Can Obama persuade Merkel to shift course?

By Ben Cohen: The news that President Obama is set to challenge German chancellor Angela Merkel at the G8 Summit this Saturday on her continued support for austerity in the Euro Zone gives a very strong indication that the Obama administration clearly understands the global economic crisis and plans to campaign on a platform based on spending rather than cutting. Reports the Guardian:

Obama, in a television interview on Tuesday, acknowledged that the crisis could hurt America. “Europe is still weak and that is creating uncertainty for the business community here,” Obama said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney also recognised the potential pitfall. At the daily White House briefing, Carney described the eurozone crisis as “one of the headwinds that we face” and that the White House was monitoring it closely.

“It is another reason why we need to take every action that is fully within our control to assist the economic recovery that we’ve been experiencing, to further insulate ourselves from the kinds of things that could happen globally that could affect our economic growth.”

This acknowledgment is an important one. For too long, Obama has tried to play the middle ground by arguing both sides of the debate on how to best confront the global economic crisis. He has supported government spending while committing to huge and damaging budget cuts, asked for too little money for the stimulus package and not been clear about his plan for growth. Now it seems he is firmly committing to a Keynesian approach to recovery and he is pitching it not only to Americans, but to Europeans as well. Why? Because Europe’s disastrous austerity policies could hurt America’s economy badly, and Obama understands that if the jobs situation gets any worse at home, he could quite easily lose the election this year.

Luckily, Obama has some allies in Europe – the election of socialist Francois Hollande is a big boost when it comes to arguing the case for stimulus spending, and a combined front will put pressure on Merkel to change course or at least relent on the vicious austerity measures being imposed by the German government.  While the US does not have a huge amount of leverage when it comes to dictating European economic policy, he can certainly apply some soft power to cajole Merkel into changing course. The German chancellor knows her position is incredibly unpopular, and coupled with the popular uprisings across the continent, a nudge from Obama may have a significant effect.

If Obama successfully helps negotiate a serious spending package for Europe, it could help shift the argument back at home. If money is injected into the Eurozone it will restore confidence in the economy and could set a path to at least a partial recovery (as it did in the US). Obama can then use that as proof stimulus spending works  and translate it into a powerful campaigning tool. It’s one the American public would likely get behind given the sad state of the economy. According to a report on the HuffPost, the popular resistance to austerity in Europe is not going unnoticed by US politicians:

Politicians are fooling themselves if they think some sort of centrist consensus will save their jobs, said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.). “European elections should remind politicians here not to worry about the approval of pampered, pompous Washington pundits who think the middle class just has it too good,” Miller said. “Washington pundits love austerity, and they’re all clucking with disapproval for European voters. The pundits always think someone else’s belt needs tightening, and it’s always someone who doesn’t go to the same cocktail parties they go to. But there are a lot more middle-class voters than there are Washington pundits.”

Popular opinion on austerity is changing rapidly around the globe, and Obama must ride the wave diligently if he wants to capitalize on it. Obama has shown an incredible knack of getting his political timing right,  and now is the time to flex some muscle in order to get what he wants. It is time to paint himself as the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt and discard the budget cutting rhetoric of Herbert Hoover, and he must try to convince the politicians on one continent, and the people on the other.

Mary Kennedy was tragically found dead yesterday

Mary Richardson Kennedy, wife of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was found dead at her Bedford home Wednesday afternoon, officials said.

Her official cause of death has not been released, but a source close to the investigation told The Journal News that she hanged herself.

Bedford Police responded to 326 South Bedford Road about 1:36 p.m. Wednesday and found a body inside an outbuilding on the property, officials said.

Officials at the Westchester County Medical Examiner’s Office confirmed that Kennedy’s body had been removed from the property Wednesday afternoon, but would not discuss how the 52-year-old died. An autopsy is scheduled for Thursday, officials said.

Kerry Lawrence, a White Plains attorney who had previously represented Kennedy in a drunken-driving case, also confirmed Kennedy’s death, but he, too, would not discuss details surrounding the tragedy.

“We deeply regret the death of our beloved sister Mary, whose radiant and creative spirit will be sorely missed by those who loved her,” the family said in a statement issued through Lawrence. “Our heart goes out to her children who she loved without reservation.”

South Bedford Road was closed heading toward Interstate 684 Wednesday afternoon. Helicopters hovered near the house.

Read more at Lohud.com

Conservatives are looking very hard for actual evidence to back up the storyline they’ve concocted that Barack Obama’s support for same-sex marriage will hurt him in some statistically significant way with black voters.

As National Review’s Noah Glyn writes here, they’ve already lost one example with Rev. Emmett Burns, a Maryland pastor who first said he would stay home in 2012 after Obama’s decision. Already Burns has changed his mind, noting that while he disagrees with Obama’s position, he will support his re-election.

So what does Glyn do? Find another black clergyman! He cites the example of Reverend Dwight McKissic of Cornerstrone Baptist Church who tells National Review just the kind of claptrap they want to hear: “The moral impact of this decision is equal to the military impact of al-Qaeda when they attacked the Twin Towers on 9/11.”

The article goes on to cite McKissic as if he were just a man of the cloth upset with Obama.

Except he sounds a little crazy if you dig in just a little. In 2005 McKissic blamed New Orleans’ sin for the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, claiming that “New Orleans flaunts sin in a way that no other places do” and that “There are 10 abortion clinics in Louisiana; five of those are in New Orleans. They have a Southern Decadence parade every year and they call it gay pride.”

As a result, McKissic claimed, “When you study Scripture, it’s not out of the boundaries of God to punish a nation for sin and because of sin. When I look at our country, at what’s happening, and what’s happening in New Orleans in particular, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility.”

Just the kind of crazy talk you might expect from someone offering up a juicy anti-Obama quote to National Review.

I don’t doubt that a majority of black voters probably disagree with President Obama on same-sex marriage. I think historically the black community in America has had problems accepting homosexuality. But while they are culturally conservative on this issue (as they are with others), they tend not to vote on these issues in presidential contests. If so, Republicans who have campaigned against gay rights would have done better with black voters in the last few elections.

In the worst case scenario I expect Obama will do as well with black voters as he did in 2008, no matter how many obscure, off-the-wall clergymen the National Review decides to interview.

Romney: Can't keep quiet about his wealth

Joe Klein on team Romney’s extraordinary efforts to stop reporters talking to him:

Mitt Romney is clearly a candidate terrified by his own mouth. What other explanation for his campaign’s extreme efforts to prevent reporters from asking him questions? I know that there isn’t much public sympathy for journalistic whining–including my own occasional, stupid laments–about the lack of access. But Romney’s staff has clearly taken this to a new level, preventing reporters from even watching the candidate’s mini-town meeting with middle-class voters at one stop.

When Romney speaks off the cuff, it’s usually to inadvertently tell people how rich he is and how little he understands their concerns, so it’s probably a good thing his campaign team want to control his exposure as much as possible.

Greece close to exiting the Euro

Prolonged electoral uncertainty has put Greece into a state of deep freeze, meaning whoever finally emerges as the new leader will take over a country already falling behind on its promises to lenders.

The European Union and International Monetary Fund demanded extensive cuts and reforms as part of a 130 billion euro bailout package agreed in March.

But Greece has had no elected government since an inconclusive election on May 6, and paralysis will continue for at least another month, even as funds dry up in the treasury.

Senior judge Panagiotis Pikrammenos was sworn in as interim prime minister on Wednesday, but he will not be empowered to take any political decisions – only to steer the country to a new vote on June 17.

“The only thing we are doing is waiting,” said a government official who declined to be named.

Another Greek official close to bailout negotiations said ministers in the outgoing cabinet have not been authorised to negotiate with Greece’s lenders since the May 6 election. A senior party official said the caretaker government would not publish any decrees and all tender procedures were suspended.

Leftists now favoured to win the next election have alarmed Europe by threatening to tear up the bailout altogether. But even if the next Greek government wants to keep to the agreement, it will have catching up to do from day one.

A privatisation programme already many times cut back has been suspended, a multi-billion euro spending cuts plan is far from being ready, tax collection continues to be weak and a bank recapitalisation plan is in limbo.

One consequence already became clearer on Wednesday: sources at the European Central Bank said it had withheld liquidity for some Greek banks because the bank recapitalisation plan had not yet been successfully implemented.

Even before the May 6 election, many reforms were put on the backburner to avoid antagonising voters, officials involved in bailout talks say. These include a plan to slash spending by over 11.5 billion euros in 2013-2014, which Greece must agree by late June to meet a key bailout target.

Read more at Reuters….

By Ben Cohen: I went on the RT network yesterday to discuss the insidious effects of Super PACs on the Democratic process with Elizabeth Wahl. It’s a very troubling topic and one that deserves a lot of attention. The decision made by the Supreme court to allow PACs (Political Action Committees) to accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations could have a very far reaching effect on the Democratic process. While these PACs are not allowed to make direct contributions to candidates, they can essentially run their own independent campaigns for whichever candidate they choose.

The fact that wealth in America is so unevenly distributed makes the effect of money in politics and the Super PACS far more dangerous. Wealthy individuals and corporations can run shadow campaigns for candidates that represent their interests, and their resources greatly outweigh those of the general public. Candidates representing the interests of the general population simply won’t be able to raise as much money, and as the evidence shows, those with the most money win.

Here’s the interview:

Paul Cameron believes President Obama is gay.....

By Chez Pazienza:

Well, that didn’t take long.

Following a week that saw President Obama publicly throw his weight behind same-sex marriage — leading Newsweek to publish a for-shock-value-only cover declaring him “The First Gay President” — his mortal enemies within the right-wing nutjob contingent are reacting exactly the way you’d expect:

“Actually, while I’m not sure about the claims by the various people who have reported that Obama has at least participated at times with them in homosexual acts, this certainly lends some credence.”

That’s Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute — which is neither an institute nor anything that does a considerable amount of research — basically alluding to the possibility that President Obama is gay. Because he supports same-sex marriage. If you follow that line of thinking, given the fact that I once had a cat and I’ll publicly go on record as saying I don’t support the torture of cats, I am in fact a cat.

But of course that’s beside the point because it’s fucking worthless to argue logically with these people. Cameron is making veiled and ultimately baseless allegations that will be eaten up like handfuls of soma by the legion of lunatics who now own the Republican party — the people who believe any wild conspiracy theory floated about Obama, no matter how unsubstantiated, specious, or completely divorced from reality.

Case in point: A couple of days ago I violated a pretty stringent personal policy and commented on the wall of a loose Facebook friend who’d posted something kind of ridiculous involving politics. What she’d linked to was an article on how President Obama’s father was a known terrorist and how this new information would badly damage Obama’s already tenuous and legally questionable grasp on the White House, especially since it was well known that the birth certificate he produced last year for the public was a fake. In other words, the piece seemed written to purposely hit every single note played by the conspiracist crowd. And in fact, it was.

See, the piece had been posted at Christwire.org — which is why I made one comment to the person who’d linked it with what certainly seemed to be serious intent: “I get the impression you don’t know that Christwire is a satire site.” What followed was a fusillade of outraged comments in response from a couple of this person’s other Facebook friends, each more insane than the last. First, the commenters maintained the truth of the story — this despite the fact that it came, again, from a site that trafficked in fake news items and had been almost surely written to poke fun at exactly the kind of derangement I was witnessing in response to it. The ouroborial loop of meta-madness was almost beyond description — it made your brain hurt. That was followed by a lot of talk about Obama’s “regime” and how I would eventually come around to the fact that he and his “sluts” were destroying America little by little.

I’m obviously not going to blame somebody for being duped by Christwire. As a satire site it’s as good as they come, having even fooled Rachel Maddow at one point. And it just about goes without saying that we’ve reached the point in our discourse where Poe’s Law is in full effect and right-wing fundamentalism has become indistinguishable from any parody of right-wing fundamentalism; it’s simply impossible to come up with a phony scenario that sounds any goddamned crazier than the very real thought processes these people pull out of their asses. Parody, I honestly believe, isn’t really necessary in our culture anymore — if for no other reason than the fact that it’s damn near impossible, having been rendered toothless by a reality that now feels perpetually and exclusively surreal.

But once the joke has been revealed, once you’ve been clued in to the fact that you’ve been had, only the completely delusional continue to maintain the delusion. It takes a special kind of ferocity in your willingness to believe anything that confirms your biases to be told that somebody played a really cruel joke at your expense and respond, “It’s no joke.” But this is the nature of unshakable faith at the exclusion of all contrary evidence. And its become a kind of art form in the age of Obama. There’s almost an elegance to the mental gymnastics.

Paul Cameron has no proof at all that President Obama is gay — a laughable claim at face value — but it hardly matters. All that matters is a suspicion he has, a couple of random allegations he probably read in a chain e-mail at some point, and the fact that he so wants it to be true.

But of course it’s not true. It’s horseshit. As usual.

Also, Dick Cheney is apparently gay.

Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaign rallies. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Bob Cesca: Yesterday, Mitt Romney received another pulse-poundingly enthusiastic endorsement. This time from former President George W. Bush, who could barely contain his incurable case of Romney Fever when he said: “I’m for Mitt Romney.”

And that was all.

It kind of reminded me of that viral video in which a kid is asked by a reporter about his zombie face-paint and he responds, “I like turtles.” Well, yes, that’s nice. Bush is for Romney. And…?

Of course Bush is for Mitt Romney — they’re both spoiled, entitled, wealthy, conservative, dickish frat boy sons of famous politicians. But Bush clearly doesn’t have anything else to say about the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Bush isn’t known to be a wordy talker, but perhaps his endorsement was so obviously concise because there’s really nothing else to say about Romney.

Other endorsements for Romney have been equally orgasmic.

“I think Gov. Romney is the nominee.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on the Romney nomination

“I am excited that the process is over.” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) on the Romney nomination

“I’m not as excited as I am desperate.” Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) on the Romney nomination

Here’s Newt Gingrich’s “endorsement” in which he describes Romney as a liar, but people should vote for him anyway because Republicans have to defeat the president.

At this rate, instead of the customary balloon-drop at the convention, staffers will have to drop antidepressants and Red Bull from the arena ceiling. But shhh! Don’t wake the delegates.

In all seriousness, this is what could ultimately sink the Romney campaign. Recent polls show a major enthusiasm gap:

Of those backing Mr. Obama, 64 percent said it is because they feel he deserves to be re-elected, while only 11 percent said they are trying to deny Mr. Romney the spot, another 11 percent said they are supporting the nominated Democrat, and 9 percent said the president is the “lesser of two evils.” [...]

Still, Mr. Romney suffers from a lack of enthusiasm. Less than half of his backers said they are supporting him because they think he is the best candidate. Nearly 20 percent said they are voting to deny Mr. Obama another term, and an additional 19 percent said Mr. Romney is the “lesser of two evils.” A final 10 percent said they are backing whomever the GOP offered up.

So more than half of all Republican voters would vote for anyone with an “R” after their name. They’re voting for Romney because he’s there.

Recent electoral history has proved that Republicans get excited about candidates who believe in something — who have convictions, values and moxie. Romney has none of that. Instead, primary voters absorbed the superficial attitude of congressional Republicans whose only goal is to defeat the president, irrespective of how ridiculous or pathetic they look in the process. So voters defaulted to a candidate who they were told could defeat the president — and not a candidate who is actually strong on his own merits. They’re backing a cardboard standee rather than a politician capable of human emotions.

And who’s going to be enthusiastic about cardboard?

At the risk of sounding defensive, I’m not necessarily concern-trolling here. I’m legitimately anxious about how this table is set. The last time Republicans chose a president despite their lackluster enthusiasm for him, he engaged the nation in all varieties of devilry in order to overcome his electoral and polling impotence. If Romney can convince enough independents to vote against the president, and if Romney succeeds in that endeavor, the first term of the Romney administration will be a nightmare of overcompensation. I’m positive he’ll roll back everything the president has accomplished including the repeat of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, hate crime laws and all the rest. He’ll probably invade Iran, too, with North Korea in the on-deck circle.

So I guess what I’m saying here is that it’s imperative that Democrats keep up their enthusiasm for President Obama and get to work.