Like many others, I have spent the last few days really contemplating what will happen in the elections this November. As much as I want to be optimistic, I just can’t bring myself to it. Democrats are looking at a very dark mid-term and, as Peter Daou puts it, these are “dark days for the left”.

But what happened? What caused the rapid fall from glory for President Obama over the past two years? When he was sworn in as the 44^th President of the United States, Barack Obama enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings in history. Now he is treading water to keep from hitting bottom. I believe there are three main factors that play into this; healthcare, economy and war. I want to take a minute and look at what happened with each of these issues and how it turned the base sour on the President. There's More»»

George Stephanopoulos asks a great question while interviewing Timothy Geithner today:

Stephanopoulos: How firm is the President's commitment to this proposal? If, for example, the Congress passes an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy, will the President veto it?

Geithner: Again, what the President believes is the best strategy for the country is to extend the tax cuts that go to more than 95 percent of Americans, more than 95 percent of small business. Keep taxes on capital income low going to moderate. Give people the certainty that's going to be the world they're going to live in. But to do that responsibly, we let those tax cuts for the highest earning Americans expire as scheduled, as they were predicted to do. And I think that's the better strategy.

Stephanopoulos: I know that's what the President believes is a better strategy. What I'm asking is, is he going to veto-- any bill that extends those tax cuts for the wealthiest—

Geithner: He believes this is what makes sense. It's what I believe.  And we're going to make the case for that. I think it's-- and I think it's the best strategy. And I think that we'll get support for this. Again, it's a sensible, practical--

Stephanopoulos: I know you think it's the best strategy. But I talked to some of the President's supporters who agree with him on Capitol Hill. And they say unless the President comes out firmly and strongly and makes that veto threat, we can't hold back—

Geithner: President's going to be firm and strong because he believes this is the best package. Now, of course, Congress—

Stephanopoulos: But no veto—

Geithner: No, I'm not saying that.  'm just saying that we're going to do everything we can to maximize the odds as the way we come out because we believe strongly it's the right thing for the country. Now, of course, Congress is Congress. They're going to have to legislate. And you're going to see-- see people with lots of ideas. But you've seen Republicans now say the responsible thing for the country is to let those tax cuts expire. And I think that-- that demonstrates the fact that if you look at the practical reality of what the country needs now, it's that balance of tax cuts for the middle class, tax cuts for businesses.  That's the best strategy—

A vast majority of this country opposes the tax cuts. A vast majority of this country also believes that Washington doesn’t listen to them. So why doesn’t President Obama take a winning stance here? Hold a prime time presser and during it declare that if the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% is extended that he will veto it. Explain that these tax cuts hurt the deficit more than anything the Democrats have done in Congress. Look like the fiscally responsible party in Washington and paint the GOP as the reckless bunch of panderers they are.

This is a good presidential moment, and I would really hate to see President Obama let it slip away.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy either:

The Republican National Committee has cancelled a fundraiser with conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who is under fire for promoting an edited video that falsely portrays former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod as having boasted about discriminating against a white farmer looking for her assistance.

Breitbart was scheduled to appear with RNC Chairman Michael Steele at a reception later this month in Beverly Hills.

Of course the RNC is treading lightly here. Breitbart is the BFF of the right-wing blogosphere and teabaggers, and the RNC doesn’t want to upset them, so they are in spin mode on the cancellation:

We are working on scheduling and we fully plan to have another event scheduled soon based on our existing trips to California,” an RNC spokesman said in a statement sent to CNN.

The spokesman said the fundraiser was cancelled “To better capitalize on the fall fundraising season that happens post-Labor Day, while also lowering costs by utilizing existing trips to California.”

The party that doesn’t mind spending thousands on strippers is now wanting to lower costs? Sure they are.

I try to stay out of the antics of America’s most desperate soap opera, The Wasiila-Billies, but this latest saga has way too many indicators that Sarah Palin is gearing up for a run in 2012.

Last week news broke via People Magazine that Levi Johnston issued a major mea culpa to the Palin family:

"Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry. Unfortunately, against my better judgment, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true," he tells PEOPLE exclusively. "I have already privately apologized to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologize."

Bristol added her own statement Tuesday saying, "Part of co-parenting is creating healthy and honest relationships between the parents. Tripp one day needs to know the truth and needs to know that even if a mistake is made the honorable thing to do is to own up to it."

After all the talk and interviews, Levi is saying he made is all up? Something seemed weird when this news broke. Well today that weirdness has been replaced with clarity:

Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston reveal exclusively in the new Us Weekly that they are getting married.

And, they tell Us Weekly, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been kept in the dark about their plans ... until now.

"We got engaged two weeks ago," Bristol, 19, tells Us Weekly. "It felt right, even though we don’t have the approval of our parents."

I highly doubt that Sarah was “kept in the dark” about this. Palin has proven that her children are very much a tool for her political career. That can be seen in the way she would lug Trig out on stage at all hours of the day around the country, when he was not even a year old.

Now we have one of the other little nasty episodes in the Palin saga magically getting cleaned up, and only a few months before the 2012 presidential primary will really kick off. This sounds like a case of “cleaning up loose ends” to me and Sarah Palin will be running in 2012.

If the Republicans don't win the House back in the fall, then they have a backup plan:

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) is trying to foment a long-shot Democratic rebellion against Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that would install House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in her place after the November elections.

The scenario, as Simpson sees it, runs like this: Democrats lose a bunch of seats but cling to a narrow majority. If a handful of Democrats withhold their votes for Pelosi, Democrats would have to put up another candidate, or else Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) would become Speaker.

“I’m trying to help Steny,” Simpson said with a smile. “If it gets close enough, six or eight Blue Dogs could make the difference,” he added, referring to the Blue Dog Coalition of fiscally conservative House Democrats.

Simpson said a similar dynamic toppled Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) from the Speaker’s post after losses in the 1998 elections left Republicans clinging to a narrow majority.

You got to give Republicans credit for one thing; they don't hide their hatred for Nancy Pelosi. Having said that, this sounds like a plan to make the House as dysfunctional as the Senate.

That according to Joe Scarborough:

From The Huffington Post:

"I hear it on the Hill, I'm sure you hear it on the Hill all the time, it's not reported, but so many Republicans tell me this is a guy that is not the hardest worker in the world," said Scarborough on Wednesday's edition of Morning Joe. "Every Republican I talk to says John Boehner, by 5 or 6 o'clock at night, you can see him at bars. He is not a hard worker."

And Boehner’s office doesn’t really seem to be denying it either:

"Boehner grew up with 11 brothers and sisters, and his dad owned a bar, but the only time he's 'around town' these days is to raise money for our House Republican team. Thus far this year, he's headlined more than 230 events and raised about $27 million. And that's just the beginning."

As a person represented by John Boehner, I have a serious problem with this. Our county (and John’s) is in serious financial trouble. Our sheriff’s office just did some major layoffs, and now we got 4 on duty at any given time to cover a huge area. All these troubles go on and yet our representative seems oblivious to them.

And to give an idea of how bad he is, just ask anyone around here what Boehner has done for his district. No one can ever mention anything. This area is very Republican, and those people will continue to vote from him just because of the R, but they all admit he is useless.

Hopefully this year we can get rid of smoky John and replace him with a real representative.

<p>I think this is one of the best ideas I have <a href="http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0629/conyers-throws-grayson-cosponsors-war-making-poor-act/">ever heard out of Congress:</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It seems that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) would agree, perpetual war is making you poor.</p>

  <p>To begin rectifying the situation, he's joined with Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) in co-sponsoring the &quot;War is Making You Poor Act,&quot; which would limit defense spending to $548.9 billion: the exact figure alloted in the fiscal year 2011 budget.</p>

  <p>The act also seeks to utilize an additional $159.3 billion set aside for &quot;discretionary&quot; operations abroad to relieve the full federal income tax burden on every American's first $35,000 earned per year, or up to $70,000 per year for married couples.</p>

  <p>According to <a href="http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/06/rep_john_conyers_co-sponsoring.html">Detroit publication MLive</a>, Conyers, who chairs the powerful <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/about/bio.html">House Committee on the Judiciary</a>, is adding his name to the roster of support.</p>

  <p>&quot;I believe that the thing we need to do is to take that $159 billion that the President has set aside – we’re not saying he has to stop the war, we’re not giving a cut-off date for the war – we’re simply saying you need to fund that out of the base budget of $549 billion,&quot; Grayson said of his bill. &quot;And we take 90 percent of that and give it back to the American people.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I can’t wait to hear how the Republicans talk about this plan. You are talking about one of the biggest tax cuts in history and it will affect the entire nation. It doesn’t matter if you make $20,000 a year or $2,000,000 a year. Will the Republicans blast that? You can count on it.</p>

<p>Grayson <a href="http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=34">does have a petition going</a> to help this gain steam. Hopefully everyone will sign on. Even if it doesn’t become law, it would provide one hell of a debate.</p>

While House rules prevent Democrats from using the video of Joe Barton yesterday on the campaign trail, they can still hammer away on his apology to BP for the "shakedown" Obama did to them.

This statement by Barton is a national treasure for Democrats. They can run simple commercials telling what he said and pointing out that if Republicans regain control of the House that Barton would become the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is the main oversight committee of the oil industry.

Add to that the fact that Barton's biggest contributors are from the energy industry:

Now you got a great commercial to run against any Republican:

Representative Joe Barton apologized to British Petroleum for the President demanding they pay for all damages incurred by the oil spill. This is not shocking coming from a person who enjoys a majority of his campaign contributions from the energy committee, but is this what America needs?

As the ranking Republican of the powerful Energy and Commerce committee, Joe Barton holds a lot of control over what happens in the oil industry. Do we need Joe Barton as the chairman of this powerful committee? A vote for John Boehner would put Joe Barton one vote closer to taking the gavel and offering the oil industry extra protection.

Barton's statement doesn't need to effect just Barton, but the Republicans overall. Other Republicans have made similar statements, like Michelle Bachmann, but Barton is by far the most powerful. If Democrats take this gift and seize on it then it could really affect the outcome in November.

And as far as using the video, well nothing says that PACs can't do that. It's time for different political organizations to put up video around the country of what Barton said. Show Americans that Republicans are on the side of big oil and not Americans.

Harry Reid's job security just got a little better:

Nevada Senate nominee Sharron Angle, a tea party favorite who describes herself as a conservative's conservative, left the Republican Party at the height of the Reagan revolution and became a Democrat for at least several years, government records show.

Documents on file with the Humboldt County, Nev., clerk's office show Angle was a registered Republican until June 1984, when she changed her party registration. According to the records, she remained a Democrat at least until March 1988, when she moved from Winnemucca to Tonopah, another rural community in Nye County.

Angle has given no hint of her Democratic past on the campaign trail. She invoked President Ronald Reagan's name on the night she captured the GOP nomination to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and been a relentless critic of the Obama administration.

OOPS! It looks like Tea Bagger Angle didn't care to much for the GOP's messiah. That could spell even more troubles for her.

Rand Paul used to claim he was a Libertarian, but now he is trying to distance himself from that association:

Republican Rand Paul said Tuesday he differs with the Libertarian Party by opposing abortion and supporting judicious overseas troop deployment, distancing himself from the party his father once represented in a presidential election.

The U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky told syndicated conservative talk show host Sean Hannity that he doesn't fit the mold of a Libertarian. Paul said his conservative social views and willingness to send troops abroad to protect the U.S. set him apart from the party some have tried to associate him with.

"Instead of maybe saying we're never anywhere overseas, I say we need to be more judicious in where we are, in that I don't think we can afford to be everywhere all the time," Paul said. "But it also doesn't mean that we never intervene and that we can allow people to attack us."

So the government can't tell business what to do, but they can tell women what to do with their health? For someone trying to improve their image, that sounds awfully sexist.

And how about all his talk about government spending? This country spends more on defense than anything else, and Paul is now defending our current spending and willing to do more?

For those people who thought Rand Paul was an outside that would bring new thinking into Washington, you got played. He now has his handlers changing him into a typical politician and he will quickly conform to the beltway thinking so many of us on the left and right hate.

First we had some anonymous White House official blasting labor for supporting Bill Halter in the Arkansas Democratic Primary. Now we got some other senior Democrat doing the same. From Sam Stein:

Another senior Democrat (who also would not be quoted by name) echoed the point in an exchange with the Huffington Post. "Labor is humiliated," the source said. "$10 million flushed down the toilet at a time when Democrats across the country are fighting for their lives, they look like absolute idiots."

This is nothing but the kind of "inside the beltway" thinking that Americans are tired of. It also seems like there's a general tone being struck here. Compare the above statement to the one from last night:

"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toiled on a pointless exercise," the official said. "If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."

There is one similarity that keeps sticking out at me - November. It sounds like the beltway gang is preparing to scapegoat labor for any losses in November.

Another meme is also being struck here. On Morning Joe this morning, Mark Whitaker was saying that labor backing other candidates shows that Obama is not in charge of the Democratic Party. Well that assessment is totally ass backwards. As the AFL-CIO stated last night, they are not part of the Democratic Party.

But there is proof that Obama isn't doing a good job leading the party, and this proves it. It's not labor he has to worry about - it's these anonymous sources out blasting labor. Could you imagine someone in the Bush White House saying "these pro-lifers are just wasting their money"? Karl Rove would have that person renditioned.

President Obama needs to get better control on messaging. He needs to make a statement himself saying that he totally disagrees with these statements and that Labor is a strong force in America that must continue to fight for their people.

In midterm elections the base counts big time. If senior Democrats want to alienate a large portion of that base through anonymous insults, then the losses in November will be at the fault of the Democratic Party and the President.

Now that Blanche Lincoln has been able to hold onto her job, we are to expect little jabs from the right on how "the progressives lost big tonight". That, despite being untrue, is to be expected, but this is not:

A senior White House official just called me with a very pointed message for the administration's sometime allies in organized labor, who invested heavily in beating Blanche Lincoln, Obama's candidate, in Arkanas.

"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toiled on a pointless exercise," the official said. "If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."

Whoever this "administration official" is needs to be fired. Labor makes up a major chunk of the base for the left, and for someone at Obama's White House to make such a statement is in insult and indefensible. Maybe labor will tell the White House that they just flushed a huge chunk of their base?

This is the kind of typical politics that so many of us are tired of, and the kind we had hoped Obama was above. Sadly that hope is dead, unless Obama gets his political act together and get rid of these people.

UPDATE:

The AFL-CIO has fired back:

"If that's their take on this, then they severely misread how the electorate feels and how we're running our political program. When we say we're only going to support elected officials who support our issues," said AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale. "When they say we should have targeted our money among some key house races among Blue Dog Democrats --that ain't happening." 

"Labor isn't an arm of the Democratic Party," Vale said. "It exists to suport working families. And that's what we said tonight, and that's what we're gong to keep saying."

That's a great response. With November not looking too bright for Democrats, does the White House really want to piss off this powerhouse?

After 40 years, Al and Tipper Gore are separating. Talk about a total shock and something that will dominate the news cycle the next 24 hours.

I was just watching Bill Maher and they were talking about the Joe Sestak deal. The talk was about how the right wants to impeach President Obama over this, despite nothing illegal being done. Patrick Ruffini, a former Bush adviser, defended this by saying "Obama promised not to do this stuff", to which Jonathon Alter responded "this is the criminalization of politics". Nothing could be more true.

But if we are going down this road, then how about our last President, the man Ruffini worked for? His campaign in 2000 was based on "restoring integrity to the Oval Office", and we all see how that went. Restoring integrity was firing federal prosecutors for political reasons? How much integrity is involved in outing a covert CIA agent?

So if the Republicans want to play this game then it's time to also look at Bush. As matter of fact we might as well look at every President since George Washington, because what happened between Obama and Sestak and Obama "breaking campaign promises" has happened since our first President and with every single one since then.

There has been non-stop talk this week about Joe Sestak's job offer by the Obama administration if he wouldn't run against Arlen Specter. Now we have some answers:

Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he'd be open to other alternatives, according to sources familiar with the situation.

But the White House maintains that the Clinton-Sestak discussions were informal, according to the sources. The White House, under pressure to divulge the specifics of its interactions with Sestak, will release a formal statement later today outlining their version of events, including Clinton's involvement.

As Gregg points out, the fact that Clinton was actually involved in this shows how much the White House didn't want Specter to have to face Sestak in the primary. Regardless, I still don't see anything illegal, or even unethical in this. These are the type of games that happen in Washington all the time. Sure the people are tired of it, but Democratic and Republican administrations have both engaged in the same practices for decades. The Republicans calling for a special prosecutor is nothing more than a grand stand, but given that Clinton is involved now, I'm sure they will push it even more.

UPDATE:

Per a breaking news alert from AP, Clinton suggested an "unpaid, advisory role" to Sestak. So it wasn't even an actual "job", but rather letting Sestak stay in the House and also act as an advisor. Nothing wrong with that.