What went wrong?

We're still dealing with the aftermath of the deal Obama cut with Mitch McConnell the other day, even though it's really too early to tell if we're in the aftermath yet.

There's been quite a range of opinion, from overheated claims that Obama was always just a Republican in disguise or that he never planned to eliminate the millionaires' tax cut, end DADT, or promulgate real health care reform; to arguments that he actually made a good deal that we should all be celebrating, not criticizing, or that people need to understand that coming across as an angry black man won't help him get anywhere.

I think all of these claims are wrong, mainly because they're missing the point. People do feel betrayed, and with some justification. On the other hand, inspirational as his candidacy was, Candidate Obama was always just a moderately liberal centrist Democrat, and that is generally how he has governed. The sense of betrayal is more the result of disappointed supporters realizing that he didn't live up to their projections than his actual statements.

There are plenty of respectable liberal economists and analysts who make the point that the deal Obama made, given the circumstances, was the best he could have made; I suspect this is true, but there is some reason to question it.

The key phrase, though, is given the circumstances. To me, the question isn't why he made the deal he made, but why he let himself get maneuvered into such a position of weakness, and why he has repeatedly done that during his presidency.

What I've observed is that Obama has repeatedly failed or refused to take the initiative on issues that were important to him and to the Democratic base. For instance, take health care. In 1994, when Bill Clinton tried to pass health care reform he was attacked for setting up a shop in the White House to come up with a plan; it crashed and burned. Obama overlearned that lesson by deciding to just leave it all up to Congress. We know what happened: the Republicans spent the summer of 2009 lying about death panels; Senate leadership wasted their time trying to curry favor with people like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Charles Grassley, who were never going to support anything; Obama tried to buy off special interests to get their support; but fundamentally Obama never changed his approach.

We have seen the same thing in the Middle East. Obama has failed to articulate a vision for peace in the Middle East and as a consequence he was forced to offer big payments to Israel in exchange for the hope at a token 90-day suspension of illegal settlements. We can actually be glad Netanyahu decided not to take the deal, even as it betrays Obama's weakness.

That's what happened with taxes. We're told that the polls still show that strong majorities of Americans don't support extending the millionaires' and billionaires' tax cut, but it's probably going to happen. It didn't have to, though. For months liberals have been saying that Obama should have introduced his own tax cut, he could even call it the Obama Tax Plan, that extended the tax cuts up to $250,000, lifted the FICA cap, and probably did a few other changes to make the tax system more progressive, and pushed it through Congress. It would have put the Republicans in the position of going into the election either voting for it or voting no on tax cuts for 98% of the American people. Back in September even Boehner said that if he had to he would have voted for that bill. So why not make the Republicans vote for it? Before the election is when he had some leverage, not after they won.

The same is true with the federal employees' pay freeze. I don't have an opinion on whether it was a good idea or not, but I'm sure it's something the Republicans would have wanted. They might have wanted it enough to trade something for it, but they didn't have to because Obama gave it up unilaterally. Would it have been worth enough for them to agree to extend unemployment? We'll never know, will we? For that matter, there are plenty of observers who think the Republicans, if forced to it, would have voted to extend unemployment benefits because they wouldn't have wanted to look like the economic royalists they are. I doubt that, but again, Obama never tried that, so we'll never know.

So where do we all stand? I'm not really sure. Obama has clearly mishandled this situation very badly. He will probably get the deal through, pretty much as written, but that remains to be seen. The price for the deal, though, is not just giving the Republicans the billionaires' tax cut. We've been hearing plenty of liberals who supported Obama who are now saying he has permanently lost their support. We also hear people saying it's time for a primary challenge.

I think this is misguided. History tells us that an incumbent president who gets a serious primary challenge loses, either during the primaries or in the general election. The list is a long one: Johnson, Ford, Carter, Bush. It could certainly happen to Obama in 2012, although much depends on how the economy is doing.

If that happens, though, we are not going to be trading an unsatisfactory President Obama for a preferable President Kucinich, Clinton, or some other liberal Democrat. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is not the strongest part of the party at the present time, so there's no guarantee that we will get a more liberal nominee. (If you'll remember, the only serious candidate in 2008 who was more liberal than Obama was John Edwards. I invite you to contemplate what a disaster that would have been.)

No. If Obama faces a serious primary challenge in 2012 the likeliest outcome is the election of Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or some other vicious Republican. Do you seriously think that would be better than reelecting Obama?

If you do, please tell me what color the moon on your planet is.

Really?

I guess that's the lesson to be learned. The Republicans are in favor of a tax increase for 100% of American earners.

Or, to be clear, they want to make sure your taxes go up unless they can cut taxes for the millionaires and billionaires.

The Senate on Saturday rejected President Obama’s proposal to end the Bush-era tax breaks on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals, a triumph for Republicans who have long called for continuing the income tax cuts for everyone.

Like most media outlets the Times has it wrong. The bill that the Republicans rejected would have extended the tax cuts for EVERYBODY. All earnings up to roughly $250,000 would be subject to the tax cut. Even if you are Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or the Wal-Mart heirs, you would have gotten a tax cut on your first quarter of a million.

How can the Republicans defend the indefensible?

Finally!

This is the strategy that many of us have been arguing for for months.

Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to expire.

(Actually, I didn't know about the wily procedural maneuver, but for a long time I've been saying that they should just go ahead and pass the cuts for incomes up to $250,000 and just let the R's do whatever they're going to do, but the principle's the same.)

They really put the Republicans in a box: vote for something they didn't like, or vote against tax cuts for people who make less than a quarter of a million a year. They chose the second option.

They can come back later in the lame duck session, or next year, and tell the American people that it wasn't good enough to cut taxes for 98% of us, they also want to cut taxes for the top 2%. Let them fight on that issue.

This is another major success for Nancy Pelosi. It also takes some of the pressure off Obama to make a deal with the R's on the other stuff.

What's the down side? The Republicans stop being accommodating?

Who's on what side?

Once again, we learn what side the Democrats are on and what side the Republicans are on.

The Democrats



That's right. $20 billion up front from British Petroleum to cover the astronomical costs of damages resulting from the oil spill. That's in comparison to a statutory $75 million cap.

The Republicans

Joe Barton: I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown. . .

Michelle Bachmann: "The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders, which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund,"

Rush Limbaugh, the intellectual head of the Republican Party: "Who's gonna get this money? Union activists? ACORN people? Who's gonna get this money. Let's keep a sharp eye on who Feinberg gives this money to. Because I'm telling you, this is just another bailout fund, called something else, and we'll see who gets it."

The Republican Study Committee: "BP's reported willingness to go along with the White House's new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration's drive for greater power and control."

This squarely presents the issue. The Republicans have been pretending to be some kind of little-guy populists, fighting against the entrenched power in Washington. In fact, they're in bed with the wealthiest, most reprehensible corporations in the world.

We need to keep pounding on this theme right on through November.

Oh yeah, on other thing. Later today, Joe Barton apologized for his apology to BP. In fact, he said that if anyone misconstrued his earlier statement, he apologized.

Don't worry, Joe. We didn't misconstrue anything.

Random Thoughts

They might not each be worth their own diary, but I didn't want to ignore them.

1. One big difference between Obama and Bush:

Bush lies, Obama tells the truth. Say what you like about Obama's war plans (and most of us around here disagree with them), but at least Obama put the costs in the budget instead of trying to pretend they aren't part of the deficit.

2. More good news for Evan Bayh wannabe Harold Ford.

Picks up the coveted Karl Rove endorsement.

3. Economy drives booze sales downmarket.

According to one conoisseur, "we've switched from Bud Light to a lesser brand."

Rational Resistance wonders: Is that even possible?

What did we learn tonight?

BOSTON — Scott Brown, a little-known Republican state senator, rode an old pickup truck and a growing sense of unease among independent voters to an extraordinary upset Tuesday night when he was elected to fill the Senate seat that was long held by Edward M. Kennedy in the overwhelmingly Democratic state of Massachusetts.

So what lesson should we take from this?

First off, something we already know: a bad candidate who runs a bad campaign is likely to lose. Everywhere you turn you see how bad the Coakley campaign was: refusing to stand outside of Fenway Park and shake people's hands; not calling the Democratic mayor of Boston until last week; going on vacation three weeks before the election.

Second, not the lesson Evan Bayh wants us to learn: that Democrats have to become just like Republicans. Harry Truman said it: "Given the choice between a Republican and a Republican, the people will vote for the Republican." In other words, surrendering to them means that we win nothing, not even a meaningless vote in the whip count.

Third,can Obama finally get the point? Trying to be bipartisan and work with the R's has gotten him absolutely nothing. He keeps losing. If he is going to lose anyway, why not go down fighting for the people, instead of competing to see who can win the blandness competition?

Fourth: we thought things were bad in Congress before? You haven't seen anything yet. The Republican program in Congress consists of two items: 1. Block anything the Democrats try to do; 2. Lie about everything the Democrats do or say. # 1 just got a lot easier.

Finally: pointing out that the Republicans are lying is not enough. The fight is more than that. We have seen that people are all too receptive to Republican lies. We need to get our own story out there. The Obama story was a great story, but it's not the only great story we have as Democrats.