I'm reading Will "Attytood" Bunch's new book, "Tear Down This Myth: How The Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future" about how deeply ingrained the Reagan mythology is in our country's political culture (with the help, of course, of a complicit media).

Fascinating book, really thorough. (There are things in here I didn't even know, and I'm more informed about Reagan than the average bear.) The Reagan myth is so large, so unquestioned that he even gets credit for the things he didn't do: Star Wars! Stopped the Cold War! Made the economy hum like a top! (If you have a Reagan-loving in-law, this is the book you want to read before your next family get-together.)

From the first chapter:

[...] The Reagan myth isn’t just a political problem for the GOP. Increasingly, as the idealized Reagan took hold in the American imagination, Democrats seemed to struggle even harder with the question of just who was Ronald Reagan – and whether political success going forward depended upon undercutting Reagan’s legend, simply ignoring it, or embracing all or part of it. That’s why it was a political bombshell when Sen. Barack Obama made it clear in early 2008 that Reaganism was playing some role in his thinking as he mapped out his own more progressive route to the White House – but the specifics of what Obama was getting at were open to debate.

"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," Obama told the editorial board of the Reno (Nev.) Gazette-Journal in January 2008. Seeking to elaborate, the Democratic senator said that "[w]e want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Obama’s comments caused a scramble among his Democrats: Was the presidential frontrunner simply praising the political style of the twice-elected Republican, or was his comment also intended to voice support for some of Reagan’s policy ideas? Obama advisors stressed the former – that he was merely seeking to remind voters of Reagan’s “hope and optimism.”

Obama’s statements seemed to flummox the Democrats in 2008 almost as much as Reagan himself did circa 1984. John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who was appealing to the party’s more progressive wing in those early primaries, said Reagan “openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day…I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

And yet just a couple of weeks later, it was Edwards who was gone from the presidential race, and Obama who was soldiering on – leaving the unanswered questions of whether even a progressive Democrat in the White House could tackle not just the immediate problems of Iraq, record-high gasoline prices, a skyrocketing federal debt but the more ominous issues of world energy supply and climate change without doing so under the deepening shadow of the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

How did we get to this point in American politics? It would be easy to give all the credit to the Ronald Reagan myth machine, to the neo-conservatives and tax-warriors-turned-lobbyists behind the move to seemingly pave over and rename one long Ronald Reagan Boulevard from sea to shining sea. But no myth would be possible without the man. And if there was ever a man who instinctively knew how to write that screenplay – who rode in from Hollywood to create a new kind of presidency that would focus on strong words and cinematic images that would last long after people forgot the policies sometimes loosely attached to them – it was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Eugene Robinson notes that the main reason Gov. Rod Blagojevich is being impeached is that he's a wacky guy with a bad haircut. And you know, he's right. I mean, I've read the transcripts, I've looked at the information. I just don't see anything criminal there.

I wrote about this kind of thing before. When I was a reporter, I saw that the feds would simply decide to go after someone. If they couldn't find enough to indict, they'd simply leak politically damaging information instead, with the idea of forcing them to resign. (One guy referred to it as "extermination.")

I pointed out that as far as I knew, we still had to convict someone in this country before we could refer to them as guilty, and said, "What if you're wrong? What if you do to to someone who isn't guilty?"

But Fibbies don't think like that. They think with their gut! They're never wrong! Except, of course, when they are.

So until someone indicts even though they've indicted wacky Bad Hair Man with criminal charges, I'd still take the whole thing with a very large grain of salt.

Back when I was a reporter, I once explained to a (Republican) politician that it was against the state ethics law to use his wife as the township secretary, since the two of them could collude to change the public record. He looked at me, shocked, and said, "If you're not in politics to make money for yourself and your family, why would you bother?" Why, indeed.

Privatizing public facilities gives them one more way to make illegal money:

SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) - Two Luzerne County judges are headed for federal prison.

Federal authorities say President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan were involved in a $2.6 million scheme to place juvenile offenders into facilities in which the judges had a financial interest.

Court documents state that in some cases, Ciavarella ordered children into detention even when juvenile probation officers did not recommend it.

The two have agreed to plead guilty to honest services fraud and tax fraud. Their plea agreements call for sentences of more than seven years in federal prison. They have agreed to step down from the bench.

For once, I am firmly in Nancy Pelosi's corner. Of course an economic stimulus program should include family planning funds.

And God, how I hate these cynical Republicans - and the spineless Democrats who roll over for them. Only someone who's never been poor is breathtakingly stupid enough to believe that birth control doesn't have an immediate effect on the economic health of a family - or someone who's cynical enough to draw a line in the sand over something he doesn't believe anyway - like John Boehner.

What, an additional wage earner has no economic impact on a family? Or have we suddenly awakened in a world where free daycare, diapers and formula abound?

What makes me so furious is, we don't need the Republicans to pass this package, anyway. Why, oh why are we knuckling under to the people who have already demonstrated their utter indifference to the poor - and their economic incompetence? We voted for Democrats because we didn't want to see important legislative decisions based on right-wing memes:

Call Waxman's office and give him an earful:

DC: 202-225-3976

CA offices:

323-651-1040

818-878-7400

310-652-3095

And contact President Obama by email here, or call:

Comments:

202-456-1111

Switchboard:

202-456-1414

WASHINGTON – House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama's scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans.

The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.

Under the provision, states no longer would be required to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services — including contraceptives — under Medicaid, the health program for the low-income.

Democrats considered the politically-potent change as congressional budget experts estimated it would take slightly longer for the overall legislation to achieve an impact on the economy than the administration projects.

Oh look, now Obama is throwing mortgage modifications under the same bus!

It just breaks my heart to read about these small businesses, foundation of their communities, cut to the bone or even closed:

MINERVA, Ohio -- Workers at Summitville Tiles Inc. gathered on the factory floor Wednesday morning to hear their boss -- using a bullhorn to pierce the cavernous space -- tell them he was laying off a third of the staff.

To pull through this crisis, owner David Johnson said, the company must "cut to the bone."

Huddled around half-century-old kilns for warmth, some workers masked their anxiety with nervous optimism. "I'll go back to hang drywall," said Dustin Bourne, a lanky 22-year-old, chatting with three high-school buddies. Of course, they all knew the truth: Mr. Bourne took a job here last year because drywall work had disappeared.

Rosanne Dangelo, a mother of two grown children, was stoic at the prospect of unemployment. "I'll get by," she said, then quipped, "I don't need the Internet."

The U.S. is losing jobs at a pace not seen since the 1940s. Monday alone, 65,000 fresh layoffs were announced at giants including Caterpillar and Home Depot.

But tiny firms like Summitville Tiles have an outsized role in employment. For the past decade, small businesses have created 60% to 80% of net new jobs. Small companies of 500 or fewer people employ more than half of the country's private-sector workers.

Many of these small companies are staffed with people who have spent their entire lives in one place, creating tight factory-floor communities, but also making it harder to land a new job.

"That woman's mother was my grandfather's secretary for years," said Mr. Johnson, the third generation of his family to head Summitville, pointing toward a worker packing boxes of tiles.

I still remember the day the Grannies for Peace were arrested, and thought it was important to note this member's passing. Lillian Willoughby's commitment to peace is a real inspiration - I can't imagine going to jail at any age, let alone at 89:

Lillian Pemberton Willoughby, 93, of Deptford, a retired dietitian and Quaker activist who went to jail to protest the war in Iraq three months before her 90th birthday, died Jan. 15 at home.

For 65 years Mrs. Willoughby demonstrated against war, racism and nuclear proliferation. Sometimes she was arrested, but the charges were dismissed.

That wasn't what happened, however, when she and four other peace activists were charged with obstructing the entrance to the Federal Building in Philadelphia on March 20, 2003, the day after the Iraq war began.

Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapaport gave the protesters a choice: Pay a $250 fine or face jail time. Mrs. Willoughby told the judge she would pay if "you can use the money to provide clean drinking water to children in Iraq or to lessen our grandchildren's tax burden for paying for this war." Rapaport said he wasn't in a position to negotiate.

On Oct. 21, 2004, Mrs. Willoughby gave her husband, George, a hug and a kiss, rose from her wheelchair, and entered the federal detention center in Philadelphia to serve a seven-day sentence. She told supporters she would pass the time by exercising, praying and writing. She did fine, her daughter Sally said, and was soon back to protesting.

In June 2006, Mrs. Willoughby and other members of the Granny Peace Brigade Philadelphia carried an apple pie to the Army Recruitment Center on Broad Street in Center City and told the staff that they wanted to enlist in place of their grandchildren. She was arrested with the other women, but charges were dismissed.

Which, of course, is an inherent conflict of interest. Obviously, Israel is motivated to protect the country from the bad publicity that would result from convictions:

(CBS/AP) Special legal teams will defend Israeli soldiers against potential war crimes charges stemming from civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip, the prime minister said Sunday, promising the country would fully back those who fought in the three-week offensive.

The move reflected growing concerns by Israel that officers could be subject to international prosecution, despite the army's claims that Hamas militants caused the civilian casualties by staging attacks from residential areas.

"The state of Israel will fully back those who acted on its behalf," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said. "The soldiers and commanders who were sent on missions in Gaza must know that they are safe from various tribunals."

Speaking at the weekly Cabinet meeting, Olmert said Israel's justice minister would lead a team of senior officials to coordinate the legal defense of anyone involved in the offensive.

File this one under "The Times, They Are A-Changin'":

A week before Super Bowl XLIII, NBC is still in “active negotiations” to sell its last few commercial spots.

That’s why some advertising wags are calling Super Bowl 2009 the Economy Bowl.

This close to game time, it’s unusual to have any of the 67 time slots unsold.

The network, which will show next Sunday’s game between the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers, had no trouble getting takers for its record-high $3 million-per-half-minute spots — before Labor Day.

After that, sales fizzled along with the economy.

This year, notable previous advertisers, including General Motors and FedEx, have said they’re taking a break from the chance to reach 90 million to 148 million viewers, depending on who’s doing the estimating.

“A lot of advertisers are a little gun-shy,” said David Shoffner, spokesman for SpotBowl.com, which monitors Super Bowl commercials and viewer reaction.

“They’re thinking of the message it sends to their employees and stockholders who might view it as extravagant to spend a record amount when they’re laying off employees or cutting dividends.”

I'm happy to see that despite enthusiastic financial support early on in his campaign from Wall Street, Obama is indeed biting the hand that fed him. This bodes well for his political courage:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to move quickly to tighten the nation’s financial regulatory system.

Officials say they will make wide-ranging changes, including stricter federal rules for hedge funds, credit rating agencies and mortgage brokers, and greater oversight of the complex financial instruments that contributed to the economic crisis.

Broad new outlines of the administration’s agenda have begun to emerge in recent interviews with officials, in confirmation proceedings of senior appointees and in a recent report by an international committee led by Paul A. Volcker, a senior member of President Obama’s economic team.

A theme of that report, that many major companies and financial instruments now mostly unsupervised must be swept back under a larger regulatory umbrella, has been embraced as a guiding principle by the administration, officials said.

Some of these actions will require legislation, while others should be achievable through regulations adopted by several federal agencies.

Officials said they want rules to eliminate conflicts of interest at credit rating agencies that gave top investment grades to the exotic and ultimately shaky financial instruments that have been a source of market turmoil. The core problem, they said, is that the agencies are paid by companies to help them structure financial instruments, which the agencies then grade.

“Until we deal with the compensation model, we’re not going to deal with the conflict of interest, and people are not going to have confidence that the ratings are worth relying on, worth the paper they’re printed on,” Mary L. Schapiro said in testimony earlier this month before being confirmed by the Senate to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.

DOWNLOAD (195)

PLAY (289)

On CNN's "State of the Union" this morning with John King, I heard something that almost made me choke. King interviewed Charlie Swift, a formal Naval defense attorney, and former Bush defense policy advisor Doug "Stupidest Guy in the World" Feith about Cheney's warning to Obama about repudiating torture:

KING: Is he right? Are there Americans alive today because the Bush Administration used these controversial tactics?

SWIFT: "Who knows? See, that's the problem. No evidence is brought forth. It's said that everything that was learned is so secret that we can't tell you, and that's one of the other parts of the Obama executive order that is critical. He's asking for a complete look into the interrogation methods and what was seen.

One of the real problems with Guantanamo was the lack of transparency - we're right, you've got to trust us. And every time the administration turned out to be wrong - and they were wrong many times - then that trust was lowered each time that happened. ... It's my personal belief that it's very unlikely that enhanced interrogation techniques produced a great deal of actionable intelligence."

[...]

DF: It's quite clear that President Obama has recognized there are serious security problems involved here. This is not simply a matter of establishing civil liberties issues. It's a balancing of very important civil liberties issues against very important security issues. I think that the administration has an interest, as Mr. Swift says, in being as transparent as possible. So did the Bush administration. Reasonable people can differ about how those balances get struck, but I think this administration is going to have to take very seriously the security issues, and they're going to realize this is a problem that's not as simple as it was suggested during the campaign that it was."

Well, Dougie, I guess it depends on what you mean by "transparency." The Bush Administration used words in a peculiar way - that is, to communicate exactly the opposite. (See "Clear Skies" initiative, "No Child Left Behind Act," etc.)

For instance, George Bush signed something last year that would seem to indicate support for transparency with one caveat - when he decided it's against the interests of the country - which was, you know, always?

I don't know how any reasonable person can assert transparency as a value of this administration, but that's not really the main point here. It's that the Republicans, embracers of anti-American values like torture, are quite obviously setting the stage to pin the blame on Obama in the event of another terror attack.

The American people have made their position clear: They'll take their chances with Obama.