I have too much admiration for Paul Krugman to want to tag him with that glib and derogatory label.
But really, what else can one say?
Here in today’s New York Times, Krugman pens an extremely lucid and well-reasoned op-ed analyzing the damage done by this weekend’s regulatory roll-back.
But Krugman attributes the malfeasance simply to “Congress,” without being able to acknowledge that no one did more to ensure the bill’s passage than Obama himself.
The past weekend was so graphic.
On the one hand, Cheney incarnates the Republicans’ brazen defense of every type of illegal and seditious behavior. The vice-torturer-in-chief would do it all again with bells on.
On the other side of the aisle–
the Democrats, herded by their President and alleged “leader” of their party, pre-emptively capitulate to the GOP, passing a horrendous spending bill that devastates the Democrats’ own Dodd-Frank bill, one of a truly meager number of legislative achievements notched up during the Obama presidencies.
When even Nancy Pelosi refused to trot along with the president this time, you knew that is one bill that reeked.
If there was any lingering doubt in the heart of his progressive cheerleaders about who Obama really is, it should dissipate with his support of the spending bill. The only thing that could possibly still keep them dreamy about the Obama they have invented is outright cognitive dissonance.
Among the poison pill provisions is one that will increase the amount of hours truck drivers can drive without sleep.
And of course there’s the gutting of the Dodd-Frank bill, the anemic package of financial service regulations that is one of the very few accomplishments of the Obama presidency. . . and the engorged war spending (which will precede, in all likelihood, a revival of Obama’s plans to partner with the Republicans to cut Social Security).
And on and on. . .
Did you know?
During the 1930s, Stalin’s Central Executive Committee declared that anyone accused of “terrorist acts” had forfeited any right of defense.
John Nichols interviews Senator Sanders for his Nation blog:
“I can tell you from personal experience: I get on TV a lot. It is very hard for me to fight through the questioning and to actually talk about policy issues. . . . There is a real prejudice and a desire not to talk about the collapse of the middle class, about the level of poverty in this country, about income and wealth inequality. They don’t want to talk about that; they want to talk about anything else—to make it into a personality match: ‘What do you think about Hillary Clinton?’—rather than ‘How do we help the middle class? How do we deal with income and wealth inequality?”
Marilyn Klaus’s torquey Ballets With a Twist opens for Cindi Lauper tomorrow night at the Beacon!
– because it’s already exploding!
The single perogtive on which the GOP will not sandbag Obama: his imperial privilege to wage perpetual war.
John Kerry makes that war-lover’s vow! This man is one of the great sell-outs in contemporary American politics. And his arrogance will redound to the Democrats’ further oblivion. They really think that in the current state of their policy they can convince their constituencies to go to the pols?
True to their foreign policy guru, GW Bush, Kerry & Co. refuse to discuss civilian casualties.
Sarah Lazare at Commondreams gives Kerry the benefit of own bluster and quotes honest voices as well.
Can a male be a muse? The Helicon gals were gals. This occasioned by my Hugh Laing tag of a few posts ago.
At Thanksgiving, a second cousin who is one of the less wealthy inhabitants of a posh Connecticut town, told me she was nevertheless going to start tithing her income. Which organizations did I recommend she contribute her ten percent to? There are so many deserving and essential ones I was almost at a loss for words. Where to begin?
And a cousin who’s going to spend the winter months at her vacation home down South, is now enrolled in a training program for courthouse child advocacy–and will be volunteering in that important function while she’s away.
And systemic injustice must be cosseted. Did you know? While the safety net tatters, 33 cities have banned or are considering banning people giving food to the homeless. . . . because allegedly, that would dilute the municipal programs–inadequate as they have been and increasingly inadequate as they become. Go to act.watchdog.net and sign their petition crying foul.