February 02, 2010 by barbara Alan Anderson writes:
Sarah Palin warned us she is going “rogue.” Her book describes her roadmap: In order to progress, “we must return to our founding principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and strong national defense.” To that end, SarahPAC is devoted to supporting “fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation.”
This week, we learned that her PAC has raised $1.3 million dollars. According FEC filings highlighted by the National Journal’s Hotline, Palin’s PAC spent more money on her Going Rogue book than on conservative candidates. She spent almost $48,000 buying books from Harper Collins to give to donors (hoping they will give to her), and $43,000 on conservative candidates seeking federal office. So much for supporting candidates.
This certainly places her in the rogue category, but I’m not sure that’s exactly where she wants to be. I find it interesting that she insists on being rogue, since I’m not sure she really knows what that means. Suffice it to say I wouldn’t want to be labeled rogue if I wanted to be President of the United States.
The dictionary reveals several meanings for rogue. Few of them are flattering. For example: a rogue is an unprincipled person; a scoundrel. Rogue also refers to being mischievous and a rogue’s gallery is a “collection of pictures of criminals maintained in police files used for making identification.”
For a Republican, rogue is especially unbecoming, because it references a “lone, violently aggressive wild elephant, separated from the rest of the herd.” Read on.
January 26, 2010 by barbara 
Guest post by Alan Anderson
(cross-posted at the mnpACT web site.)
Obama’s first year is complete. He gives his State of the Union address tomorrow night. And so it’s time to consider how well he has done, especially given that he inherited world-wide mistrust of the United States, the worst economy since the Great Depression and two wars that are killing us in both financial and human costs.
What happened in President Bush’s first year? Not much. He lowered taxes on the rich by an astronomical amount (which has helped to increase our deficit). He failed to prevent the 9/11 attack, even though he had many warnings about Osama Bin Laden’s plans. He took a month’s vacation on the heels of warnings about potential air strikes. The stock market plummeted 3,000 points and we fell into a few years of recession. Bush’s policies set in the first two years are largely responsible for the economic crash of this nation in 2008, with much of the $5.9 trillion dollars he added to the national debt initiated in the first year of his presidency. All in all, a pretty awful first year for the American people.
For President Obama, things seem better.
Having inherited a terrible economic situation, he enacted policies that prevented the U.S. economy from collapsing. The stock market rose 3,300 points, restoring retirement money lost by millions of people. He stabilized the banking industry. He followed through on Bush’s bailout by adding more economic stimulus money to help salvage many businesses, banks, and assist most states in reducing their deficits. The stimulus helped many keep their jobs and created new opportunity for others. He signed a long awaited Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights, helping millions to avoid usurious credit card rates.
He provided a stimulus to the auto industry through the Cash for Clunkers program. Nearly a million cars were sold and the auto industry bounced back from the edge of disaster. He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, helping to ensure that women are paid a fair wage. He also lifted President Bush’s ban on federal funding for stem cell research, providing hope for millions with diseases that potentially will benefit from the research.
President Obama has restored a balance between security and liberty in his handling of terrorists and alleged terrorists. He ended the abusive treatment of detainees by reversing the Bush/Cheney policy on torture. He sent a clear message to other nations that the United States is committed to its values and its self-defense, and he's gone a long way toward backing up both with his actions. He has helped to keep us safe with beefed-up security and acted to reduce troops in Iraq and begin the withdrawal process. Read on.
January 25, 2010 by barbara 
barbara writes
(Cranky alert: barbara is somewhat riled.)
Tomorrow (Tuesday), for the first time in a very long time, I’m heading out to do an activist gig.
MoveOn leaned on its members to show up at Al Franken’s office to underscore the fact that the time for Dems’ backpedaling needs to come to a halt. (10:00 a.m., 60 East Plato Blvd., Suite 220, St. Paul.)
Particular focus this time around is on health care reform. Signals from the White House (and what’s up with the signals thingie anyway? One if by land, two if by Drone?) and elsewhere apparently suggest they’re prepared to back off even farther from the once-lofty heights this legislation was supposed to represent.
Here's a question. Did we or did we not learn something – anything? – in Massachusetts last week? Did we not finally and for all time come face to face with the absolute futility of attempting civil discourse and collegial legislating with Republicans? I mean, really, did we? This transcends just askin’. Read on.
January 23, 2010 by barbara barbara writes
leftymn and I were jawing as we sometimes do about the political landscape and the economic terrain. He said he wouldn’t burden me with his economic analysis. But you know what? He’s a whole lot savvier about that than I am, so I asked him to lay it out for me. Now I’m laying it out for you.
leftymn writes:
The TARP and the stimulus salvaged the base of our freely operating credit economy. Things could be much worse. In something of a rarity, world leaders actually worked together to effect stimulus in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Also Central bankers in most countries that matter most economically slashed rates to zero, basically to keep liquidity alive. This essentially restored us to status quo.
Most importantly, in 2008 after the crisis stopped its gradual exchange rate tightening, China simultaneously loosened bank lending and eased its interest rates. And they went on a public infrastructure spending program, with money flowing and public jobs still sanctified (although hundreds of thousands did lose jobs in some export industrial works). Within about six months, the Chinese were up and running and ginning their domestic economy.
As usually happens in China, speculative investment in real estate and hard assets began. Copper has escalated in world markets strictly as a result of Chinese buying. Commodities stabilized and turned around. The Chinese bought soybeans as though there were no tomorrow, soybean-wise. This in spite of the fact that they could not sell their own surplus soybeans in their domestic markets since the domestic prices were higher than imported soybeans. This all resulted in stimulating both the Chinese and the world economy. Read on.
January 20, 2010 by barbara 
barbara writes
Amazing. Simply amazing. In one swell foop, the Democrats and Martha Coakley yesterday ceded Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat to the Republicans. Cosmo's Scott Brown triumphed in the special election in Massachusetts.
Now the rabble is into full frontal dithering, as one might expect.
The blame game is on, Big Time. Obama’s fault. Martha Coakley’s fault. Obama’s fault. Rahm Emanuel’s fault. DSCC’s fault. Obama’s fault. The Clintons’ fault. Obama’s fault. The liberal bloggers’ fault. The conservative Twitterers' fault. Massachusetts’ voters fault. Teddy Kennedy’s fault. Obama’s fault. Wall Street’s fault. (Its little subset, the corporatists’ fault.) Fox “News’” fault. Obama’s fault. Sarah Palin’s fault. Brangelina's fault. (Okay, I made that up.)
Full disclosure: I am not, nor have I ever pretended to be, a sagacious political analyst. I don’t have the wherewithal, including a sufficiency of smarts, to delve into the bowels of political machinations and make meaning of it. (Now there’s a thoroughly disgusting metaphor.) But like everyone else who blogs, I do have opinions. Sometimes I form opinions after the fact. Kind of retro forward motion (five yards, automatic first down). And btw (in case you haven’t noticed), I am crazy about parenthetical cross-talk. Also, it takes me a while to warm up and get to the point.
My point is this. There is a kind of systemic rot in what used to be called the political party of liberals. Of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Of Teddy Kennedy.
There’s nothing woo-woo about it. Exorcism is not called for. But it is time to take out the Sorting Hat and reassign the peeps. Read on.
UPDATE: Please catch this Robert Reich piece about the significance of the Scott "Cosmo" Brown victory. (h/t LeftyMN)