West of the moon, east of common sense

By Zandar

(Ed. note: I'd like to welcome a new contributor to The Reaction, Zandar of Zandar Versus The Stupid. I came across his blog a while back, during one of my stints doing the round-up at Crooks and Liars, and instantly became a huge fan. He's a fantastic writer who provides incisive analysis, and he'll now be bringing his formidable blogging talent to our team -- and it's an honour to have him here with us. So I hope you keep checking back for his posts, along with all of our posts (of course), but, if you aren't already familiar with him, so check out his blog and become a regular reader. You'll love it. And now read on and enjoy his first post here, on Hedges, West, and Obama. -- MJWS)

Via Jon Pitts-Wiley at Jack and Jill Politics, a not-so-gentle reminder than not everybody who suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome is A) a Republican or B) white. 

No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”

That's Truthdig's Chris Hedges -- not President Obama's biggest fan by a long shot -- covering Princeton professor Cornel West there, in one of the nastiest pieces of firebagging I've read in some time. The piece is mainly about Cornel West's phone calls not being returned and his hurt feelings, but with Chris Hedges driving the narrative it becomes a massive airing of the grievances at Festivus.

Take this passage:

"I was thinking maybe he has at least some progressive populist instincts that could become more manifest after the cautious policies of being a senator and working with [Sen. Joe] Lieberman as his mentor," he says. "But it became very clear when I looked at the neoliberal economic team. The first announcement of Summers and Geithner I went ballistic. I said, 'Oh, my God, I have really been misled at a very deep level.' And the same is true for Dennis Ross and the other neo-imperial elites. I said, 'I have been thoroughly misled, all this populist language is just a facade.' I was under the impression that he might bring in the voices of brother Joseph Stiglitz and brother Paul Krugman. I figured, OK, given the structure of constraints of the capitalist democratic procedure that’s probably the best he could do. But at least he would have some voices concerned about working people, dealing with issues of jobs and downsizing and banks, some semblance of democratic accountability for Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats who are just running amuck. I was completely wrong."

Now I've made the exact same point about Geithner. I do not, however, find it to be a deeply personal betrayal. I also pointed out that the kind of folks that Republicans put forth to replace Geithner were a lot worse.  It is in fact possible to criticize the President. I did so on many of his economic, civil liberties, and military policies. I still have a number of issues with the President.

But what West and Hedges are doing is making it personal, and that's just not objective. Melissa Harris-Perry has even less tolerance for this nonsense than I do.

I have many criticisms of the Obama administration. I wrote angrily about his choice of Rick Warren to deliver a prayer at the inauguration. I have spoken on television about my disagreement with drone attacks in Pakistan and been critical of the administration's initial choice to prosecute DADT cases. I worked for more progressive health care reform legislation and supported organizations that resisted the reproductive rights "compromises" in the bill. I've been scathing in public remarks and writings about the President’s education policy. My husband leads a non-profit that is suing HUD for its implementation of a discriminatory formula in the post-Katrina Road Home program. The president has never called me. I got my ticket to the inauguration from Canada! (Because Canadian Broadcast Television who gave me a chance to narrate the day's events.) But I can tell the difference between a substantive criticism and a personal attack. It is clear to me that West's ego, not the health of American democracy, is the wounded creature in this story.

And I have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The real issue is how the "principled opposition" to Obama from the left always seems to devolve from pointed criticism of the President to hysterical pyramids of straw men set on fire to glorify and justify the people attacking him from the left. It becomes the raison d'être rather than the objective viewpoint, and much of that comes from the fact the Village exists to feed on things like this. Best way to get attention as a liberal? Attack Obama from the left. A whole number of folks have staked out this territory in the last two years or so. Cornel West is just the latest but by no means is he the sole offender here.

When the "valid criticism" of the President becomes a vehicle for your own self-advancement, it ceases being valid and starts being dangerous and detrimental. If you're going to come at Obama because of policy differences, that's one thing. If you're doing it to get shiny views and TV time in order to remain relevant, then it's your problem, not Obama's.

Some folks need to do some serious soul searching, and do it quickly. The alternative to Obama is far, far worse. But I'd be remiss if I let this passage go without a fight:

"I think my dear brother Barack Obama has a certain fear of free black men," West says. "It's understandable. As a young brother who grows up in a white context, brilliant African father, he's always had to fear being a white man with black skin. All he has known culturally is white. He is just as human as I am, but that is his cultural formation. When he meets an independent black brother, it is frightening."

As a mixed-race person here, West's accusation involving Obama being afraid of being viewed as a "white man in black skin" is so far beneath both rational discourse as a tenured Ivy League professor and beneath contempt in pretty much any other context that I'm actually somewhat horrified that anyone would actually say that outside of David Duke. Trying to make your bones off of painting Obama as "not black enough" is just as repugnant as having a problem with him being black, and in many ways it's worse. How is that in any way germane to the discussions of his policy or the realpolitik of Washington in 2011?

This is the kind of truly damaging idiocy that will end up doing more to deliver votes into the hands of the Republicans and depress turnout among blacks than anything Newt Gingrich or Tom Coburn or Ron Paul could utter, and it's this line-obliterating nonsense that goes well beyond the realm of valid criticism of Obama and straight into Obama Derangement Syndrome territory.

And that brings us to the most maddening, frustrating, and depressing part: West does have some valid points. Obama has made some bad decisions on his economic team and economic policy that favored the wealthy over the rest of us, on continuing many of the more heinous Bush-era legal and civil liberties policies, and by not prosecuting the Wall Street offenders who decimated out economy.  But those points are hopelessly lost in the storm of his own desire to go after Obama for sleights both real and imagined, and the further rush to justify his position as morally correct.

There is a categorical difference between what West set out to do here (and what Hedges tries to assist him with) and what they actually end up doing, and it's an empirical example of how you can go way too far in the quest for ideological perfection at the expense of common friggin' sense.

(Cross-posted at Zandar Versus The Stupid.)

The strange case of the special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

 
This has received some coverage, but in the event that people haven't focused on it, there has been an interesting development in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District.

You may recall that this is the seat vacated by Dean Heller, who was appointed by Governor Brian Sandoval to fill out the remainder of John Ensign's Senate term. Ensign resigned in disgrace after having admitted an affair with the wife of one of his senior aids. It may come as no surprise, by the way, that Heller, Sandoval, and Ensign are all Republicans.

What makes this one interesting is that, in Nevada, state law stipulates that there can be no primary to narrow down the choices that would run under a party banner, as usually happens in other jurisdictions.

But other than the prohibition on a primary, it was not immediately clear how the law would be applied. In other words, there was ambiguity as to whether all comers would be allowed to run for the vacated seat, or whether state party committees would be allowed to pick one candidate to run as "the" Democrat and "the" Republican.

Given the fact that this is a district where the Republicans are strong, it's not surprising that Republicans were hoping that the rules would be interpreted according to the second option, that they be allowed to pick one person to run as their standard bearer so that the vote is not split. Since Democrats would be a longer shot, they likely wanted the first option that anyone be allowed to run. Clearly they are hoping that many candidates would split the vote in strange ways and perhaps allow a Democrat to sneak up the middle.

Well, last Monday, the Secretary of State for Nevada, Ross Miller, who just happens to be a Democrat, interpreted the rules to say that anyone can run. The Republicans are up in arms saying that this was a partisan decision sure to favour Democrats. So far, at least three Democrats have expressed an interest in running as have five Republicans, but there are likely to be more.

To thicken the plot, failed Nevada Senate candidate and Tea Party "star" from 2010, Sharron Angle, is one of the Republicans determined to run. She has even suggested that the mainstream Republican establishment would have preferred to choose a candidate so they could avoid having her run on the general theory that the mainstream GOP is always trying to thwart the goals of the Tea Party movement. It could also be that Angle is crazy and that actually sane Republicans don't want Angle to do in this congressional race what she did in the Senate race - lose a sure thing. That could be it too.

That's where things stand. The election is on September 13th.

As an aside, I can't help but quote from a fundraising letter on Angle's website complaining that the Nevada Republican Party is trying to keep her out. It read in part:

The Democrats want this seat. The left-wing of the Republican Party wants it more. Instead of an open process, already they are behind closed doors, choosing one of their own to be the preferred candidate in the race.

Did any phrase jump out at you? Perhaps, "left-wing of the Republican Party." That really says something about the Tea Party. They actually think the Republican Party has a left wing. Imagine.

So the decision has been made by the State of Nevada and Angle can run along with what may be many others. It may actually turn out, as it sometimes does in wide-open races, that the one with the greatest name recognition does the best. It may not be that easy, however, as Nevada GOP chairman Mark Amodei and Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki are considering entering the race.

As for the Democrats, it is true they have never held this district, but Obama lost in it in 2008 by only 89 votes, so, with crazy splits and a crazy Republican in the mix, who knows.

What we do know is that we will now be blessed with yet another campaign full of fun pronouncements from Ms. Angle. I'm sure the Nevada Republican Party is thrilled.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elephant Dung #28: Is NY-26 the new NY-23?

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

Earlier today, R.K. Barry posted on the goings on in NY-23, the district that in 2009 saw one of the very first Tea Party uprisings.

As you may recall, Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman emerged to challenge moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava in a special election to replace John McHugh, who resigned to become secretary of the Army. With lackluster backing from the party that nominated her and some high-profile Republicans switching their support to Hoffman, Scozzafava pulled out of the race, endorsing Democrat Bill Owens, who ended up winning the seat narrowly over Hoffman. Owens won again in 2012, even more narrowly over Republican Matthew Doheney. But it was Hoffman who made the difference. He took just enough support away from Doheney to allow Owens to pull it out.

Well, what happened in NY-23 may also be happening in NY-26, where a rich Teabagger, Jack Davis, is dividing Republican/conservative support just the way Hoffman did. The seat is currently vacant, following the resignation of Republican Chris Lee (of Craigslist scandal fame) earlier this year, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo called a special election for May 24.

There's little doubt that it's a Republican seat to lose. Republican Jane Corwin is ahead in the polls, but not by much. Democrat Kathy Hochul is just a few points behind. But Davis is running a strong third, and he's clearly draining support from Corwin. If his support holds up, Hochul could squeak through. Indeed, what should be a slam dunk for the Republicans has been turned into a toss-up by Davis, and the only way the Democrat can win is if the Republican/conservative vote is split, if Davis, like Hoffman, makes just enough of a difference.

What's interesting, though, is that Davis is an ex-Democrat. He even ran for the seat as a Democrat in 2006 and 2008, losing both times. And his views are hardly mainstream (conservative) Republican. He's opposed to the Republicans' budget proposals and is generally isolationist/protectionist. In that latter regard, he's more Buchananite paleo-conservative than business-oriented Republican. He appears to be a right-wing populist, and is certainly trying to appeal to the Tea Party, but he's certainly less of a Teabagger than Hoffman. And, indeed, the Tea Party itself is split between Corwin, something of a Scozzafava-like moderate, and Davis.

It looks to be a brutal campaign, with the right bitterly divided. The district may be Republican enough that Corwin can pull it out, but it's certainly going to be a lot closer than it otherwise should have been. And, once again, we see conservatives turning a safe Republican seat into an opportunity for the Democrats, and all because the Tea Party and its allies on the right are waging a campaign to control the Republican Party by narrowing its ideological scope and purging it of insufficiently conservative (in Tea Party terms) elements. So determined are they, so convinced of their righteousness, that they're apparently willing to commit political suicide in the process.

We'll have to see if NY-26 is indeed the new NY-23. I suspect that Davis has peaked and that Corwin, who has some Tea Party support, will pull it out. But what's going on there is instructive, and what we're seeing is a preview of much more to come in 2012.

What's new in New York's 23rd Congressional District?

By R.K. Barry

I was wondering today how things were going in the NY-23rd Congressional district. You may recall events in the district that took what probably should have been a safe GOP seat and handed it to the Democrats due to infighting between more mainstream Republicans and the Tea Party.

This started when Republican John M. McHugh resigned the seat on September 21, 2009 in order to become the Secretary of the Army. Thus a special election was required, which, under normal circumstances almost certainly would have been won by the Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, who had previously been a member of the New York State Assembly.

What made circumstances other than normal was that Scozzafava supported abortion rights and gay marriage and had other unseemly affiliations, as far as the emerging Tea Party movement was concerned.

Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin, among others, decided to put their weight behind some sad sack character who would run under the Conservative Party banner. I believe his name was Doug Hoffman, though as I recall he was a terrible political performer and has mercifully disappeared into political obscurity, but not before he could lend the Democrats a very useful helping hand.

Long story short, running as a third party candidate, Hoffman made it impossible for Scozzafava to win. Upon realizing this, and no doubt sick of being vilified by members of her own party, she dropped out and ending up endorsing the Democrat, Bill Owens (pictured above).

Owens not only won in 2009, but won again in 2010 when Hoffman, having failed to secure the Republican nomination ran (again) as a third party candidate allowing Owens another two-year term. Oddly, Hoffman dropped out late in the race, but too late to have his name removed from the ballot. In the end, Owens got about 48%, the nominated Republican (Matthew Doheny) got about 46% and our helpful friend Hoffman got 6%. That's what they call a spoiler. Yes indeed.

I think I've got the details mostly right and I only recount them because I see that the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is already hard at work to reclaim the seat, as they may be able to do (assuming they don't blow their feet off again). Okay, I'm also recounting it because I'm really hoping that Republicans and the Tea Partiers amongst them dance the same dance all over America in 2012.

In total, the NRCC is targeting 23 Congressional districts with robo calls and even some television ads with the same basic message, which I found interesting and perhaps indicative of things to come. So, take heed.

Here's the script:

Hello, I'm calling from the National Republican Congressional Committee with an important alert about your Congressman Bill Owens. Thanks to Owens' addiction to spending, the federal government borrows $4 billion every day. That's given us fourteen trillion dollars in debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. And Bill Owens is making it worse. He voted for another Pelosi budget that would strangle our economy with more spending, more debt and more borrowing from China. Call Congressman Owens and tell him to stop spending your money. Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

And, if you insist, here's the ad:

The usual ham-fisted bullshit. My favorite part is the bit with the People's Republic of China and the big red curtain and the Statue of Liberty, that and the beautiful children we are condemning to lives of desperation. It almost brings a tear to my eye.

I didn't see any seniors in the clip who will live their "golden years" terrified that they won't be able to pay for their health care if the Republicans get their way. Maybe the next ad will cover all that.

Just to prove the game is on, a spokesperson for Congressman Owens responded by saying:

Now the Washington attack dogs are trying to distract voters from Rep. Owens' fight to protect Upstate seniors from the Ryan Budget, which would end Medicare as we know it and increase health care costs for the next generation of seniors.

Indeed.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)