David Brooks builds a fantasy world where his favored polices, tax cuts, would have been rational policy in response to the Great Recession:

The Democrats could be heading toward a defeat of historic proportions in November, but it is possible to imagine a scenario in which things might have turned out differently:

On Dec. 16, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama and his senior aides gathered for a briefing on the state of the U.S. economy. It was horrifying. The economy was on the verge of collapse. There was little prospect that robust growth would be returning anytime soon. Many of the president-elect’s advisers had been reading histories of the New Deal. They had ambitious plans to address the crisis: federal jobs programs, new building projects, new spending initiatives. This was no time to worry about deficits, they said. This was an opportunity to address needs that had been neglected for decades.

Obama, in this fanciful version, held up his hand. He told his aides to put away the history books and reject the New Deal comparisons. Unlike in 1932, Americans today have a raging distrust of Washington, he observed. Living through a crisis caused by excessive debt, they will viscerally recoil at the prospect of federal debt without end. “Somehow,” Obama concluded, “we have to address the crisis without further terrifying the American people.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Brooks' fantasy and the reality of policies that would work are unconnected. Consider the words he puts in Obama's mouth. "Unlike in 1932, Americans of today have a raging distrust of Washington." Put aside the new revelation that Herbert Hoover had inspired deep trust in Washington, Brook's imaginary Obama does not ask what the right policy is for the crisis, rather what policy would play best politically. Brooks is not imagining a Profile in Courage here. More . . .

The Atlantic's Josh Green:

The faltering recovery and the credibility this has cost the the White House will probably lose the Democrats one or both houses of Congress, making the insufficiency of the stimulus easily the most consequential error for an administration that has done a lot right.

[. . .] The White House insists that it could not have gotten a larger stimulus through Congress, a debatable claim. But by twice neglecting to try, it has staked its fortunes on a policy that has visibly fallen short on the issue of greatest concern, the economy. Because of the divide between the experts and the strategists, nothing is happening. Given the weak state of the economy, the White House cannot claim that the stimulus it settled for has sufficed. Unwilling to call for another one, it is left to look on silently and helplessly.

No, this is not original insight, but it is important as evidence of creating the (truthful) narrative that it was Obama's failure to be progressively bold on the stimulus that has doomed the Dems. For the record, the inadequacy of the stimulus was an issue in real time, as this January 7, 2009 John Harwood interview with then President-elect Obama makes clear:

. . . about the weenie Beltway Left:

Ta-Nehesi Coates and Matt Yglesias (both of whom I have great respect and even affection for) are being bizarrely literal about [Markos' book American Taliban. . . .] Since only one person in this exchange has actually read the book I'm guessing writing is not the real source of this argument. It feels remarkably like the many old arguments we've had over the years about whether or not "the left" is embarrassing everyone by acting out and breaking the rules of polite political discourse. And that argument's been going on as long as I can remember.

(Emphasis supplied.) Indeed. This is merely the continuing battle about Fighting Dems and Conciliatory Dems. When I was at Daily Kos (from 2003 through 2006) this was the never ending daily battle. This is more of the same, with the added bit of uninformed personal smears against Markos as good as the vintage smears by The New Republic against Markos. Digby writes:

I have to say that it's remarkably uncharitable for so many people to make the unsupported assertion that Markos wrote this book to gain attention, traffic or whatever.

Digby is remarkably charitable to call it "uncharitable." It is typical Beltway Left behavior from folks who have spent a lot of time defending the likes of Jeff Goldberg and Andrew Sullivan.

Speaking for me only

"Explaining" President Obama's fall from grace, Time's Michael Scherer finds the Beltway's favorite villain:

[E]ven as Obama aides were aware of a growing disconnect, it didn't seem to worry their boss. Instead, the ambitious legislative goals usually trumped other priorities. Both in the original stimulus package and then in the health care and energy measures, the White House ceded most of its clout to the liberal lions who controlled the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. That maneuver helped assure passage of reforms, but it also confirmed some of the worst fears about how Washington works.

(Emphasis supplied.) It was those evil "liberal lions'" fault! Yes, the Beltway's predictable rewriting of history in order to blame progressivism is on its way. You think The American Prospect or Matt Yglesias might protest this mendacious account? Me neither. Telling lies about progressivism is always "civil discourse" in the Beltway. Cuz this is always what the Beltway believes:

Most experts from both parties say Obama will have to rebalance his politics in 2011 to be re-elected in '12.

Down with the DFH!

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias on Markos' American Taliban:

I tend to think that this is one of the areas where progressives aren’t just doing the right thing, but have a smarter tactical approach to politics. There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don’t see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic “my enemies are totalitarian madmen” strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections. [. . .] This stuff doesn’t win votes anyone because, after all, it’s a form of preaching to the choir. [. . .] Political movements need to adapt to the actual situation, and that means having an accurate understanding of your foes. You need to see them as they actually are so that you know the right way to respond. Either underestimating or overestimating their level of viciousness and evil can lead to serious miscalculations. Which is just to say that getting this stuff right is more important than coming up with funny put-downs.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yglesias of course has no actual examples of inaccuracies in Markos' book, but what the hell, smearing fellow Dems is always good for the career in the Beltway. As for his political analysis, such as it is, how obtuse can you get? Does he really think the Dems' problem is "overestimating" the level of viciousness the Extreme Right is capable of? Seriously? That's the problem? And of course, firing up the base is not something Dems would want to do with the only political weapon available given the crappy result from the policies people like Yglesias have advocated for. After all, like Jon Cohn, Yglesias seems to believe that if he is happy, every progressive should be happy.

This is why the Dems will get creamed in November. Because this is how they think. See also Tristero.

Speaking for me only

Irony alert - Fifth Column Sully has two guest posters at his site decrying mean discourse. Patrick Appel:

Calling political opponents terrorists is so disgusting and so obviously beyond the pale it hardly requires rebutting.

Oh really? How about calling your political opponents "fifth columnists" for the terrorists? Does that make the Sully Guests' Miss Manners guide? Conor Friedersdorf:

I really don't think my standards are particularly exacting. Don't compare ideological adversaries to murderous totalitarians. Refrain from rudely interrupting emotionally troubled black women if your planned interjection is the n-word. Don't tell callers to your show that they're so annoying their spouse should put a gun to their head. (Note to skeptical Web historians: yes, those are all actual examples!)

Here's another actual example that the Sully Guests forgot -- "decadent left enclaves on the coasts [that] may well mount a fifth column [for the terrorists]." Maybe they can add that one to their Miss Manners book. Sanctimonious hypocrites.

Speaking for me only

Case in point, via Digby, Jamelle Bouie of The American Prospect bemoaning Markos' new book American Taliban:

In another chapter, Moulitsas quotes a sermon by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: "Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity." And how does Moulitsas respond to that banal statement of exclusive truth, heard weekly by millions of law-abiding, patriotic Americans? With this comically reductionist conclusion: "For DeLay, only Christianity offers a methodology for daily life, whereas for Osama bin Laden, only Islam does." Also, Hitler was a vegetarian.

(Emphasis supplied.) What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Markos' point is that theocratic tendencies found in extremist movements and regimes around the world are also a part of the Extreme Right in the United States. This is a bit more than being a vegetarian, as any C student of world history could explain to you. A C student of American history could also tell you that religious freedom was one of the cornerstone ideals of our Founding Fathers. In any event, now we know -- liberals can be just as dumb as conservatives. Digby has more.

Speaking for me only

Via CelebStoner: Canada's leading magazine for marijuana reform, Skunk, has devoted its current issue to "lady legalizers." Among the features: "The Top 100 Women of Weed."

Thanks to Skunk for including me in the list. The list is pretty impressive with some names that surprised me: Arianna Huffington, Barbra Streisand, actress Kate Hudson and clothing designer Stella McCartney.

The list is heavier on activists, actresses and singers than attorneys, which makes me even more appreciative to be included. Examples: [More....]

Glenn Greenwald highlights this strange article by the NYTimes John Burns:

Hindsight is a powerful thing, and there have been plenty of voices amid the tragedy that has unfolded since the invasion to say, in effect, “I told you so.” But among that band of reporters — men and women who thought we knew something about Iraq, and for the most part sympathized with the joy Iraqis felt at what many were unashamed then to call their “liberation” — there were few, if any, who foresaw the extent of the violence that would follow or the political convulsion it would cause in Iraq, America and elsewhere. We could not know then, though if we had been wiser we might have guessed[.]

(Emphasis supplied.) Foresight is a more powerful thing than hindsight. And many, many, many people had the foresight and wisdom that people like John Burns (and more importantly, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) lacked. Of course, as my headline indicates, our current President was one of them. But so did many other people - including Speaker Pelosi, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and hundreds of other Democrats (and also Ron Paul), who voted against the Iraq Debacle.

It is a strange thing when an allegedly objective reporter sets aside the record - in this case, the Congressional Record - in defending his own myopia. John Burns blew it. So did a lot of people. But John Burns needs to stop pretending "nobody could have known" - because the record is clear - many, many, many people did know and said so and voted so at the time.

Speaking for me only

The new cast of Dancing With the Stars will be announced on Bachelor Pad tonight. I hope there's some surprises. More interesting: A new episode of Weeds.

Update: Ladies: Brandy, Jennifer Grey, Margaret Cho, Audrina Patridge (who?), Florence Henderson (Cloris redux?), Bristol Palin (looked awful on TV, awkward, ill at ease and horridly over made-up.) Yuck, let's hope the men are better choices.

Update: "Mike the Situation" (Jersey Shore), David Hasselhoff, singer Michael Bolton, Rick Fox, Kurt Warner, Kyle Massey (another who?)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

As I said earlier, I turned off the Emmys after the Aaron Paul and Bryan Cranston won for Breaking Bad, my favorite show this year. That made my Emmy night.

I've got jails aplenty to visit tommorrow, so in case I won't be around to put up a morning thread, here's one for you , all topics welcome.

Update: I lost interest after the last update. When I heard the incredibly depressing song by Jewel, I turned off the TV. Hope I didn't miss anything good.

Update: 7:33 pm: The first upset: Kyra Sedgwick (Closer) beats Julianna Margulies for Best Actress in a drama. Another good skit: the "Year in Variety" with musical acts, Colbert, and Conan. Jimmy's energy is holding.

Update: 7:04 pm: Hooray! Aaron Paul, the nominee I was rooting for the most tonight, just won Best Supporting Actor in a Drama Series for Breaking Bad. He was incredible this season as was the show. And Bryan Cranston just won again for best lead actor for the show. I'm so glad to see this show get its due.

Another great call: Archie Punjabe for Best Supporting Actress in a Drama for The Good Wife. This bodes well for Julianna Margulies. The Good Wife started weak, but ended up being a really strong show.

Update: 6:47 pm: Glad to see Edie Falco win for Nurse Jackie, although Season 1 was better than Season 2. She is very good. I also liked the reality skit, especially Snooki taking Obama to task for the tanning tax. Top Chef wins. What's with all the Oprah commercials with her shrieking? Does she really do that on her show? [More...]