David Brooks: GOP 'May No Longer Be A Normal Party'

David Brooks:

...the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor. MORE...

Howie P.S.: Many of us have already figured out what Brooks has apparently just realized. You know things are really getting crazy when I'm linking to David Brooks to make the point that the GOP is abnormal.

Chomsky on "Democracy Uprising” in the U.S.A.? (with video and text)

Democracy Now! with video (59:05) and text:

"...there’s been a wave of propaganda over the last couple of months, which is pretty impressive to watch, trying to deflect attention away from those who actually created the economic crisis, like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, their associates in the government who—Federal Reserve and others—let all this go on and helped it. There’s a—to switch attention away from them to the people really responsible for the crisis—teachers, police, firefighters, sanitation workers, their huge pensions, their incredible healthcare benefits, Cadillac healthcare benefits, and their unions, who are the real villains, the ones who are robbing the taxpayer by making sure that policemen may not starve when they retire. And this is pretty amazing, like right in the middle of the Madison affair, which is critical." MORE...

Joan McCarter on How 60 Minutes is now Pimpin' the GOP Tax Cut Frame

Joan McCarter (front page on Kos):

In a stunningly one-sided story last night, 60 Minutes gave GOP Gov. Chris Christie the floor to push his war against public employees and the GOP narrative that has taken hold of the country--the debt crisis in the states isn't a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. Media Matters has an excellent summation of the segment.
(SNIP)
It's a Grover Norquist wet dream, with 60 Minutes—which occupies the pinnacle of the "liberal media"— unquestioningly accepting the "spending problem" narrative. That's the narrative that won the day with passage of the tax cut deal. Which, in turn, is probably going to make the crisis in the states much worse. MORE...

Bold Progressives: "Tax Cuts: What are you thinking?"

David Horsey on GOP Grinch-a-tude.

Bold Progressives:

Take our survey: What are you thinking today?

Can we share your thoughts with other PCCC members and reporters?


Do you have a kid who will have to pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?


Check those that apply to you:

Obama 2008 paid staffer

Obama 2008 volunteer

Obama 2008 donor

Go HERE to SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSES.

"Which senators voted against the tax deal?"

Washington Examiner:

The senators voting against:

Bingaman (D-NM)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Merkley (D-OR)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Booman on The Deal

Booman:

I don't like the bill, but I could tell you that it was going to pass. As I said after the deal was announced, the most progressives could hope to do is to tinker with the Estate Tax a bit. I encourage the House to go ahead and do that and force the Senate to deal with them in Conference. But I doubt they will for the simple reason that they don't have enough time to do that without it costing them something more important, like a vote on the New START Treaty or the repeal of DADT or something else. One thing I keep saying that seems to gain little currency is that the Party of No Strategy deserves a lot of credit for watering down our agenda, demoralizing our base, forcing us into painful tradeoffs that pit our supporters against each other, firing up the Republican base, and doing real damage to the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. The strategy has worked marvelously well in all these aims and also in avoiding blame from the media or even from us. We prefer to blame our leaders and ourselves and the intelligence of the people and the media and campaign finance laws and so on. But we are very reluctant to give any credit to the opposition for manipulating us and frustrating us and making us divided and demoralized. MORE...

Howie P.S.: I do think Booman lets Our President off a little easy for his political judgment as well as his fumbles and errors. For example see Robert Reich's "The New Era of Cooperation Between the White House and Big Business." If ever there was a more understated condemnation of Our President's policies, I haven't seen it.

Op-Ed: "Dean (and Ari Berman) Say Tax Deal Is A Bad Compromise" (with audio)

NPR, with audio (16:54):

The tax deal would extend Bush-era tax cuts for two years and unemployment benefits for 13 months. Many Democrats, including Howard Dean, say this deal is not the answer. Dean and Ari Berman, a contributing writer for The Nation talk about when presidents should — and should not — compromise.

Katrina vanden Heuvel: "A progressive's answer to Obama"

Katrina vanden Heuvel (WaPo op-ed):

There is no question, in a political system warped and broken by corporate money and lobbyists, that a president intent on achieving "victories for the American people," as he described them, would require a sense of pragmatism, and a willingness to accept the compromises that, at times, will flow from it.

But too often, this president is so singularly focused on seeking common ground that he fails to define his - and our - principles. The tax cut deal is just the most recent example. Obama began those negotiations telegraphing his endgame, with eyes set unwaveringly on resolution. He chose not to passionately articulate his values, or to define the GOP's, and in the aftermath of the battle, he refused to explain where it's all meant to lead us.

This, he might conclude, is a minor complaint from a dismissible left. But the truth is, without a president who is able - and willing to - lay out a clear, strong and principled argument, without a president who will stand up for the ideals he ran on, even as he seeks resolution, the progressive worldview becomes muted, and the conservative worldview validated.
(SNIP)
These next two years present a daunting challenge. Once the new Congress is sworn in, any legislative movement forward on the progressive agenda (if any is possible) will require some form of compromise with an increasingly loathsome opposition. This is not a reality lost on any of us. But if reaching those compromises means a continued berating of the left, a continued lack of outrage toward the right and a continued willingness to strike deals without defining principles, then in the end, the president may well find himself with a modest list of achievements, a deeply demoralized base and a party that seemingly stands for nothing. MORE...

Al Franken: "the only thing worse than a bad deal would be no deal at all."

Al Franken (via TPM):

Though Franken had harsh words for the president who created the tax cut deal, he was among the 79 Senators to vote for cloture on the plan, helping it move forward to almost assured passage in the Senate today. Franken's reasons for supporting the compromise are similar to the ones Obama has when selling the plan: without the deal, unemployed families would lose their government support, something Franken calls unacceptable. MORE...

GRITtv: "The best rotten deal we could've gotten?" (video)

GRITtv: "Richard Kim & Betsy Reed: Compromise or Fight?" with video (12:57):

"I think deal is totally rotten, I think it's the best rotten deal the Democrats could've gotten," says Richard Kim of The Nation of Obama's tax cut compromise. His colleague Betsy Reed, though, notes that by compromising now, heading into an even more conservative Congress, Democrats are setting themselves up for far worse deals in the future--"Where are we going to draw the line ultimately?" Betsy and Richard join us in studio to discuss the tax cut compromise, the health care bill, Bernie Sanders' eight-and-a-half-hour speech before the Senate, and strategies for progressive organizing under a Republican House and narrow Democratic majority in the Senate.

ED Show: "President Obama's 900 Billion Gamble" (video)

MSNBC-ED Show, video (13:06).

Howie P.S.: Bernie Sanders joins ED.

Bowers: "Tax cut deal popular, but not Social Security payroll tax cut"

From the ABC / WaPo poll (PDF):

Chris Bowers on Kos:

Polling has begun to emerge on the proposed tax cut deal, and the consensus is that the overall deal is pretty popular. Surveys from both Pew and ABC News / Washington Post support this conclusion. Pew shows support at 65% in favor and 20% opposed. ABC / WaPo has support at 69%-29%.

As always, there is more to learn from any given poll than just the topline results. Here are three important details:

1. Opinions not well-formed. Whenever survey responses are dominated by people who “somewhat” support / oppose or “somewhat” approve / disapprove of something, it is a clear sign that the universe sampled by the poll does not have strong opinions about the poll topic. And so it is the case with the tax cut deal as well.

   According to the ABC / WaPo poll, only 20% of the country “strongly” supports the deal, and only 12% strongly opposes it. More than two-thirds of the country does not feel strongly about it either way. Even though news of the deal dominated political headlines for the past week, the country has not reacted strongly to it.

2. Social Security payroll tax cut unpopular. While the deal is popular overall, different elements of the deal vary widely in terms of popularity. In particular it is worth noting that the cut to the Social Security payroll tax is actually quite unpopular.

   The payroll tax is the only individual element of the deal that is opposed by a majority of the country. Further, 39% of the country is “strongly” opposed to the deal, equal to the number who “strongly” and “somewhat” support it combined. This aspect of the deal is a minefield for Democrats, in terms of both policy and politics.

MORE...

Jane Hamsher, Howard Dean and Greg Sargent on Tax Cuts and 2012 (with video)

FiredoglakeTV, video (03:06).

Jane Hamsher says "Obama Primary Challenge Unlikely Though Tax Cut Deal Angered Left."

Howard Dean:

"I don't think he's going to face an opponent in the Democratic primary," Dean said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "I think that would be a bad thing for the country and I think that would be a bad thing for the Democratic Party." MORE...

Greg Sargent:

Democrats acknowledge the inevitable: The tax deal will pass. House Dems will be forced to swallow one last compromise before heading into the minority.
(SNIP)
Could Dems end the year with some -- gasp -- victories? Andrew Sullivan posits that if Dems pass the tax deal containing a second stimulus and go on to repeal don't ask don't tell, Dems could close out with "a year-end triumph for the president and this party." MORE...

"The president's promise to fight"

Kaili Joy Gray's front page Dairy on Kos:

For two years, the president has steadily built the case that despite his efforts at bipartisanship, Republicans have consistently operated in bad faith. The president need not call any more witnesses, offer any more evidence; Americans know Republicans will not cooperate. It is time, at last, for the president to stop building his case and deliver his closing argument.

Instead, the president delivered yet more concessions to a party devoted to his failure. He had no choice, he said, because Republicans are "unwilling to budge." They have been unwilling to budge since Obama took office. They have promised further unwillingness in the next session of Congress.

For Republicans, the president said, tax cuts for the rich is "the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party." That isn't true, though, and the president knows it. The whole country knows it. Their number one priority, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said, is to make Obama a one-term president. (Apparently, further restricting women's reproductive rights runs a close second, though.)

What if, instead of conceding to the demands of the hostage-takers, the president had taken a different tactic? What if he had instead turned to the American people before he had cut a deal to save the hostages?

"The Republicans are taking you hostage," the president could have said to the American people. "They have put the livelihood of millions, and our chances of economic recovery, at risk, all so they can give tax cuts to the rich. But I will not let them do it. This is my line in the sand, and I will not surrender to the demands of hostage takers." MORE...

(Updated) CNN: "Democrats (including Jim McDermott) clash over tax cuts" (with video)

UPDATE: CBS News-Face the Nation, video (09:10)--Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and former Governor Howard Dean gave Bob Schieffer their stance on President Obama's tax deal.


CNN, video (03:31)

Howie P.S.: brooklynbadboy on Kos:

Plain and simple: technique over substance. The president isn't in favor of discrimination against LGBT members of the military. He just wont disturb the chain of command or legal machinery over it. He favored the public option, but he wont get tied up into a filibuster over it. He wanted a bigger stimulus too, but wasn't about to engage in a political fight for it. On issue after issue, the president more often agrees with Democrats than not. The only difference is that he isn't willing to have a big fight over any of it. When it comes to the actual doing of the things he is for, he becomes an impartial observer mediating negotiations. Otherwise, he believes he won't get things done. It doesn't so much matter what those things are, so long as they are happening. MORE...

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.on "Fox News Sunday":

....despite "some Democrats who will refuse to go along" with anything, the House "will have an opportunity to work its will."

"We're not going to hold this thing up at the end of the day," Van Hollen added, noting that it's "very reasonable for us to ask the wealthiest estates to pay their fair share."

He said he wants to put the question to the test, but repeated that Democrats would not block the whole package over the estate tax.

(SNIP)

"The main sticking point ... is this particular issue with the estate tax," said Van Hollen, who equated the new rate to giving $25 billion to 6,600 families. MORE...

SNL on Obama: "Republican leaders decided to hold us hostage, for about three days--- bound, gagged and blindfolded. " (with video)

NBC-SNL, video (03:31).
Howie P.S.: Eric Zorn (Chicago Tribune, op-ed) explains "Why the left is right to be cross with Obama":

But where I, for one, grew disillusioned was when the White House didn't respond vigorously at the right's demonization of ObamaCare after it passed, even though nearly all of the new law's provisions separately polled well. This torpid failure of message and purpose contributed to the pasting that Democrats took in November.

On the issue of extending the Bush-era tax cuts, poll after poll showed strong support for Obama's idea of not extending them on income above $250,000 a year for couples. High-earners have had a comparatively good decade and they can afford the extra nick to help the nation bring down the deficit.

What a great political issue! Pass an extension of tax relief for roughly 98 percent of earners, then stand back and watch the citizenry attack Republicans with metaphorical torches and pitchforks when they filibuster all tax relief until their rich pals get in on it too. MORE...

Paul Krugman is troubled by "Orwellian Centrism":

The debate over the public option wasn’t what slowed the legislation. What did it was the many months Obama waited while Max Baucus tried to get bipartisan support, only to see the Republicans keep moving the goalposts; only when the White House finally concluded that Republican “moderates” weren’t negotiating in good faith did the thing finally get moving.

So look at how the Village constructs its mythology. The real story, of pretend moderates stalling action by pretending to be persuadable, has been rewritten as a story of how those DF hippies got in the way, until the centrists saved the day.

The worst of it is that I suspect Obama’s memory has gone down the same hole. MORE...

Maddow: "Deal or No Deal?" (with video)

MSNBC-The Maddow Blog, with video (15:07):

The Obama administration is selling the tax deal as hard as it can -- sending out Vice President Biden with the e-mail blast and economic adviser Austan Goolsbee with the whiteboard and the talk on our show last night.

Economist Paul Krugman says he has spent the week trying to make some kind of peace with the idea of giving Republicans the tax breaks they want for the wealthy in exchange for unemployment insurance and tax breaks for the rest of us. Krugman sounds like he's living in our neighborhood, though, in that he doesn't like being called out by President Obama as an overly demanding purist and that he thinks the president has mostly just postponed the real debate. Krugman writes in the NYT:

[C]oncerns about the tax deal reflect realism, not purism: Mr. Obama is setting up another hostage situation a year down the road. And given that fact, the last thing we need is the kind of self-indulgent behavior he showed by lashing out at progressives who he feels aren't giving him enough credit.

In Krugman's book, the president's display of anger amounts to a show of weakness -- the last thing he needs just now.

Howie P.S.: More push-back from The Left, professional and otherwise:

An Open Letter to the Left Establishment---The election of Obama has not galvanized protest movements. To the contrary, it has depressed and undermined them, with the White House playing an active role in the discouragement and suppression of dissent – with disastrous consequences. The almost complete absence of protest from the left has emboldened the most right-wing elements inside and outside of the Obama administration to pursue and act on an ever more extreme agenda.

We are writing to you because, as well-known writers, bloggers and filmmakers with access to a range of old and new media, you have in your power the capacity to help reignite the movement which brought millions onto the streets in February of 2003 but which has withered ever since. There are many thousands of progressives who follow your work closely and are waiting for a cue from you and others to act. We are asking you to commit yourself to actively supporting the protests of Obama administration policies which are now beginning to materialize. MORE...

And Michael Tomasky writes about "The significance of Bernie Sanders' filibuster---"Bernie Sanders' filibuster won't sink Obama's tax cuts deal, but it may help stiffen Democrats' resolve on tax justice down the line." David Horsey goes for the, uh, "bottom line"---

Bernie is still TALKIN' (streaming video)

Watch a live stream of the senator's speech.

Bernie Sanders: "Watch a live stream of the senator's speech."

Sanders.senate.gov with streaming video:

Saying he was prepared to speak "as long as possible" against a tax deal between the White House and congressional Republicans, Sen. Bernie Sanders took to the Senate floor to make the case against deepening the deficit and widening the income gap in America by extending Bush-era tax breaks for the very wealthy. "I think we can do better, and I am here today to take a strong stand against this bill, and I intend to tell my colleagues and the nation exactly why I am in opposition to this bill. You can call what I am doing today whatever you want, you it call it a filibuster, you can call it a very long speech. I'm not here to set any great records or to make a spectacle. I am simply here today to take as long as I can to explain to the American people the fact that we have got to do a lot better than this agreement provides."

Watch a live stream of the senator's speech.

"Obama Speaks Ill of His Allies"

(CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

E. J. Dionne, Jr.:

In the short term, Obama did get more than most liberals expected. It is good news that he’s focused on the need to give the economy another jolt, even if some of the measures the accord includes are not very stimulative.

The rest of the package delivers tangible benefits to the unemployed and to lower- and middle-income taxpayers. For roughly $100 billion to the rich, Obama got $197 billion in benefits he sought for the non-rich, $146 billion in business tax cuts to push job creation, plus an extension of the $280 billion middle-class tax cut. Many Democrats insist the Republicans would have eventually given in on relief for the middle class; the administration is not so sure.

These substantial concessions have led many liberal policy leaders—among them, Bob Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, John Podesta of the Center for American Progress and Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute—to support the deal, partly on the theory that any next deal would be worse. Other liberals would go along if the estate tax cut could be made less munificent.

And at least these negotiations have had the benefit of proving conclusively that the only people for whom conservative Republicans will go to the mat are the country’s best-off citizens—and deficits be damned.

But in the long run, is Obama capable of winning the future battles with the Republicans that this temporary agreement sets up? By expanding the deficit, it will make it easier for the Republicans to push sharp cuts in all manner of domestic programs, including Medicare and Social Security. This accord will not stop Republicans from expounding regularly on “the Obama deficit,” or from trying to box him in again on the tax cuts.

One House Democrat, who because he respects Obama asked not to be named, offered an unexpected case for the package that tells the president how much ground he has to make up with those who were once his most fervent supporters.

“If I thought they were ready to go 12 rounds on this next year, I’d kill it in a heartbeat,” he said of the administration. “But if they’re going to keep leaving the ring after the first punch, this is the best alternative we’ve got to keep this recovery going and helping those who are hurting the most.” There was no sanctimony or purism here, just a sober and melancholy realism. MORE...

Howie P.S.: Paul Krugman:makes many of the same arguments today. Joan McCarter's post, "The Obama/Republican tax deal in picture form," (see image above) agrees. Digby complains

Democrats are always in the position of having to choose between some specific thing that will alleviate some suffering (however temporarily) in exchange for some heinous Galtian thievery and they end up taking the short term relief because they believe they have the responsibility to help people in the best way they can. Unfortunately, when dealing with nihilists, you end up creating more and more circumstances where such deals with the devil are necessary. MORE...

More disaffection: "Obama's tax-cut deal upsets many major donors" (LA Times). Paul Krugman: says "there are real reasons to worry here." Julian Zelizer writes on The War Room (Salon): "Obama is dealing away FDR's legacy." AND Steven D's post on Booman Tribune, "GOP Good Will is Obama's Strategy?" uses the graphic above and echoes many of the same points. Has Obama finally united the lefties?