I made a fist in my mind, jerked it down and whispered "Yessss!"

She takes it home with this...

The bigger problem for the Democrats, however, is not that Lewis and Soros are sitting it out � it�s that Lewis and Soros are considered �lead donors.� Where they go, other donors follow. If they decide to sit it out, so will others.

The complaints that Soros and Lewis have are the same ones expressed by all those hippies that Robert Gibbs, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been punching. It�s a malaise felt by the entire progressive base, who can�t be spurred into action by being told to �buck up.�

I�ll tell you one thing, though. As pissed off as people are, it�s going to be nothing compared to the rage that will be unleashed if the Catfood Commission�s recommendations to cut Social Security benefits gets passed � and Alice Rivlin says the �stars are aligned� for it to happen. They could snap the spine of the Democratic party completely with that one.

And I'll tell you something else.

If all that foolishness about privatizing Social Security starts getting any traction among Democrats,
Blue Dogs as well, this is one old hippie who's gonna get back in the streets. Orszag may be gone but the Diamond-Orszag Plan to update Social Security is valid, fair and well-calibrated. It's time for the safety net for old people too old to earn a living to be updated, but replacing Social Security with a duke's mixture of Individual Security plans is as nutty an idea as the so-called Fair Tax.

�

Good reading. And have a good weekend.