But back to Obama and the liberal 527s. Occam’s razor time: what’s the simplest reason that Obama would want to see donors shun these groups? Probably the simplest would be that he wants all the money to himself. But even the wealthiest Democrats can only give Obama $2,300 more, and if you’re giving that much, you have more to give. And 527s aren’t limited to any dollar amounts. Past that, there has been a lot of talk about Obama opting out of public financing for the general election, instead accepting only donations far below $2,300 from many more people to prove a point. That leaves even more money on the table that could be put to very good use by bright, experienced people like Brock, Podesta, Soros and others. But not if the Obama campaign gets their way.

So if Obama knows he’s going to have all the money he needs, what is the next simplest explanation for choking off the 527s? Money is power, and Obama wants to consolidate all of it under his own control. Fine! you say? Let’s keep in mind that Obama really just barely beat Hillary Clinton, and had it not been for Republicans and Independents, he wouldn’t have beaten her at all. Clinton’s chief strategist Mark Penn didn’t even know delegates were awarded on a proportional basis! And Obama is now operating as if he should be able to control the Democratic Party? Kind of ironic coming from a man who can’t even bring himself to say the word ‘Democratic,’ no?

Gearing up: David Brock to launch outside group for 2012 – WaPo (11/10/10):

With the White House now signaling it wants outside groups on the left to ramp up for 2012, Media Matters founder David Brock is in discussions to form a new group designed to raise and spend big bucks to counter the right’s powerful new infrastructure, a person who’s spoken directly with Brock about his plans tells me.
[...]
“David is on the road right now talking to donors and strategists who would be interested in this,” the source tells me, adding that Brock intends to create a 527, which has partial donor disclosure rules. “He’s out pitching it right now.”

“There’s a general sense that in 2010 nothing was done and it cost Democrats,” the source continues. “People realize, including in the White House, that something needs to be done in 2012 or progressives will suffer at the ballot box again.”
[...]
During the 2008 campaign, Obama famously directed outside liberal groups to close down and let his enormously successful fundraising operation dominate. But as the magnitude of the right’s 2010 spending in the wake of the Citizens United decision became apparent, White House senior adviser David Axelrod began quietly signaling a new openness to outside spending on the left.

As Brock’s efforts clearly show, the message has been received.

Why exactly did it take the debacle of the 2010 elections to wake these morons up?

A newly-released CNN poll, conducted a few days before this past midterm election, shows President Obama in for a competitive race in 2012, with him trailing two potential Republican candidates and leading two others among registered voters.

The numbers:

• Mike Huckabee leads Obama by 52%-44%. In the previous CNN poll from April, Obama led Huckabee by 54%-45%.

• Mitt Romney leads Obama by 50%-45%. In the previous CNN poll from April, Obama led Romney by 53%-45%.

As it happens, Sarabeth and I have a bet on the 2012 election made about a year ago. I have The Huck and The Mitt, Sarabeth has Obama. As of now, I expect a push because Huckabee will have to deal with the fact that a man whose prison sentence he commuted killed four police officers last year, Romney won’t be able to run against health care because the Affordable Care Act is basically RomneyCare, and well, Obama just isn’t getting another term.

I know people aren’t yet ready to wrap their heads around Obama not winning in 2012, but taking a look at the electoral map makes it pretty clear. Obama won Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida in 2008. NC and IN are totally off the table, and Ohio and Florida were both absolute bloodbaths for Democrats on Tuesday. Iowa voted to actually remove three state judges for ruling in favor of gay marriage. It’s hard to imagine Wisconsin voting out Russ Feingold in favor of a total psycho and then turning around and giving Obama another four years. Likewise Pennsylvania and Virginia were very unfriendly to Democrats on Tuesday.

That’s 124 electoral votes that range from shaky to straight-up gone.

Yesterday the Douchebag-in-Chief hosted some of the more popular bloggers who are critical of him for a discussion on the many ways he is blowing it. From what I can tell, AmericaBlog, Crooks & Liars, and Atrios were there, but none are identified in the transcript. I wanted to flag this portion for opvious reasons:

Q: Mr. President, you’ve said that you want to work with Republicans after the election, but there’s probably a pretty good chance that they’re not going to advance with you. Is there sort of a breaking point you have of where you try to work with them and they just refuse to budge, which they’ve indicated so far? Is there a breaking point for you just like you’re going to have to go off on your own and find a way around them?

THE PRESIDENT:Look, the — I’m a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to, on the one hand, trying to get cooperation. I don’t give up just because I didn’t get cooperation on this issue; I’ll try the next issue. If the Republicans don’t agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they’ll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don’t agree with me on infrastructure, I’ll try to see if they agree with me on education.

So I’m just going to keep on trying to see where they want to move the country forward.

In that sense, there’s not a breaking point for me. There are some core principles that I think are important for not just me to stick with but for the country to stick with. So if the Republicans say we need to cut our investments in education, at a time when we know that our success as a nation is largely going to depend on how well trained our workforce is, I’m going to say no. And there are going to be areas where, after working very hard, we just can’t find compromise and I’m going to be standing my ground, then essentially we debate it before the American people.

But I don’t go into the next two years assuming that there’s just going to be gridlock. We’re going to keep on working to make sure that we can get as much done as possible because folks are hurting out there. What they’re looking for is help on jobs, help on keeping their homes, help on sending their kids to college. And if I can find ways for us to work with Republicans to advance those issues, then that’s going to be my priority.

I’ve been banging this drum from literally Obama’s first speech on the national scene, his keynote at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. As the Republican party has become more and more radicalized, Obama’s strategy has been exactly the same. I wrote the following in May of 2007:

The main theme of Obama’s campaign is of course, compromise. And that sounds great, and has obviously sent legions of impressionable young voters swooning, but none, not even Obama himself has been able to explain why, in practical terms this is desirable, or even provide a substantive example where compromise would yield a more desirable outcome than the ideas the Democratic party already espouses. I’ve been over this here many times, and my questions have always been “What is there to compromise on?” and “Who is there to compromise with?” These aren’t rhetorical questions, and despite an audience numbered in the mid-four digits, no one has made much of an effort to answer either one. While I’d be more than happy to hear thoughts on this from Obama supporters, who probably constitute more than 1,000 of the people reading this, I’m going to assume for a moment that I’ll be waiting in vain because deep down, even the most fervent Obamaniacs know that there’s no compromise with Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott in the Senate, John Boehner and Roy Blunt in the House, and large swaths of the constituents they and their ilk represent.

Yes, Trent Lott is not in the Senate anymore, but then again, Trent Lott is a moderate Republican by today’s standards. Roy Blunt is set to win a Senate seat in Missouri. And Mitch McConnell. Mitchy. Mitchy, mitchy, Mitchy. Here’s what Mitchy said earlier this week:

If Republicans are to enjoy a midterm triumph in 2010 as they did in 1994, McConnell said his party should say: “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”

Asked what that “job” was, McConnell explained that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Yeah, there’s a lot of common ground there, Obama. Have fun captiulating compromising.

UPDATE 8:00am PDT:

Incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner:

“This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles,” Boehner said during an appearance on conservative Sean Hannity’s radio show.

And conference chairman Mike Pence:

“Look, the time to go along and get along is over,” said Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference. “House Republicans know that. We’ve taken firm and principled stands against their big government plans throughout this Congress, and we’ve got, if the American people will send them, we’ve got a cavalry of men and women headed to Washington, D.C. that are going to stand with us.”

Pence said his party wouldn’t compromise on issues like spending or healthcare reform, two of the weightiest items on Congress’s agenda next year, when the Republicans could control one or both chambers.

But back to Obama and the liberal 527s. Occam’s razor time: what’s the simplest reason that Obama would want to see donors shun these groups? Probably the simplest would be that he wants all the money to himself. But even the wealthiest Democrats can only give Obama $2,300 more, and if you’re giving that much, you have more to give. And 527s aren’t limited to any dollar amounts. Past that, there has been a lot of talk about Obama opting out of public financing for the general election, instead accepting only donations far below $2,300 from many more people to prove a point. That leaves even more money on the table that could be put to very good use by bright, experienced people like Brock, Podesta, Soros and others. But not if the Obama campaign gets their way.

Well, of course they did get their way.

Politico (10/19/10):

Democrats enter the homestretch of the 2010 elections complaining vocally about the flood of Republican money, much of it anonymous, pounding their candidates.

But as the White House points the finger at outside Republican groups, many Democrats point the finger back at the White House, which dismantled the Democratic Party’s own outside infrastructure in 2008 and never tried to rebuild it.
[...]
…it’s also easy to underestimate the president’s ability to increase the flow of cash to Democrat-friendly groups had he chosen to do so. Instead, Obama’s choice has been unilateral disarmament.

To the White House, that posture is a mark of the purity of the presidential brand and of Obama’s consistency.
[...]
But to some of its more practical-minded allies, the White House is protecting the brand at a very real cost to the party.

“The leadership of the Obama campaign warned their donors against giving to outside groups, including many of the key issue groups that motivate progressives. The leadership in the White House has done the same thing,” said Erica Payne, one of the founders of the Democracy Alliance, a group of the largest liberal donors, who now heads the Agenda Project. “As a result, the administration often looks like Will Ferrell in the movie ‘Old School’ — running through the street naked, shouting, ‘Come on, everybody’s streaking,’ when in reality they are all by themselves.”

Unilateral disarmament, the running theme of Obama’s Presidency. He hollowed out the DNC, eradicated the 527s, and we’re all going to pay a hell of a price for it.

Short of divine intervention, the economy isn’t going to get turned around in four weeks. So closing the enthusiasm gap is the only realistic hope Democrats have of salvaging the midterm elections.

It’s my personal belief that a major cause for the enthusiasm gap — if not the major cause — was the way health care reform was thoroughly mishandled, for months and months, resulting in a bill that was a pale shadow of what it might have been.

That includes how a single-payer system was taken off the table right at the outset, preemptively, as it were. It includes the extended and perfectly pointless game of political footsie Max Baucus was allowed to play with Chuck Grassley and assorted Senate Republicans for months and months (and months), when we continued to negotiate with them long after many of them had actually made public statements to the effect that they were not negotiating in good faith, that they were only trying to drag out the process and dilute the end product, and that they would vote against the final product they ended up negotiating. This charade not only dragged on for months, but the provisions of the bill did indeed keep getting diluted every step of the way. And the long-drawn-out negotiations provided the Republicans world enough and time to mount their determined campaign of deliberate lies to subvert popular support for health care reform.

And we not only ended up with weak and watery dishwater, but we were told over and over again that we should loyally celebrate it as chicken soup for the soul. Because it was such a milestone accomplishment, because so many previous presidents had tried and failed, or wanted to try but not even taken up the task.

And I think that’s the context in which Tom Daschle‘s quickly retracted admission yesterday is going to play out.

This was the admission:

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)’s new book Getting It Done: How Obama and Congress Finally Broke the Stalemate To Make Way for Health Care Reform comes out next week, but this morning he spoke to me about some of the concessions the administration made to pass reform and the shortcomings in the Affordable Care Act.

In his book, Daschle reveals that after the Senate Finance Committee and the White House convinced hospitals to to accept $155 billion in payment reductions over ten years on July 8, the hospitals and Democrats operated under two “working assumptions.” “One was that the Senate would aim for health coverage of at least 94 percent of Americans,” Daschle writes. “The other was that it would contain no public health plan,” which would have reimbursed hospitals at a lower rate than private insurers.

I asked Daschle if the White House had taken the option off the table in July 2009 and if all future efforts to resuscitate the provision were destined to fail:
DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders’ active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay. Now, it’s debatable about whether all of these assertions and promises are accurate, but that was the calculation. I think there is probably a good deal of truth to it. You look at past efforts and the doctors and the hospitals, and the insurance companies all opposed health care reform. This time, in various degrees of enthusiasm, they supported it. And if I had to point out some of the key differences between then and now, it would be the most important examples of the difference.

Despite being “taken off the table” as a result of the “understanding,” the White House continued to publicly deny claims that it was backing away from the provision even as it tried to focus on other aspects of the bill. “Nothing has changed,” said Linda Douglass, then communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform in August of 2009 and many times thereafter. “The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”

And this is the not-entirely-convincing retraction:

In describing some of the challenges to passage of the public option in the health reform bill, I did not mean to suggest in any way that the President was not committed to it. The President fought for the public option just as he did for affordable health care for all Americans. The public option was dropped only when it was no longer viable in Congress, not as a result of any deal cut by the White House. While I was disappointed that the public option was not included in the final legislation, the Affordable Care Act remains a tremendous achievement for the President and the nation.

This was a written statement. Daschle made no attempt to even try to explain how or why he could have said the exact opposite in the interview (at such great length) if the truth is that the public option was dropped only when it was no longer viable in Congress.

In any case, the book is supposed to be out next week. And, according to Igor Volsky‘s account, the book contains the same account of the public option’s demise as the interview. In fact, Volsky offers what purports to be a direct quote from the book.

If the book comes out next week and contains that quote — or if the book launch is inexplicably delayed — I think Tom Daschle may have single-handedly dashed whatever faint hope there might have been of closing the enthusiasm gap in the next four weeks.

Expect to see John Boehner wearing an unusually wide grin today.

A new national poll released Sunday indicates that eight in 10 Americans say that the economy is in poor shape, and the number that says conditions are very poor is on the upswing after steady declines through the spring.

And according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, more people blame the Republicans over the Democrats for the country’s economic problems.
[...]
Forty-four percent of people questioned describe economic conditions as very poor, up seven points from July.

The poll indicates that roughly half the country says that conditions have not improved in the past two years. The other half says that the economy has gotten better, but many of them expect things will get worse in the near future.
[...]
According to the survey, more Americans hold the Republicans responsible than the Democrats, with 44 percent blaming the GOP and 35 percent picking the Democrats.

“And when George W. Bush‘s name is added to the mix, the number who blame the Republicans rises to 53 percent, with just a third saying that Barack Obama and his party are at fault. That indicates why the Democrats are likely to mention Bush’s name every chance they get between now and election day,” (CNN Polling Director Keating Holland) said.

And then there’s this Washington Post-ABC News poll last night:

On the economy, 43 percent of voters side with Republicans when it comes to dealing with financial problems, while 39 percent favor Democrats. (Fifteen percent say they trust neither party more.) Although not a significant lead for Republicans, this marks the first time they have had any numerical edge on the economy dating to 2002. In recent years, Democrats have typically held double-digit advantages on the issue.

It’s not just a case of different polls coming up with different results. A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released this morning found essentially the same results as the Washington Post-ABC News poll:

Republicans have a slight edge over Democrats on the economy, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday indicates that 46 percent of Americans say that Republicans in Congress would do a better job dealing with the economy, with 43 percent saying that Congressional Democrats would do a better job on the top issue on the minds of Americans. The GOP’s three point advantage is within the poll’s sampling error.

The Republicans’ 3-point edge is a big shift from last year, when the Democrats held a 52 to 39 percent advantage. The GOP leads 51 percent to 32 percent on the economy among Independents, and they have a 9-point advantage on the issue among voters 65 and older.

According to the poll, Republicans have a slight 3-point edge over the Democrats on taxes and a 6-point advantage on tacking the federal budget deficit.

So a few days ago, Americans were pondering the shape of the economy and what got us into this whole damn mess, and what they came up with was something along the lines of:
These guys put us into a car, and drove us into a ditch, and then just walked away, refusing to lift one damn finger to help us get out of the ditch. These same guys want to persuade us to get back into the same car with them, so that the same drivers, in the same impaired state, can drive us down the same damn road again. Meanwhile, the car is still in the ditch.

And now, just a few days later, they want to ask these same guys to go get their tow-truck, and pull us out of the ditch? So that we can get back in the car with them? (Because, hey, who needs to pass Go, who needs to collect $200? “Go to ditch! Go DIRECTLY to ditch!” is just fine.)

And the people going: “One more time, baby! Come on, let’s go, you can do it!” are not standing on the sidelines, either. Those voices are coming from inside the car.

No wonder the rest of the world just doesn’t understand American politics.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.

But there’s no getting away from the fact that these statements apply equally to the first two years of the Obama administration.

If it hurts the economy to finance these huge war expenditures by borrowing, then why has Obama made exactly zero efforts to do anything about it? I don’t see how it’s a defense to say “But Bush started it!” Maybe, but Obama cheerfully continued it. As if there was no choice but to do so. And, of course, the whole point of that quote from his speech is that there was always a choice. There was a choice for Bush. And there was a choice for Obama. And Obama made the same choice as Bush. Even though he’s been criticizing Bush’s choice for the last three years.

I really think that Obama should have proposed a “Bush’s Wars” tax increase early in 2009. Perhaps a temporary increase, to be phased out as the wars wound down.

Clearly, the wars needed to be paid for. And there was no reason for Obama to take the political heat for this necessity. But it really shouldn’t have been too difficult — even for the hapless Democrats — to hang this fairly and squarely around Bush’s neck.

I’m not saying the Republicans — together with the elements of the Democratic Party who have proven time and again that they are easily intimidated by Republican rhetoric — would have actually allowed the tax increase to go through. But doesn’t Obama’s consistent rhetoric on the irresponsibility of funding these two wars by borrowing require that he should at least have tried?

And wouldn’t he have won politically even by losing?

President Obama‘s Oval Office address was impressive and perplexing. Politically, I liked the clever pivot to the domestic economy, but he left me utterly confused about the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we to continue to spend trillions supposedly building “democracy” in those nations or not? He still has not defined what success means. If we’re just getting the hell out of those countries, then say say so and do so. But as always, Obama seems to be trying to split the difference between the irreconcilable. That is perhaps his greatest strength — or weakness.

It might be a strength if he had actually managed to get anywhere trying to do this. (Not just a strength, actually, but a miracle.) But, of course, he hasn’t. Because that’s what the word “irreconcilable” means, after all.

The effect of the stimulus, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), will be smaller in coming quarters, as much of the money has already been spent, CBO said.

“The effects of ARRA on employment and unemployment … are expected to wane gradually in 2011 and beyond,” it said.

According to the CBO report, it appears that, in the second quarter, the stimulus is all that stood between us and a contraction in the economy.

With John Boehner and the rest of the asshole contingent of the Republican Party determined to oppose every single measure that might possibly boost the economy, especially employment, the economic contraction that the stimulus has been holding at bay is eventually going to arrive.

Boehner and the Republicans are doing this purely for selfish political purposes, mind you, the cost to America and Americans be damned. All because Boehner believes that’s what it will take for him to become the first T-and-A Speaker of the House.

And when that contraction arrives, Boehner’s will be the loudest voice blaming it all on Obama‘s failed economic policies.

President Obama‘s overall approval rating stands at 47% … overall, seven in 10 believe Obama has met or exceeded their expectations as president.

We don’t really think too highly of the job he’s doing, but, boy, he’s doing a lot better than we expected?