Oooh, nuance!

Is this guy good, or what?

...know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

Or, as we Iraq War protesters said in 2003, "Yee-HAW! is not a foreign policy." (And neither is "Bring It On," as our troops in Iraq found out to their great sorrow.)

In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. In fact, earlier this week Republicans in Congress actually claimed credit for the recent fall in oil prices: “The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,” said Representative John Shadegg.

What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be “insignificant”? Presumably they’re just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats. And the Democrats, as Representative Michele Bachmann assures us, “want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs.”

Is this political pitch too dumb to succeed? Don’t count on it.

Indeed, don't count on it. Black-and-white solutions are very appealing to Americans who are working 80 hours a week just to make ends meet. They don't have time or energy to sift through the nuances of energy policy, which will get lost or twisted by the corporate media in translation.

Once again, I point to the superior issue-framing skills of Republicans. They know that people need immediate relief from high gas prices, but they have no intention of doing anything that would work in the long run. (John McCain's gas tax holiday idea would have done nothing but give the oil companies more profits, whereas Hillary's would have at least made the oil companies pay the difference.)

So, how to make it seem like they are better on energy than Democrats? Take an idea that will make their buddies a lot of short-term money, and tie it to a populist agenda. Note: If you want to do this, it helps to be a shameless, sociopathic corporate shill, because no public servant with a shred of conscience would dupe the American people in such a destructive manner.

The truth is, off-shore drilling is completely, utterly pointless. It will OF COURSE not decrease gas prices in any way. The amount of oil gained thereby will be negligible, and will take ten years to extract.

Yes, I said TEN YEARS.

Do you know what's going to happen in ten years if we are still depending on oil for our energy? No one knows for sure, but why in God's name would we want to find out? The signs of climate change are all around us, and getting worse every year. Oil is a non-renewable resource that is getting scarcer and scarcer. Even worse, we invade countries and occupy them in order to get it.

For Christ's sake, can't we just say "Enough already, we get it, it's time to move on, oil is so 20th Century, and we're tired of fighting wars and killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people to obtain it." Or is that just too much honesty for Democrats?

The answer is no, not for all of them. Hillary Clinton laid out a detailed, inclusive energy plan in April of 2006. Here is what she had to say about continuing to rely on oil for our energy needs.

Now, energy is at the heart of the three great challenges we face as a nation: How do we keep our economy strong in a more competitive world? How do we keep our communities safe in a more dangerous world? And how do we protect our values in a rapidly changing world?

Our present system of energy is weakening our national security, hurting our pocketbooks, violating our common values and threatening our children's future.

Right now, instead of national security dictating our energy policy, our failed energy policy dictates our national security.

Could that be more clear? I don't think so.

More recently, on July 23rd of this year, she had this to say about offshore drilling:

Senator Clinton criticized the idea that additional off-shore drilling would provide any substantive solutions for America’s short or long term energy challenges.

“Drilling is the wrong answer. It will do nothing right now. It is literally a Shell game, or an Exxon Mobile game. It's designed to serve the political interests of vulnerable Republicans and the financial interests of profit-rich oil companies. Average Americans will not see a dime,” Senator Clinton said. “The oil companies say, ‘Drill,’ and the President and the Vice President say, ‘How deep?’ I don't think that's the smartest, most effective answer.”

You see how she did that? She tied offshore drilling to the two least popular politicians in America right now and explained quite clearly that it is the WRONG ANSWER. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The Senator from New York is a master of framing. She gets people to agree with her, but doesn't compromise her principles in order to do so. Too bad she's only a girl, or who knows, someone that smart, savvy and progressive might be a good candidate for President someday. Oh, if only she had that scrap of flesh hanging off her pelvis!

Krugman hits hardest in his final paragraph.

In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country’s problems. It’s not going to happen — not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy.

I think Senator Obama has a red imprint of Krugman's palm on his cheek right about now. That smackdown reached all the way to Hawaii, where our presumptuous nominee is now vacationing. Faux-Presidenting is Hard Work (TM).

Let's hope the PUMA Conference in DC is coming up with all kinds of creative, wonderful ideas for keeping the pressure on the SuperDelegates, Howard Dean and the DNC to give Hillary a fair shot at the Convention. Because as we know, Obama is far too willing to allow Republicans to frame the debate on almost every issue, including the economy and Iraq (on which he is now falling behind John McCain in terms of trust).

To paraphrase the war protesters mentioned earlier, "Kumbaya is not a governing strategy."

I am desperately trying to stay out of the back-and-forth between the top three Democratic candidates for President. Let's face it, if I had to campaign for 17 thousand years and do a billion debates and interviews, I'm sure I could be very easily discredited for something I said - or even something I didn't say!

But you know, it is meaningful that Obama brought up Reagan in any kind of admiring way. I have repeatedly noted how much Obama is reaching out to Republicans and self-declared Independents, and attacking Clinton and Edwards from the right, not the left. It's his campaign strategy, and who knows, it may work. My nervousness comes from what he would do after being elected President, and how he will deal with the Fascists in the House and Senate that are sure to make his life completely miserable. Since I don't have a long record of votes and public service to refer to, I have to take him at his word that he will govern to the right of the other two candidates. Needless to say, I'm not comfortable with that.

The other thing that makes me uncomfortable is what Paul Krugman talks about this morning. Progressive Democrats have to say, "Reagonomics (deregulation of corporations and union-busting) does not work. It leads to recession and poverty. We need to go back to the economics of the New Deal to revitalize American society."

John Edwards, of course, is essentially saying that when he calls poverty "the great moral issue of our time" and proposes to end it by 2036. And yet, he has consistently been treated as Mr. Cellophane by the traditional media.

Or perhaps, there is no "and yet." In an Edwards administration, the corporate owners of the traditional media outlets would suddenly have to deal with diversification and regulation. And those hogs don't want to share their feed with the little people, do they?

Our election system sucks.

As a resident of one of the most populous (blue!) states in America, I am currently powerless to choose among the full roster of candidates in my party. (Oh, Chris Dodd, why are you not among the top three!) Once a nominee is chosen, it doesn't matter whether I vote for that nominee or not. Then, the nominee has to run for an additional year, spending more and more millions that he/she has to somehow gather from whomever will give it. Finally, when I do vote in the election, my vote will not count and in some states, would be subject to massive election fraud. Pardon me for being a bit underwhelmed.

As Imaginary Preznit of the United States, I would enact these reforms:

1) One national election day. Instant runoff voting would serve the same purpose as the primaries. Election day would be a national holiday, and anyone who votes would get a bonus of some sort - $100 in the mail, a percentage point knocked off their taxes - you get the idea.

2) Stealing from Old Yurp - Election season is 6 weeks long and is completely financed by the gummint. No private donations allowed. Also, equal, free (paid for by gummint) media time. Each candidate gets the same amount of time and/or space to advertise.

3) Hand-counted paper ballots. I'd rather wait a couple of weeks to know the results of the election than be worried Chuck Hagel's voting machines will "shockingly" elect Republicans like him.

But since none of these things are reality right now, I hope those freaking Iowans do the right thing and listen to the Krug. We need a fighter - someone who will beat back the forces of Fascism once and for all.

It ain't Barack.

I am gratified that more progressives are catching on to what Barack Obama is really advocating with his "new kind of politics." Yes, he does constantly disrespect progressives. Yes, he is attacking Hillary and Edwards from the right, not the left. Yes, he is "reaching out" to people who could not care less what he does or thinks, and who would cut off their own hands before helping him in any way. Yes, he will not be the one to explain to the public how the conservato-fascists are wrong and the progressivo-liberals are right; he will not be the one to drag America back into the light; he will not be the new FDR we need in these horrible times.

Thank you, Paul Krugman, who has brought the danger of this rhetoric into sharp focus.

[via Avedon at Atrios' place]

Wow. I am really flattered that The Krug has been reading my blog and taking it to heart!

Okay, now that I'm down from the clouds of FantasyLand, I'd really like to highlight the excellent interview Mr. Krugman gave to TPM's Election Central on his growing feud with Barack Obama. Here are some key quotes that made me yell "Thank you!" at my monitor. (Yes, I'm working at home right now. And no, the monitor doesn't talk back. Onward.)

EC: But should his conciliatory tone really be the basis to this extent of our evaluation of him? Some, including Matthew Yglesias, have argued that this focus on Obama's conciliatory rhetoric obscures the fact that Obama would still more likely prove a genuinely progressive president than Hillary would be.

PK: What evidence is there that she would be especially bad for the progressive movement? For what it's worth, Hillary's actual policy proposals are more aggressive than Obama's.

You mean, someone's actually reading her policy proposals and comparing them to Obama's? What is this, fact-based journamalism or something?

EC: What about on foreign policy? You could argue that Hillary is less willing to challenge old rhetorical frames on foreign policy, and that with her rhetoric and stuff like her Kyl-Lieberman vote, she's ceding turf at the outset on foreign policy the same way Obama is on health care.

PK: I guess I've been going on the view that no Democrat is not going to end this war, and no Democrat is going to start another war. I have not felt that foreign policy is the defining issue in the race to the nomination. Whether we're going to get universal health care is much more of a question.

This one is more of a mixed bag for me. I think that all of the "top three" Democrats are indistinguishable on foreign policy. Just because Obama spoke out against the invasion of Iraq before he was in the Senate does not mean that he would have done so while in the Senate. After all, he voted "present" 130 times as a State Senator - and as for the Kyl-Lieberman vote, he was not even there! Not exactly a courageous stance, now, is it? As for John Edwards, like Hillary, he also voted for the AUMF, and is even more aggressive in his anti-Iran rhetoric than Senator Clinton.

Given all of that, I hope Krugman is right and that all the Democrats would bring our troops home from Iraqnam and Afghanistan. Certainly the American people - and Congress - will be pushing for that result; after all, if the Republics did not have filibuster and veto power, the war would be over by now.

Now for the piece de resistance:

EC: But surely there's something to the argument that the skills to build coalitions, to win over moderates on the other side, aren't without any importance. Should we really take tone and rhetorical skills out of the equation entirely?

PK: No, but there aren't any moderates on the other side. And as far as sounding moderate goes, the reality is that if the Democrats nominated Joe Lieberman, a month into the general election Republicans would be portraying him as Josef Stalin. Obama's actually been positioning himself to the right of both Clinton and Edwards on domestic policy and has been attacking them from the right. [emphasis added]

The Democratic nominee is still going to be running on a platform that is substantially to the left of how Bill Clinton governed, and the Republican is going to nominate someone to the right of Attila the Hun. You want the Dem who's going to make that difference clear and not say things that will be used by Republicans to say, "Well, even their candidate says..."

And after the election, if you come in after having opposed mandates and having said Social Security is in a crisis, then you're going to have some problems fending off Republican attacks on health care and The Washington Post's demands that you make Social Security a top priority. Mostly it's a question of what happens after the election.

Damn, freaking, 100% right, and points I've made on this blog many times.

I am absolutely astonished that anyone sees Obama as some sort of liberal standard-bearer or agent for change, but in case anyone disagrees with Paul Krugman (and me of course!), check out the latest news: Apparently Obama would have no problem naming specific Republicans to be in his cabinet. (To be fair, John Edwards "the populist" made a more general remark about doing the same thing.) And Hillary, who many feel is the most centrist and corporate of the top three? Why lookee there - so far, no promises to include Republics in HER cabinet. Apparently, experience DOES count for something!

Need I say more?