Who let the dogs out?

If you don't know, you haven't been following the best team -- and the best kept secret -- in baseball.

It ain’t no tomahawk chop. And you probably won’t see it on ESPN’s Baseball Tonight: They go to bed too early.

It starts in the ninth inning of every San Francisco Giants win at home these days: A funereal bell tolls, for the sad, dead opposing team, and then you’ll hear it: the bark.

First a few, then dozens and finally thousands of fans start barking, getting an early jump on the team’s new anthem, “Who let the dogs out?” a Caribbean-soul hit by the Baha Men. The song itself won’t play until the last out is recorded, but the barks keep getting louder. Then it’s out No. 3, the Baha Men sing, and the Giants file out for their victory high-fives, some of them singing and barking with the crowd, too. And now the barking in the stands is deafening. You know those cellphone talking, cosmo-swilling dot-com yuppies who supposedly took over the team’s new Pac Bell Park? They’re barking like dogs, alongside gnarly old Candlestick fans, and it’s frikking scary and weird and wonderful.

They’re the dogs all right, the underdogs turned Top Dogs; the team nobody ever picks to finish first in the National League West who clinched the division Thursday night; the team with the best record in the major leagues this year (who knew?) and, basically, the best-kept secret in baseball. The team that for four straight years has been in the hunt late into September, winning the division twice, getting into a one-game wild-card playoff with the Chicago Cubs in 1998, and coming in a disappointing second to the Arizona Diamondbacks last year. The Giants have the fourth best cumulative record in the major leagues since 1997, behind the Atlanta Braves, New York Yankees and a few percentage points behind the New York Mets — and they’ll pass the Mets by the end of the season.

This year alone, they’ve already been pronounced dead twice: Once at the start of the season, when nobody picked the Giants to win the division — even the dysfunctional Los Angeles Dodgers got more respect, as they always do until they start playing — and then again at the July trading deadline, when Arizona acquired Curt Schilling from Philadelphia and suddenly its Schilling-Randy Johnson combination was more deadly than any duo since Koufax and Drysdale. They’ve been deadly, alright — to the D’backs’ playoff hopes, losing game after game since Schilling came over, although there’s much more wrong in Phoenix than a pair of great pitchers could ever hope to right.

Now the 2000 Giants have clinched the division, and are headed for the post-season, but outside of the Bay Area, nobody knows them. So here’s a crash course on the best team in baseball, the story the national media can’t tell, because they mostly haven’t been paying attention.

If I had to pick a highlight and make it a microcosm of the season it would be the bottom of the seventh in a Sept. 6 game against the Phillies. The game was tied 4-4, one out, one on, with Giants superstar Barry Bonds at the plate. He draws an intentional walk, but the sellout crowd gives a collective shrug: Whatever. Walk Bonds. Batting behind him is All Star second baseman Jeff Kent, hitting .335, who walks this time, to load the bases. And batting behind Kent is fearsome right-fielder Ellis Burks, he of the hobbled knees, the Boston Red Sox star the team gave up on years ago (that old curse of the Bambino again), who’s batting .355 for the Giants and is the team leader.

Burks smashes what seems like an inning-ending double-play grounder to Phillies Gold Glove third baseman Scott Rolen — who boots it, letting Marvin Benard (note to Baseball Tonight again: It’s Benard, not Bernard — work on that for October, OK?) score the game-winning run from third. It’s scored an infield hit, Burks gets another RBI, the Giants win 5-4, and the game proves manager Dusty Baker’s maxim: When teams are playing well, they get the lucky breaks, too.

You’ll be hearing a lot about the wit and wisdom of Baker as we head into October. Although the national media ignores the Giants as a team year after year, it makes an exception for the brilliant Baker. He only has to fly over New York for the Times’ great Murray Chass to write about him (often to make an unflattering comparison with the Mets’ Bobby Valentine, a fairly nasty old-school baseball guy who is indeed the un-Baker.) Twice voted National League manager of the year, he’s a shoo-in to do it a third time.

Now, nobody loves Baker more than I do (outside of his family, I’ll allow) but the national media’s infatuation with the Giants skipper, while at the same time disrespecting his team, has always struck me as a little condescending. It annoys Baker no end. Year after year, nobody picks the Giants to do much, and when they perform it’s all laid at Baker’s feet. His team is dismissed as a bunch of talent-challenged overachievers, Dusty’s Kids. (In 1997, to be honest, I did it myself.)

And, not to get racial when race is irrelevant, but there’s something a little patronizing about all the marveling at what Baker’s done with a mediocre team — as if the Giants are the baseball equivalent of soul food, ingredients nobody else would know how to work with, but Uncle Dusty whips up a savory meal every time. There’s something wrong with the disrespect.

So here’s the story: The Giants are a great team, period. Their talent is deep and wide. They’ve got stars — the best player in baseball, Barry Bonds, now joined by Jeff Kent, who was finally voted to the All Star team this year on the strength of Internet balloting, and closer Robb Nen, who’s being mentioned for the Cy Young award. But the heart and soul of the Giants are its role players, guys nobody’s ever heard of who hit the hell out of the ball and pitch like crazy and have the league’s second best batting average and fielding percentage (after Colorado) as well as earned run average (after Atlanta, and not by much) — and don’t make a big deal about themselves. This is a real team, where the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts.

First, the stars. Even Barry doesn’t get the credit he deserves because, well, Barry often isn’t very nice, except to kids, and he can be especially not-nice to reporters. (He’s very nice to reporters’ kids, though, giving my daughter a high-five or a big smile when he sees her.) A writer for a local weekly did a truly funny piece about wanting to love Barry Bonds, because Barry’s the best player in baseball, and deciding to get to know the inner Barry. In the end he gave up, and decided baseball was reason enough to love Barry. He was right, but he wasted a lot of time getting there. I’ve turned down assignments to write about Barry because I do love Barry Bonds, best player in baseball, and I don’t want to be distracted by the inner Barry — the outer Barry is more than enough for me. Look at the guy.

This year may be Bonds’ best ever, and it’s poignant: At 36, it’s almost visible that he knows there won’t be many more seasons like this. There might not be any. He’s putting extra vigor and all of his considerable and underestimated intelligence into every aspect of his game — routinely robbing other teams of home runs, making spectacular diving catches, breaking his personal home run record, with 48 so far this year. The rap on Barry has been that he always gets his numbers, but not always in the clutch, but this year he’s carried the team when it needed him to. His slugging percentage is a league-leading .709. All of this bodes well for October, where Bonds’ record has also lagged behind his talent. Right now he’s the favorite for National League MVP.

Jeff Kent, too, is belatedly getting the props that befit the greatest second baseman since Rogers Hornsby. Kent’s never gotten the national attention he deserves due to a double whammy of New York media arrogance. When he was with the Mets, he failed to understand how brown-nosing the reporters was crucial to his reputation, and his prickly mien got him anointed a clubhouse cancer and a bad apple. Now he’s with the Giants, who nobody in New York cares about, so it’s taken four years for him to get the national spotlight. He’s had an MVP year, too, batting a consistent .335, with 33 home runs and 124 RBIs as of Friday. And while he’s just your average infielder, reliable but not terribly speedy, he’s second on the club in steals, one behind Benard, with 12. He just runs hard.

Star No. 3 is Ellis Burks. I stay out of the fight over whether Bonds or Kent is National League MVP, because to me, it’s Burks. On a team of stellar players, he is demonstrably the most valuable. His bad knees make everyday play impossible, especially when the team is on turf, but Baker and GM Brian Sabean say a part-time Burks is worth it. In the games he’s played, the Giants are 68-34 this year; without him they’re 23-36. Any questions? And where Bonds and Kent can both be prickly and unapproachable, Burks is a gentle, charismatic leader, smart, funny and polite.

Thursday night he was awarded the coveted Willie Mac award, named after legendary first baseman Willie McCovey (who also had bad knees) and given to the player who exhibits the most hustle. It was no contest. He went on to own the division-clinching game, hitting a game-tying two-run home run, an RBI single and scoring the winning run.

But to dwell on the Giants’ so-called stars is to miss the point. Last year five Giants had more than 20 home runs — a record they’re on pace to match this year — and nine Giants already have more than 10 homers. Each of the team’s five starting pitchers has more than 10 wins; Livan Hernandez and Shawn Estes are still battling it out for staff ace, with 16 and 15 wins respectively, and after struggling, Russ Ortiz was pitcher of the month with six wins in August.

Rich Aurilia leads the NL in home runs (19 to date) and RBIs (76) for a shortstop; J.T. Snow’s headed for another Gold Glove at first; Bill Mueller may well win one at third; platooning catchers Bobby Estalella and Doug Mirabelli have more combined home runs (20) than any starting catcher in the NL besides the Mets’ Mike Piazza. Virtually every player off the bench has contributed game-winning hits. Armando Rios, Felipe Crespo, Russ Davis, Calvin Murray: Remember their names, because all have been September heroes, and at least one of them will be an October hero.

Even Giant-haters have to grant me one thing: They have the best park in the world. Pac Bell Park is a dream come true, with its back porch on McCovey Cove and all those fine palm trees waving in the breeze. It took politics and finesse and community spirit to get it built. Now it’s a gift to the neighborhood, and the city, from the team’s stellar management. They even have the best training team in baseball, who’ve reduced days on the disabled list from over 700 in the years from 1989 to 1996 to just over 300 in 1997-2000. And so far this season Giants have spent under 100 days on the DL; the lowest number in baseball. Burks wasn’t kidding when he thanked trainer Stan Conte after he won the coveted Willie Mac award.

Finally, the national baseball writers are right about one thing. Dusty Baker is a god among men, and we’re blessed to have him. In the end much of the Giants’ success has to come back to Baker. He’s the one who makes this a team, with a group ethic and identity you don’t see anywhere else, except maybe Joe Torre’s Yankees. He’s got his key starters, but he rotates a considerable number of players — Estalella and Mirabelli as catcher, Benard shares some time with Rios and Murray in the outfield; Bill Mueller makes way for Russ Davis when the team needs power at third base. This can be hell on a team; Baker makes it (comparatively) easy, playing no favorites, rewarding and disappointing players fairly.

Plus, nobody talks about it, but the Spanish-speaking Baker’s multiracial ease is crucial. It sets the tone for clubhouse relationships and friendships. The Giants have the best chemistry in baseball, with black, white and Latin stars, bench players and coaches. In other clubhouses — think Dodgers — the mix has been toxic over the years. In the Giants’ it mostly means you hear all kinds of music and don’t see the clustered ethnic cliques that divide other teams.

The only shadow over the Giants party is the fact that Baker doesn’t have a contract extension signed — yet — which all involved parties hate talking about, and I won’t belabor it here. I’m confident he’ll be back next year. Both sides say they want that; they’ll work out the details. I predict he’ll be well paid, but he’ll turn down higher offers to stay with a mid-payroll team he loves. (He probably already has.) On Tuesday night Tony Bennett dropped by and sang “I left my heart in San Francisco” a capella before the game, and when he clasped Baker’s hand after he finished, the glint in the manager’s eye and the smile on his face told me he’s not going anywhere they don’t play that song after ballgames (after “Who let the dogs out?” that is).

There is probably a not-so-subtle psychological advantage to the splendor of Pac Bell Park: Somehow, having the best park in baseball helped the Giants play like the best. For years their self-image was tied inextricably to Candlestick: They were a gritty blue-collar team, pegged as underdogs and overachievers, tough-playing warriors who made the best of one of the worst parks in the major leagues.

But in their first season in a park fit for champions, the Giants are playing like champions. San Francisco and the entire country are learning something crucial about Pac Bell Park at the same time: This place was built for October baseball, and we should expect to see a lot of it in the years to come.

Hey, Mitt: Dump Trump!

After a new rant about Obama's birthplace, Romney needs to cut all ties with the birther loon

Yesterday it was funny: Mitt Romney announced he was having a fundraising contest to let supporters win a dinner with the farce that is Donald Trump. President Obama has raffled off dinners with George Clooney and former President Bill Clinton; Mitt’s got Trump. Any questions? Do you see a stature gap between the two campaigns? Do you want to have dinner with two guys who like to be able to fire people? Whatever floats Mitt’s boat.

Today it’s appalling: puffed up by Romney’s flattery, the preening, orange-haired narcissist doubled down on his idiotic birther claims against the president, telling the Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove: “Look, it’s very simple. A book publisher came out three days ago and said that in his written synopsis of his book, he said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. His mother never spent a day in the hospital.”

If you haven’t been following the story, and I tried not to, the addled spawn of Andrew Breitbart found a dusty 20-year-old catalog from Obama’s former literary agency that said he was born in Kenya. An assistant quickly said that she wrote down incorrect information. Trump doesn’t believe her.

“That’s what he told the literary agent,” Trump told Grove. “That’s the way life works … He didn’t know he was running for president, so he told the truth. The literary agent wrote down what he said … He said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia … Now they’re saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her she said, ‘Oh, I mean Hawaii.’ Give me a break.”

Give us a break, Mitt. It was already embarrassing that you were using Trump as a fundraising lure – why not raffle off a dinner with Dick Cheney, who’s hosting a fundraiser for you in July? At least Darth Vader has gravitas; Trump is a joke. Pretending to run for president, Trump made birtherism his big issue, and ultimately Obama responded by prevailing on the state of Hawaii to release his long-form birth certificate – a truly sad moment for this country, when the overwhelmingly elected president, a black man, has to show a nasty rich white guy his papers.

If you ever want an example of the vicious political double standard that helps Republicans in this country, here it is: Democrat Hilary Rosen said something inartful about Ann Romney being a stay-at-home mom, and the entire Democratic Party had to denounce her; Obama campaign leaders tripped over themselves to be the first to push her under the bus; Rosen immediately apologized. But Romney has been able to keep his ties to Trump as well as misogynist Rush Limbaugh without political penalty — so far.

This is a moment for the presumptive Republican nominee to stand up for sanity and distance himself from the crackpot birther fringe, and tell Trump he’s going to have to cancel their dinner date. Maybe he’s got to wash his hair that night. Or one of Ann Romney’s cars.

Does Romney have the integrity and courage to do that? I don’t think so, but I’d love to be surprised.

Continue Reading Close

When leaders actually lead

Some Obama backers insisted the president could do nothing on his own to advance gay marriage. Boy, were they wrong

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at a campaign fund raising event in Denver, Colorado May 23, 2012. (Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

I count myself as a supporter of President Obama who reserves the right to criticize him when I disagree. And I disagreed with his reluctance to come out in support of gay marriage for a long time. I’m also on record wishing he’d taken a stronger public stance behind several big progressive priorities — a larger stimulus, tougher Wall Street reform, a public option for health insurance, a big jobs bill – whether or not he had the congressional support to make it happen.

Throughout the president’s first term, his most ardent supporters have reacted to those of us pushing him to do – and say – more on such issues with frustration and anger, some of it nasty and personal, some of it thoughtful and well-argued. They rightly blame Congress for blocking action on key progressive priorities, but strangely downplay the power of presidential leadership. Late last year, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait twice attacked liberal Obama critics for being “unreasonable” about what the president alone could accomplish, because “liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president.”

Chait took particular aim at lefty image guru Drew Westen, a one-time Obama admirer who criticized the president in the New York Times not merely for what he hadn’t accomplished, but for failing to tell a compelling story. Chait accused Westen and other progressives of embracing:

…a model of American politics in which the president in not only the most important figure, but his most powerful weapon is rhetoric. The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science. In Westen’s telling, every known impediment to legislative progress — special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion — are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama’s failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon.

Chait caricatured Westen’s argument (and the beliefs of those who agreed with it), but he got lots of love for both pieces in the pro-Obama blogosphere, where folks finally felt they had a real diagnosis for the illness of those they dismissed as “emoprogs.” But now that we see the changes wrought by Obama’s politically risky embrace of gay marriage, maybe it will be easier for folks to understand that it’s the job of political advocates not merely to praise, but to push their leaders forward.

Steve Kornacki runs down the astonishing political changes we’ve seen in the mere two weeks since the president carefully announced his supposed change of heart on gay marriage. The nation’s largest African-American organization, the NAACP, has come out behind it – and maybe most important, recognized it as an important civil rights issue. Maybe most dramatic, in Maryland, African-American voters have now flipped to support the state’s gay marriage ballot measure 55 to 36 percent –almost the exact percentage by which they opposed it in previous polling on the state issue. And in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, African-Americans’ support for gay marriage jumped to 59 percent from 41 percent in the wake of the president’s historic announcement.

Now, I’m not going to argue that Obama’s turnaround alone caused this sea change. The arc of the moral universe has been bending toward justice on gay rights for a long time, and as I wrote last week, the president gave it an additional tug. There have been advocates within the NAACP working to make this happen for a long time, and they deserve a lot of credit. African-American voter opinion had already been trending in this direction, even if black voters had been less receptive to gay marriage than other demographic groups. There is also an emotional and personal component to the president’s stance that makes his moral suasion hard to replicate on behalf of, say, the jobs bill or the public option. (And let’s also remember it’s white voters who are most hostile on some of those economic issues, thanks to the divide and conquer politics of the GOP over the last 40 years.)

Still, it’s hard not to conclude that Obama’s words made a significant difference in the political course of this debate. Ironically, it was once critics of Obama who mocked the power of words, and specifically the candidate’s own oratorical gifts. Obama shot back at them many times.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he told Wisconsin Democrats in February 2008. “‘I have a dream’ — just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ – just words. Just speeches.” At many times over the last three years, I’ve been amazed at how Obama’s critics and supporters seemed to change sides on the question of the power of his words.

I give the folks who call themselves “prag progs” – pragmatic progressives, as opposed to “unreasonable” emoprogs – a lot of credit for fixing attention on what the president has accomplished, and reminding others not merely to fixate on what he hasn’t. But I think it’s time that all of us acknowledge that there’s a role for constructive pressure, too. Progressive change has always required impatient agitators – and it will continue to.

Continue Reading Close

Ann Coulter’s phony budget math

Dog bites man, the sun rises, and Coulter and AEI flack dissemble about Obama vs. Bush and Reagan budgets

Political commentator and author Ann Coulter addresses the American Conservative Union's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, February 10, 2012. (Credit: Reuters/Jim Bourg)

I was late to the excellent MarketWatch story debunking the notion that President Obama’s been on a spending binge; I spent most of Tuesday traveling. But after my “Hardball” segment on it Wednesday, Ann Coulter tweeted: “Joan Walsh says that Marketwatch chart is ‘unbelievable’! Why yes it is, in the sense of being untrue.” That’s when I saw that there was shrill but lame GOP pushback on Rex Nutting’s excellent story, from both Coulter and the American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis. I don’t normally reply to Coulter’s right-wing delusions — I haven’t written a column about her in five years – but since I think Nutting’s findings are a crucial corrective to GOP lying, I wasted my Wednesday night trying to understand the GOP attempt to discredit him. You’re welcome.

Coulter admits she relies on Pethokoukis, so let’s go directly to the source. To recap, Nutting crunched Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office numbers to find that under Obama, spending has risen at an annualized rate of 1.4 percent, less than any president since Dwight Eisenhower. It jumped 8.1 percent in the last three years of the George W. Bush presidency, and in fiscal year 2009, for which Bush approved the budget, it jumped 17.9 percent. But Bush isn’t the most profligate Republican: Ronald Reagan increased spending an average of 8.7 percent in his first term.

Pethokoukis quarrels with Nutting’s assigning Bush’s budget to Bush, because “Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it.” Exactly how one president undoes the spending approved by another president under a different Congress goes unexplained. The AEI pundit also argues that we should look at federal spending as a percent of GDP, and he notes that’s gone up under Obama, attempting to prove that Nutting is mistaken – but that’s a useless metric during a recession, which by definition shrinks GDP.

Coulter goes even further (of course). “It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.” (The italics are in the original; they’re where the good writing is supposed to be.) She continues: “That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column.”

Shockingly, Coulter is … wrong. First of all, only about $120 billion of the stimulus was spent in fiscal year 2009 – and Nutting counted it in Obama’s column. He also included new funds appropriated under Obama and the Democratic congressional majority for the child health insurance program and other projects. And it says so quite clearly on the nifty chart Coulter finds fault with: $140 billion spent in the 2009 budget year is plainly attributed to Obama. It also says so in the text of the story, for people who don’t read charts.

“I attributed all the new spending I could find to Obama,” Nutting told me in an email. “I looked at the CBO’s budget outlook from Jan. 2009, and spending for ’09 was actually lower than CBO projected. And spending has been flat since then.”

Coulter also claims that Nutting’s piece has been ignored by the New York Times, but in fact David Firestone weighed in today, and made a point I should have made: It’s actually sad that a Democratic president is kvelling about cutting the rate of federal spending growth to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower (actually, I made that point last August). Firestone notes that various budget deals aim to cut discretionary spending by $800 billion over a decade, by trimming education, food, housing, transportation and job training programs. “This category of spending, which used to be 5 percent of the gross domestic product in Nixon’s days, is heading down to less than 2 percent,” Firestone notes. Pethokoukis and Coulter ought to be applauding.

I’ve hailed Nutting’s piece not because I’m happy that Obama has presided over such stingy budgets (largely forced to by congressional Republicans), but because I’m glad to see a reporter telling the truth. If Pethokoukis and Coulter are the best the GOP can do to tear his work down, maybe more reporters will join him.

Continue Reading Close

Barack Obama: Shoestring president

Spending has grown more slowly under Obama than either Reagan or Bush. Will the media stop parroting the GOP?

(Credit: AP)

Updated with video below.

With so many Republican lies about President Obama, it’s pretty hard to pick out the worst one. The most vicious stuff, of course, comes from the crazy birthers, who won’t go away. (Way to spend Arizona’s tax dollars, Sheriff Joe Arpaio!) Then there are the more mainstream slurs – Newt Gingrich calling him “the food stamp president,” or Obama’s “friend” Sen. Tom Coburn saying he favors government programs because “as an African American male,” he received “tremendous advantage from a lot of these programs.”

But if you measure the power of a lie by its utter truthlessness combined with the breadth of its reach, the notion that Obama has presided over a wild federal spending spree is probably the biggest whopper spread by the GOP, with the help of the right-wing noise machine and lazy mainstream media. Mitt Romney regularly rails against the “debt and spending inferno” the president supposedly ignited. Last month on Fox, Charles Krauthammer called Obama’s spending “radical, unprecedented,” and CBS Radio’s Mark Knoller reported that the “National debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush.”

On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal’s Marketwatch debunked all of those claims: “Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s,” writes Rex Nutting. “Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.” In his first term, Obama will have increased spending by 1.4 percent; in his last three years, George W. Bush increased annual spending by an average of 8.1 percent – and in Bush’s last fiscal year, 2009, spending jumped 17.9 percent. Republican deity Ronald Reagan increased spending an average of 8.7 percent in his first term. Nutting continues:

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4 percent annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5 percent from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

Strangely, Marketwatch frames Nutting’s article as “commentary,” I guess because he’s an opinion columnist, but his facts and figures come straight from the non-partisan Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office. The charts he uses are vivid and leave no room for doubt: When the president says he’s dropped spending to its lowest levels since the Eisenhower presidency – back before the Civil Rights Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Clean Water Act, the Economic Opportunity Act, or the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Education — he’s telling the truth.

Mild-mannered White House press secretary Jay Carney was nearly moved to swearing on Wednesday, pointing to the facts outlined by Nutting and telling reporters “don’t buy into GOP B.S.” (That became a leading Politico headline later in the day.) But will the media heed Carney’s warning?

We’ll see. Somehow I doubt it. I discussed where the “big spender” lie fits into the pantheon of GOP falsehoods on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with David Corn:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Continue Reading Close

Three Wall Street stooges

Romney uses Booker, Ford and Rattner to attack Obama. Can Dems take back their party from finance capital?

It was inevitable.

Mitt Romney put out an ad Monday using Newark Mayor Cory Booker, along with former Tennessee politician Harold Ford Jr. and former auto czar Steve Rattner, to attack the Obama campaign for its criticism of Romney’s work with Bain Capital.  “Have you had enough of President Obama’s attacks on free enterprise?” the ad asks. “His own supporters have.”

Booker, of course, has become infamous for telling David Gregory on “Meet the Press” Sunday that Obama ads criticizing Romney’s Bain work are “nauseating” and “crap.” Then Harold Ford Jr., who laughably tried to become the senator from Wall Street in 2010 after failing to become the senator from Tennessee in 2006, couldn’t stand seeing Booker getting all the centrist Wall Street love, and jumped in behind him: ”I would not have backed off the comments, if I were Mayor Booker,” Ford told his friends on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Monday. “Private equity is not a bad thing. Private equity is a good thing in many instances.” For good measure the Romney ad also scooped up Rattner’s criticism – also on “Morning Joe” – from a few weeks ago: “I don’t think there’s anything Bain Capital did that they need to feel bad about,” Rattner told the crew.

Democrats are wringing their hands over the latest circular firing squad, but I think all the self-promotion and betrayal is a good thing. It should remind Democrats why many working- and middle-class people either sit out elections or don’t think there’s a big difference between the parties. For the last 20 years, folks like Rattner, Booker and Ford have tried to make sure their party courted Wall Street more slavishly than the GOP – and they often succeeded. We ought to remember that history before we get carried away with our populist high-fiving in the 2012 campaign, convinced that Obama deserves to win the fealty of the unemployed, underemployed and Occupy Wall Street, too.

I’ve always kind of liked Cory Booker, even while knowing he was a privileged Ivy Leaguer in love with his own capacity to reconcile conflict and also to convince rich people and Republicans that Democrats don’t hate them – kind of like Barack Obama, before he got sandbagged by the modern GOP. I still don’t think Booker has gotten nearly enough grief for his multilayered betrayal of Obama on “Meet the Press.” For one thing, he stepped on the president’s message, which is a terrible move for a trusted surrogate. He also played the despicable false-equivalence game – and he did it again in the video he made to try to walk back some of the damage he’d done. Booker keeps claiming what he really finds “nauseating” are the negative super PAC ads “from both sides” – but the Bain attack is coming directly from the Obama campaign (although the pro-Obama Priorities USA contributed one ad to the mix). Besides, it’s outrageous to equate the Bain attacks with the Fred Davis-Joe Ricketts plan to morph the president into Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I expect Republicans to try to make that lame argument, not Democrats.

Maybe most unfair, Booker and Ford endorsed the GOP lie that Obama has it in for private equity generally, not merely the excesses of firms like Bain. They’re only egging on the Wall Street wusses who act like the president has nationalized the banks just because he signed on to the flawed Dodd-Frank bill and once called a few of them “fat cats.” Booker and Ford are clearly only out for themselves, anxious to prove there are some Democrats who still love Wall Street. Of course, this shouldn’t surprise us: Booker has teamed up with hedge fund moguls and other super-rich private equity folks (as well as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates) in the course of reforming Newark’s schools as well as generally advancing his career. (He’s also ignored public records laws to keep those big donors from scrutiny.)

I wrote about Rattner’s comments earlier. By all accounts he did a decent job as auto czar, helping the president restructure the big three automakers and save the industry. But the big Democratic Party donor is clearly trying to pull the party back from those who are coming to understand that its fealty to Wall Street has hurt it with working- and middle-class voters – and much more important, has hurt the country. It’s Democrats who have for years protected the carried interest rule, keeping tax rates low for investors and private equity principals like Mitt Romney. Booker, Ford and Rattner are firing a warning shot at Democrats who are wandering away from their Wall Street. To its credit, the Obama team is doubling down on its Bain campaign, and let’s hope that continues.

Here’s the Romney ad:

 

 

Continue Reading Close

Page 1 of 202 in Joan Walsh