Larry Summers Does Not Equal Robert Reich

From Obama's NY Times Magazine interview: (Via David Sirota)

Q: I want to talk broadly about policy. When you and I spoke during the campaign, you made it clear that you had thought a lot about the economic debates within the Clinton administration. And you said that you wanted to have a Robert Rubin type and a Robert Reich type having a vigorous debate in front of you...But in your inner circle, it really is dominated by Rubin protégés...

THE PRESIDENT: Not entirely. But, I mean, the fact is that Larry Summers right now is very comfortable making arguments, often quite passionately, that Bob Reich used to be making when he was in the Clinton White House.

When you cite Larry Summers as as the liberal end of your administration's economic spectrum, that's not a good sign.

And as Sirota points out, how does Reich himself grade the part of the administration Summers is the most responsible for?

The last grade is for the bank bailouts. I give them an F. I'm a big fan of this administration, but I've got to be honest. The bailouts are failing. So far American taxpayers have shoveled out almost $600 billion. Yet the banks are lending less money than they did five months ago. Bank executives are still taking home princely sums, their toxic assets and non-performing loans are growing, and the banks are still cooking their books. And now the Treasury is talking about converting taxpayer dollars into bank equity, which exposes taxpayers to even greater losses.

Larry Summers as the new Robert Reich?

Yeah, Not so much.

Reasons I love Alex Ovechkin

Today: (via DCsportsbog Twitter)

Asked about the perception that the league promotes Crosby more than him, Ovechkin cracked, "He's superstar. Me, I'm just like you guys."

Caps Win First Playoff Series in 11 Years, Will Face Hated Pittsburgh in Next Round

This is what I wrote one year ago, after the Washington Capitals lost Game 7 of last year's first round series against the Philadelphia Flyers after fighting back from a 3-games-to-1 deficit:

I guess I got so caught up in the excitement of having playoff hockey around again that I forgot to mention a few things. First, that as exhilarating and fun as the playoffs can be, they can be equally as devastating when you lose. In a game filled with dubious calls, including one which gifted Philadelphia a power play goal in OT, to lose at home after clawing all the way back from a 3-1 series deficit... well, it just sucked, quite frankly.

The other thing I neglected to mention, probably out of fear of bad karma, was that the words "Playoffs" and "Disappointment" have gone hand in hand throughout the Capitals' history. Apart from one magical run to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1998 (which we lost, 4-games-to-0, to the Detroit Red Wings), Washington was known for blowing the big games. I thought it would be different this time because those teams of the past never had Alex Ovechkin, but I found myself reliving the same familiar memories from elementary school of a first or second round exit for the Caps.

Last night's 2-1 win over the New York Rangers effectively saw playoff hockey karma pay back the Capitals and their fans after dealing us such a devastating circumstance 12 months ago.

Being in the building with JJ, I can assure you that an entire fan base released all the pent-up frustration and anxiety from last year's loss as soon as Sergei Federov - the elder statesman - scored with 4:59 remaining in the 3rd period, and that release of emotion lasted until the final whistle. To find ourselves back in a 3-1 hole in the first round, after witnessing what happened last year, not to mention watching as overtime approached with the teams knotted at 1-1, well it felt like déjà vu all over again.

However, the stakes were even higher this year. Last year's loss was so crushing since we were so, so close to advancing after nearly not even making the playoffs. This year, though, there were a ton more expectations for this team to succeed, to build on the foundation and the experiences of last year and ascend to that next level of greatness. A first round loss this year would have hurt more. Staring that reality in the face for three consecutive games and staving it off is a truly heroic feat.

Lost in all the madness of this win and our upcoming opponents, the Pittsburgh Penguins, is the fact that the Caps haven't advanced past the first round since we went all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1998. In essence, last night's win wasn't just about exorcising the demons of last year; it represented a return to form 11 years in the making. It's one thing to make the playoffs on a regular basis, but it basically means squat if you can't advance even one round.

With that being said, we haven't won the Stanley Cup yet. While it's great to win a playoff series, that isn't enough to consider this season a success. Missing the playoffs this year would not have been just inexcusable, it was not even a possibility for this team, as stacked as it is. Losing in the first round would have been an utter failure, without question. This team is good enough to play for the Eastern Conference title, which would make a second round loss even a disappointment.

I will write an entirely different post about the Caps-Pens heated, albeit lopsided, playoff history. But if you're going to truly measure yourself against the best teams in the league, you want to travel through the most difficult road possible to glory. Playing New Jersey would have been nice and would have undoubtedly helped our chance of advancing to the conference finals. But if this season really is about redemption, then we have bigger demons to overcome than just a first round exit and the biggest and baddest demon of them all is the Penguins in the playoffs.

I will never forget last night's game. The incredible noise inside the building. The jubilation on F Street and all around Chinatown after the game. But the Capitals' playoff journey continues on Saturday at 1 p.m. and, in my opinion, our real test of mettle well and truly begins.

Bring it on.

Redemption in Game 7

One year after one of the most crushing losses I can remember, DCJonesy and I were in attendance for last night's beyond belief game 7 win over the Rangers. The constant deafening noise in the building for the last five minutes is one of the most incredible things I've ever witnessed.

Enjoy it for a day, then bring on the Penguins!

So Arlen Specter Still Wants to be a Senator...

Senator Specter's(PA-Whichever way the wind is blowing) statement from earlier today:

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary
...
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Just like his flip flop on Employee Free Choice a few weeks back, this is about as naked a political calculation as you see. Michael Steele actually had an incredibly awesome statement in response to the switch: (pigs flying, hell freezes over)

"Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest-Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."

Nothing like a Republican pissing match. Steele is dead on about this being solely to further his political interests and to the batshit insane Republican party of Pennsylvania, I bet they actually believe Specter has a left wing voting record. But that's besides the point, because Pat Toomey will prove just how popular a nutjob ideology is come November 2010. Our friends over at Resistnet will be breathlessly awaiting the results!

But other than the joy of watching Republicans shitting on their now former college, (more of that here), I'm not really convinced that this is a great thing. For starters, the whole "if we just get 60 votes" thing is largely a myth, especially when you have some massive douchebags in your caucus, and they've already decided to form their own caucus (Something tells me they just found a new member!!!).

Second, he sucks. He didn't support Obama's budget, he maintains he won't vote cloture on Employee Free Choice, he's currently blocking Dawn Johnsen, a key Justice department nominee, and those are just things that have happened in the past couple weeks. I realize the idea is that he'd have to change some things to win the primary, but if attempting to force an uncontested primary was part of the deal, he has zero motivation to stop sucking.

We need a committed primary challenger to his nomination as quickly as humanly possible. Someone who will not bow to Rendell (and everyone else's) pressure to drop out, and hopefully someone strong enough to possibly earn labor's support. If Specter won't commit to cloture, labor's support would be there for the taking, and you've got to believe they'd be willing to throw the kitchen sink at Specter after his douchery on EFCA. Whether they can beat him or not, we need a credible challenger that at least makes this self righteous asshole nervous about losing. If today's move showed us anything, it's that he's willing to put keeping his job above whatever semblance of principles the David Broaders of the world keep telling me he has.

This situation has the potential to be a positive one for progressives, but only if he's forced to stay in line with his new party on some key votes, and then has to battle for his life in the 2010 primary. If we act giddy that there's a D next to his name and let Arlen be Arlen, we will have enabled a douche bigger and douchier than King Douche himself, and that is a fucking scary thought.

I want to believe we'll do what's right for the party, but looking at the recent douche enabling actions of both the Senate Majority Leader and the President, I'm less than convinced they'll take advantage. Only time will tell where this soap opera goes, but the opportunity for serious progress is there, and it's up to us to make it count.

Great Moments in Journalism

Joe Scarborough: (via Atrios)

"if planes go into buildings...blame Dana Priest" for exposing use of waterboarding

Tim Geithner in One Sentance

We've talked a lot about Tim Geithner's faults on this blog, but one quote in this massive (and pretty fucking damning) NY Times piece perfectly explains my worries:

“I don’t think that Tim Geithner was motivated by anything other than concern to get the financial system working again,” Mr. Stiglitz said. “But I think that mindsets can be shaped by people you associate with, and you come to think that what’s good for Wall Street is good for America.”

Read the whole piece if you have the stomach, but if you were worried about Geithner's ties to wall street execs before, it sure won't calm any of your fears.