If you thought the 2010 election–in which Republicans were able to cast themselves to seniors as the protectors of Medicare against Democratic cuts–was bad, just wait for 2012. Republicans are already preparing to run the same play in 2012, but this time with Social Security. Democratic losses among older voters will be a blood bath.

The money was authorized, but not appropriated. The appropriation has still yet to be made. It could be tucked into virtually any bill that comes up in the lame duck session, but that’s probably its last hope. After that, Republicans gain control of the House, and John Boehner doesn’t strike me as a “let’s give money to poor people facing foreclosure so they can have good lawyers” type.

I guess some deadbeats are more equal than other deadbeats.

Earlier this year, while Stanley McChrystal still headed US forces in Afghanistan, McChrystal lost control of messaging and stories began to come out revealing the extent to which Special Operations Forces night raids were alienating Afghan civilians. One of the more telling reports was by Anand Gopal, where he described in detail the anguish of families who lose members to these intrusions into family compounds, with loved ones disappearing into a secret prison system. Shortly after that report, we had the disgusting revelation of Special Operations Forces carving their bullets out of the dead bodies of women they killed in a botched raid on a family compound. Somehow, even though the number of these night raids has increased dramatically since David Petraeus has taken over after McChrystal was fired, stories detailing the horrors of night raids and the deaths and destruction caused to families who are incorrectly targeted have not appeared as frequently as they did in the spring. This weekend, the silence on night raids was broken by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and that action sent David Petraeus into a toddler-level pout.

We deserve to see precisely which ConservaDems think that maintaining the tax rates from the last 10 years, a time of the worst wage and employment growth in postwar history, represents good economic sense. At least the leadership would then be seen as putting up a fight. I agree that you can sometimes win by losing by standing on principle and using that as the basis to make your case.

The White House is convinced that they lost the midterms because they alienated “the middle” — that they spent too much and didn’t cooperate with Republicans enough.

If Democrats actually want to win political fights, they need to pose a stark choice between their own position and that of the Republicans.

Today begins the final two months of the Democratic majority in the House, and the large majority in the Senate. So what do Democrats plan to do with that majority, as well as their 255-178 spread in the House? Not a heck of a lot. The lame duck session will be dominated by talk about what to do on the Bush tax cuts, but there are some other issues that are likely to get taken up as well.

Richard Wolffe is doing the rounds, promoting his new book Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House. Looks like the White House is in “blame Rahm” mode:

Not only were there F-35s traded for a settlement freeze, the U.S. has agreed not to recognize declared preliminary Palestinian statehood for the second time in 20 years.