enlarge

What is it about the word “jobs” that our nation’s leaders fail to understand? How has the most painful economic crisis in decades somehow escaped their notice? Why do they ignore the issues that Americans care most desperately about?

Listening to the debate in Washington, you’d think the nation was absorbed by the compelling saga of deficit reduction. You’d get the impression that in households across America, parents put their children to bed and then stay up half the night sifting through piles of think-tank reports on the kitchen table, trying to calculate whether there will be enough in the Social Security trust fund to pay benefits beyond 2037.

And you’d be wrong. Those parents are looking at a pile of bills on the kitchen table, trying to decide which ones have to be paid now and which can slide. The question isn’t how to manage health care or retirement costs two decades from now. It’s how the family can make it to the end of the month.

President Obama gives signs of beginning to perceive this disconnect. His Republican opponents, not so much.

Two new polls, both released last week, tell the story. A New York Times/CBS News survey found that four out of 10 respondents believe the economy is getting worse — up from three out of 10 last October. Economists insist that things are improving; obviously, not so that anyone would notice.

A worrisome 70 percent of those surveyed said the country is heading in the wrong direction. Bad news for Obama is that the poll found his approval down to 46 percent; good news, as far as the president is concerned, is that his most visible GOP antagonist, House Speaker John Boehner, has an approval rating of just 32 percent. Clearly, Americans are not excessively pleased with their leaders.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll found greater pessimism about the economy than at any time in the past two years — possibly because of the sharp hike in gasoline prices, which 71 percent of respondents said had caused financial hardship.

Yet if you followed the debate in Washington, you wouldn’t hear much about the cost of keeping the minivan on the road. All that Americans care about, you’d have to assume, is the national debt and its long-term evolution. If you listened carefully, you’d conclude that the solution — cutting federal medical and retirement benefits — was basically settled, and that the only question is whether to do it with a scalpel or a chain saw.

Amen! But they can only pull this off if there's some buy-in from the general public. That's why we need to fight, fight, fight them every step of the way.

When I was in the seventh grade, one of the tough girls at school beat me up at the local playground. (She told me to stay off the playground equipment, and I didn't think that was fair.) She kept knocking me down, and I kept getting up. Finally, she said in frustration, "If you would just stay down, I wouldn't have to keep hitting you!"

I guess I never would have made it in Congress.

Eugene Robinson wants to know: Why don't the Democrats fight back?

Wednesday night, I gave a talk at Indiana State University. "You watch," said a man in the audience, "the Democrats are going to cave on the tax cuts for the rich, just like they caved on everything else."

Sure enough, on Thursday I awoke to read the Huffington Post's interview with White House senior adviser David Axelrod, in which he appeared to signal that Obama - with great reluctance - might have to accept an extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans after all. Otherwise, Republicans would continue to block the Democrats' preferred course of action, which is to extend the full tax cuts only for those making less than $250,000 a year.

Axelrod later denied that the White House is giving in. I hope that's the case, but his words didn't exactly convey flinty resolve.

Let's examine this issue a little more closely. Making the tax cuts permanent for the wealthy would increase the deficit by $700 billion over the next decade. Which party claims to be urgently, desperately concerned about the deficit? The Republicans, of course. So which party is prepared to bust the budget, if that's what it takes, to serve the interests of the rich? The GOP. And which party, to get its way, refuses to approve desperately needed tax relief for the bruised and battered middle class? Once again, the Republicans.

Continue reading »

Eugene Robinson and Michael Gerson take on the debate over whether Barack Obama's Presidency is succeeding or failing.

Both make interesting points, though I admit that it frustrates me to see a conservative writer quote Lawrence Lessig in support of his thesis that the Obama presidency is a failure.

I have problems with both of their arguments. Eugene Robinson cites Obama's swim in the Gulf as evidence that the oil spill was handled well and is now behind us. I disagree with him, and it weakens his other arguments to use it.

Michael Gerson wants to hang the fact that the tone in Washington hasn't changed on Obama, and supposes "all that is left is to attack Republicans." Of course, he ignores the larger truth, which is that the toxic tone in DC is a direct result of Republicans' obstruction and intentional obfuscation of the very real issues confronting this country. That's intellectually dishonest, and assumes Republicans shouldn't be attacked or that they don't deserve the criticism that comes their way. They deserve more criticism, not less.

As many here have noted in comments, Obama reached across the aisle early and often, to the dismay, anger and disappointment of liberals who wanted more forceful rhetoric and action with a near-majority near super-majority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House.

It's an interesting point-counterpoint nevertheless, and certainly mirrors the same debate I've seen here and elsewhere.

DOWNLOADS: (2171)

PLAYS: (4812)

Liz Cheney went on Morning Joe today and tried to defend her father's recent media appearances, in which he attacked the Obama administration's policies in the war on terror, and moreover his role in enacting the torture regime that he's now so vigorously defending as having saved "thousands of lives."

To which Eugene Robinson responded in the Washington Post:

The fallacy lies in the fact that it is impossible for Cheney to prove that anti-terrorism methods within the bounds of U.S. law and tradition would have failed to prevent new attacks. Nor, for that matter, can Cheney demonstrate that torture and other abuses were particularly effective.

Liz Cheney, of course, thinks that's all wrong: These "interrogation methods" kept us safe -- and that's all the justification they need. She thinks having the OLC write up an excuse as paper cover is justification enough, and said so to Robinson, after he compared their lawbreaking to a bank robbery:

Robinson: But look, efficacy isn't the only thing we should be talking about here. We should also be talking about legality. We should be talking about whether what was done was legal. If I rob a bank and get away with it, there's a lot of efficacy there, but it's not legal.

Cheney: Yeah, but that's not a fair comparison. That's not fair. Because this program was very responsibly and carefully done. And if you look at the history of it, with the CIA coming to the NSC and saying, 'We need to know what we can do legally.' And the very legal opinions that the administration has released are in fact the documents that set out in great detail, this is what you can do, and this is what you can't do. If you cross this line, it becomes illegal. If you cross this line, it becomes torture. It was very, very clear. So I think it does a real disservice to the people who ran the program to equate it with robbing a bank or with criminal activity. You have to look at the very specific and important legal restrictions that were put in place.

Robinson: I do not think that's the case. Torture is a war crime. It is a war crime.

Cheney: That's right. And this wasn't torture. Those legal memos demonstrated where the line was, and where it would become torture.

Robinson: Waterboarding was torture during the Spanish Inquisition, it was torture when Pol Pot did it, and I believe it was torture when we did it. But that --

It quickly devolves into crosstalk, and Cheney spends a lot of time filibustering with her talking points, but she never is able to effectively respond to Robinson's chief point: Legal paperwork is not adequate cover for committing torture, one of the most heinous of all crimes. As he points out at the end:

No, you don't have to make that choice. You don't have to choose to act in an illegal manner. You don't have to.

Continue reading »

A few days ago--- The Washington Posts's own Eugene Robinson smacks Fred Hiatt upside the head over their coverage of Pelosi's trip to Syria...

Download | play Download | play

Greg Sargent...

Check out this appearance by Robinson on Hardball. Robinson defends Pelosi's trip to Syria. And he also says a couple things about his colleagues on the editorial page, which is edited by Fred Hiatt. He says this: "I`m pleased to be able to tell you I`m not a member of the editorial board." And this: "They should tell us what they really think."

Continue reading »

The Sunday Talking Head line-up is ready for the reading. With two Democratic Presidential hopefuls in this morning's line-up -- Edwards and Vilsack -- it's officially campaign season again. Boo-yah.

Two journalists to watch in the line-up this morning -- Tom DeFrank of the NYDaily News, who always seems to have the inside scoop on all things Cheney and Bush, and Eugene Robinson of the WaPo, who always seems to nail the common sense point of view and ought to be able to cut through Kate O'Beirne's fact free blather with a smile on his face. Could be fun.

Wishing you, and all of us really, some peace and joy in the New Year, and hoping for a whole lot less of this sort of craptastic malarky. (H/T to Digby who, as always, nails it.)

Chris Matthews must be hearing it because he was pretty subdued by his standards, (maybe I was wrong) but listening to John "freeper" Meacham's analysis last night was pretty insane. Eugene Robinson then in about half the time- puts the SOTU into perspective.
Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

Meacham: Unusually compassionate -- just as fluid on domestic and foreign issues -- a hawkish Woodrow Wilson figure.

Arthur has a great piece on the Wilson comparisons to Bush and the "Legions of the damned." One of which is to print positive propaganda:

"The paper published nothing but good news about the U.S. war effort. Wilson considered this hybrid creature his invention--which it was in some respects. Creel had initially opposed the idea. The president gleefully told Joe Tumulty that the Official Bulletin was an immense success...read on"