CNN:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday morning indicates that 38 percent of the public blames Republicans for the country's current economic problems. In May, 53 percent blamed the GOP.

According to the poll, 27 percent now blame the Democrats for the recession, up 6 points from May, and 27 percent now say both parties are responsible.

"The bad news for the Democrats is that the number of Americans who hold the GOP exclusively responsible for the recession has been steadily falling by about two to three points per month," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. "At that rate, only a handful of voters will blame the economy on the Republicans by the time next year's midterm elections roll around.."

And so much for the green shoots:

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

Eric Holder's recent announcement on detainees was covered mainly for his decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) to New York for trial. Less noted was the designation of military tribunals for five others. Civil libertarians objected to it, with Glen Greenwald doing a fine job summarizing their argument ("what we have is a multi-tiered justice system, where only certain individuals are entitled to real trials: namely, those whom the Government is convinced ahead of time it can convict.")

Here we go again.

Violet today reiterates the warning signs that led us to a day where House Democrats voted through a health insurance reform bill that effectively bans abortion, and reminds us what we need to do:

Word to the wise, girls: if a guy calls you a filthy cunt or a whiny bitch, if he says Hillary Clinton is a hag from hell, if he calls her supporters the dry pussy brigade, if he talks about punish-raping the rebels, this guy is not a feminist. Which means that he doesn’t really give a shit about women’s rights. Which means that his commitment to your reproductive freedom is about as firm as a tomato seed. Which means he will sell you out. In a god. damn. heartbeat....

Krugman:

[T]he G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

If only the same thing would happen with the Democrats!

Krugman asks, and answers "politics" (that is, right wing bromides like "government is the problem"). Of course:

After all, single payer would only save $350 billion dollars a year! And where do we read about this? Our famously free press? Not. Our tribunes of the people on the "progressive" access blogs? You're joking. No, we hear it from a local PA blog with a union connection:

Word from the Physicians for a National Health Program is that the flood of calls has forced Pelosi to allow 20 minutes of debate and a vote on the floor for the Weiner amendment this Friday. This amendment will substitute most of the language of HR 676 for the current bill and establish a Medicare for All system of healthcare.

Swanson agrees, calling it kabuki.

What Avedon said:

So Orrin Hatch spilled the beans from the GOP side - that we can't pass health care reform because it would be good for the Democratic Party - as if the recent eight years of Republican rule haven't already had a similar effect. Now, if only the Democratic leadership would come clean about their reasons for not wanting good health care reform, which, while not particularly partisan, seems to be just plain corruption. Not that the Republicans aren't at least as corrupt, but they're focus on partisanship is tied directly to their ideology, while the Democratic leadership's focus on "bipartisanship" is in direct opposition to their claimed ideology.

Frank Rich in his column about the GOP meltdown in upstate NY's congressional race:

The same Republicans who once deplored Democrats for refusing to let an anti-abortion dissident, Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, speak at the 1992 Clinton convention now routinely banish any dissenters in their own camp.

Steve Benen

'DELAY, DEFINE AND DERAIL'.... Roll Call reports today on what we can expect to see from the Senate GOP caucus as the debate over health care reform enters the final stretch.

Senate Republicans, acknowledging they lack the votes to block a health care reform bill outright, have implemented a comprehensive political strategy to delay, define and derail. [...]

The Republicans have been very candid that their strategy is to sabotage the Obama Presidency so that things get worse for American and Republicans can get back in power.

Are conservatives paranoid and delusional? Let's take a look:

An eye-opening new report* from the Democratic-aligned research organization Democracy Corps suggests that conservative Republicans, the majority of the GOP base, harbor a well-developed, consistent, peculiar worldview about President Obama and his “hidden agenda” for the country. Armed with “facts” from conservative media, these individuals, fully 2/3 of the Republican Party at this point according to Democracy Corps estimates, believe that the President has been installed by powerful interests to enact socialist policies, violate the Constitution and destroy America. Independents and even GOP-leaning moderates exhibit none of these characteristics, making life difficult for GOP leaders who must choose between support inside the party and support in the country.

But -- work with me here -- how paranoid and delusional is that conclusion?

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
- Will Rogers

Frustration with Democratic leadership seemed to boil over in the last week or so. It began (as far as I can tell) with John Aravosis' withering criticism of the president over his speech last weekend at a Human Rights Campaign event. He wrote of "concerns about President Obama's inaction, and backtracking" on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy towards gays. The criticism led to backlash (here is a good example) and tensions have been high all around since. In a way Obama is not the right target, and some have acknowledged that even as they urge him to act. Vermont Law School Associate Professor of Law Jackie Gardina advocates his taking action on DADT, but acknowledges all he can change is the implementation. Overturning it can only be done by Congress. The same is true for DOMA. While it may be more appealing to focus all criticism on a single target, the fact is that these changes will only be durable when the legislature acts. The president is obviously not a passive figure in all this - he can urge Congress to act, give moral support to the effort through his rhetoric (something that has curiously been treated as largely irrelevant on this issue) and otherwise encourage action on these issues, but in the end the action is at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Yes, our old favorite Boohooman has followed up on his venting with a thumbsucker on his deep spiritual dilemma: Whether to keep on being a fan, or try to figure out how to become an engaged citizen. I wish him well, and hope he feels free to take all the time he needs working things out.

Fact-esque has a long post up that works through the answer to that question, using the health care debacle as the case study. Read the whole thing, because I'm about to summarize it, no doubt badly:

The brilliant Democrat policy of following Republican-style divide-and-conquer tactics in the healthcare bill is having the unsurprising and perfectly predictable effect of splitting two of the party's once stalwart base groups by forcing one to pay for the other and threatening the second's coverage.

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

My response to Natasha on why she's quite right to worry about "Conscience Clause" expansion and other slip-sliding further into a rightwing agenda:

Sadly, progressives have done the opposite of giving themselves leverage on issues like this.

Most are reticent to criticize Obama or "make him do it," and most are content amusing themselves with the foibles of the rump Republican Party (Look, over there -- Sarah Palin! How about that Joe Wilson!)

Times Online:

[Do read the comments. --lambert]

[Just cross-posted to Kos. How about a recommendation? And welcome, Eschatonians, Paul Krugman, Digby, Andrew Tobias, and Sadly, No readers. And Avedon, you know I do.]

[And readers, if you want others to read this post, you can use the Digg or Reddit buttons below to recommend it.]

ONE CURRENT PERMATHREAD on Big Orange is that Krugman and Obama are feuding or having a vendetta. Which, when you take a step back, is bizarre. That movement conservatives and Villagers like stone Bush enabler William Kristol, like David Brooks, Broderella, and Andrew Sullivan are all good with Obama isn't even mentioned in passing by Obama's fan base. And yet those same enthusiasts spend inordinate amounts of time vilifying Paul Krugman, a true progressive who was there for us from the earliest dark days of the Bush regime.

Curious. What's really happening?  Read more…