Friday, January 8, 2010

Crap. (VIDEO)

He's doin' it. Harold's gonna run, but in New York this time, not Tennessee.

After weeks of bashing hard-left Liberals, let me take a moment to bash ConservaDem Harold Ford. He comes from a rich family that owns most of Nashville, at least that's what I was told by a Nashville native back in the day. He must think the Senate is his birthright.

Whoever told him that going to a Playboy SuperBowl Party, no matter how innocent, despite the fact he's a single guy, was giving him bad advice. No matter how innocent it was, it allowed Bob Corker to take this racist cheap shot at him:

I'm no fan of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) either. She was an awful pick by Gov. Patterson, but don't want to lose this seat. Just as she's being pushed to the left (NYC apparently doesn't trust her), this happens. What the hell makes him think this is going to work?

The Fireside chat for January 8, 2010

The President discusses the benefits of health reform that Americans will receive in the first year, and how reform will help build a new foundation for American families.

Mr. 9/11... (VIDEO)

From this morning on ABC. The man who started every sentence with a noun, a verb and 9/11 now forgets the whole thing ever happened.

And lest we forget, classic Vice-President Biden goodness:

Thursday, January 7, 2010

The one aspect where the Senate Bill is (gulp) better than the House bill??

There are two things to remember about Health Care Reform. One, is that's it's like a old Pipe Organ. Push a button here...sound comes out there. Getting from A to B ain't no easy trick. The inner workings to make that happen are real complicated. Changing one thing you may not like may wind up killing four or five things you do. Two, it's also very, very counter-intuitive at times.

Thus, I present a new piece from Erza on the Excise Tax and its critics. The more I read about this stuff, the more I come to believe (and not in a nose-holding way) that the Financing aspect of the Senate bill is infinitely superior to the House bill, though the House bill is superior in the Health Care and Insurance Reform aspects.

And, it goes without saying that any bill with a Public Option would have been superior to that...

...and something with a Single Payer superior to a Public Opt--...okay, I'm stopping.

A couple of highlights:

Before you really get into whether the excise tax is a good thing, though, you have to be clear about what it is. It's generally compared with the House's surtax on the rich. But all taxes are not alike. The House's surtax is a tax that's meant to raise revenue, much like an income tax. The excise tax is a tax that's meant to change behavior, much like a cigarette tax.

To make that even clearer, the House's surtax will only be successful if people pay it. The excise tax will only be successful if people don't pay it. And if that happens -- and many economists, and the Joint Committee on Taxation (which is the CBO for taxes), believe it will -- it will give plans that hold costs down a competitive advantage over plans that don't, and it will send a signal to insurers that they're vulnerable if they don't crack down on spending.


For all that, no one should be under the illusion that this tax will not cause some pain, or upset some voters, or assail the plans of some middle-class workers. It will. But it's worth saying this very clearly: You cannot design a cost control that won't. The health-care cost problem is not a problem of the rich and famous. It is not a problem that can be painlessly solved by limiting insurance company profits (much, much too small) or reducing payments to providers (which would mean long waits and less access). Everything has tradeoffs. Everything has losers.

But click and read it. It's eye-opening stuff.

"We will define the character of our country, not some band of small men intent on killing innocent men, women and children..." (VIDEO)

Somehow, I think the White House knew that'd be the line of the day...

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Let me cut right to the good stuff:

I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer, for ultimately the buck stops with me. As president, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people, and when the system fails, it is my responsibility.

Over the past two weeks, we've been reminded again of the challenge we face in protecting our country against a foe that is bent on our destruction. And while passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let's be clear about what this moment demands.

We are at war. We are at war against Al Qaida, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.

And we've made progress. Al Qaida's leadership is hunkered down. We have worked closely with partners, including Yemen, to inflict major blows against Al Qaida leaders. And we have disrupted plots at home and abroad and saved American lives.

And we know that the vast majority of Muslims reject Al Qaida. But it is clear that Al Qaida increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations, not just in the Middle East but in Africa and other places, to do their bidding.

That's why I've directed my national security team to develop a strategy that addresses the unique challenges posed by lone recruits. And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that Al Qaida offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death, including the murder of fellow Muslims, while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress.

To advance that progress we've sought new beginnings with Muslim communities around the world, one in which we engage on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect and work together to fulfill the aspirations that all people share -- to get an education, to work with dignity, to live in peace and security.

That's what America believes in. That's the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists.

Here at home, we will strengthen our defenses, but we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish as Americans, because great and proud nations don't hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. That is exactly what our adversaries want. And so long as I am president, we will never hand them that victory.

We will define the character of our country, not some band of small men intent on killing innocent men, women and children.

And in this cause, every one of us -- every American, every elected official -- can do our part. Instead of giving in to cynicism and division, let's move forward with the confidence and optimism and unity that defines us as a people, for now is not a time for partisanship, it's a time for citizenship, a time to come together and work together with the seriousness of purpose that our national security demands.

That's what it means to be strong in the face of violent extremism. That's how we will prevail in this fight. And that's how we will protect our country and pass it, safer and stronger, to the next generation.

Cadillac Plans...

Oh, you should only be so lucky as to have one of these.

Of course, you'd be contributing to the ever-rising cost of Health Care.

Now, while one of my least favorite Progressives, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is saying that President Obama is violating a campaign pledge by supporting the Excise Tax in the Senate Health Bill in a (hopefully) futile attempt to kill the bill, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) posts (at Huffington Post of all places) why Rep. Grijalva is full of @#$%.

First, striking this provision from the final bill will make it much more difficult to pass final health reform legislation in the Senate and that's a huge mistake when we're closer than ever to completing a journey that began with Harry Truman. If passing health care reform was easy, it would've happened decades ago. It's not. It requires tough choices. And it's worth it.

Second, this is an idea that will help health reform succeed in the long run. It will create competition and place sunshine on the process of pricing health insurance premiums.

Third, it will help control future health care costs without -- I repeat without -- directly taxing employees. Unlike a cap on the existing tax exclusion of health insurance benefits, which I oppose, this provision will not require employees to include a portion of their employer provided benefits as part of their taxable wages.

Fourth, the excise tax included in the Senate-passed health care bill will affect only a small portion of the very highest cost health plans -- a total of 3% of premiums in 2013. The vast majority of health plans fall below the thresholds set in the Senate plan and would be completely unaffected by the provision. In addition, the Senate plan provides special protections to plans held by workers in high-risk professions -- like police and firefighters -- as well as by those over 55.

Fifth, for the small sub-set of plans that are affected, the likely impact will be to increase workers' wages. MIT economist Jon Gruber recently found that the excise tax included in the Senate bill would lead employers to raise wages by $223 billion between 2010 and 2019. In 2019, wages for those affected by the provision will be higher by about $660 per household. I repeat -- raise wages. After spending years and years hearing from workers tired of seeing their unions forced to spend all of their energy at the bargaining table just to hold on to health care instead of negotiating for better wages, we now have a way to help increase wages and improve health care simultaneously.

Look, make no mistake, I didn't cook this idea up because I think it's the best or the only way to improve health care -- but it's a good idea that also helps get health care passed. And if there's one thing Ted Kennedy taught us all, it's that in legislating on core issues, you seize those moments and marry the practical and the policy.

Does the Senate-passed bill cast too broad a net by setting the excise tax threshold too low? Yes. This could affect some of the hardest working American families. So let's fix it, not nix it. I believe the final health care reform bill will include appropriate adjustments to preserve its cost containing benefits while increasing the fairness of this provision. But let's get back to the business of doing that instead of fighting to kill a provision that improves health care -- and improves the chances of passing health care this month.

The article that convinced me of the importance of the Excise Tax is here, written by Erza Klein.

Over the course of this debate, I've repeatedly talked with union leaders and analysts who wanted to convince me of their side. One of the arguments they frequently used was that they had negotiated their contracts knowing that a dollar in health benefits was worth more than a dollar in wages, because it's exempt from taxation. That, of course, is exactly the problem. The current system sets up an incentive for workers to prefer that relatively more of their total compensation comes in the form of health benefits than wages. At a time when we need pressures to control costs, that's an incentive to increase them. As the CWA example shows, a lot of people have benefited from this system up until now, but at some point, we need to call a stop to it.

Senator Ed?

I've stopped listening to and watching Ed Schultz in recent months because of his "my way is the only way" stance on the Health Care Debate. My plan was to give it about a year, and see calm the waters were before wading back in.

But now this matter of Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D-ND) retirement has come up, an since Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) isn't going to run, Ed's name has come up as a possible candidate for the Senate Seat.

And I think he's seriously considering it.

Here's the deal. Byron Dorgan was a bit of an odd political duck. He was a Liberal Senator, from a blood red state, that routinely whupped his opposition by 30-60 points an election. Now that Dorgan is retiring (and don't be surprised if he's not the first name on the list for any cabinet vacancies in the Obama Administration) the current and popular Republican governor of North Dakota, John Hoeven, would look to be a shoo-in. So Ed has got to know that he might be the only shot the Democrats have at holding the seat...short of Dorgan changing his mind.

Now, Ed's got a fairly popular MSNBC Show...even though I've deleted it from my DVR. It's taken him a long time to get where he is. To give the Ed Show up (which he'll have to do) in order to run for a seat he might not win has got to be weighing on him. But I also know for a fact that he loathes Hoeven, in much the same way Al Franken despised Norm Coleman. Ed might want to stay in TV, but I know he'd love to take a shot at Hoeven. It's almost more important to him than holding the seat.

So, the long and the short of it is, I don't know what he's going to do. Ed is couching his language veeeerrry carefully. He's not ruling it in...but he's sure as hell not ruling it out. If you asked me for a prediction, I think he might do it.

I must warn you that my predictions are worthless at this stage. I thought Ken Salazar was going to run for Governor of Colorado, and ten seconds after I had that thought...this appeared.

Also, Dad reminded me this morning, if nothing else, Ed's running might demonstrate to show progressives that their way does not always command 50%.

We'll see. More on this as it comes.

Air Health Care... (VIDEO)

What was once in text, now is in video.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

The President's Speech of January 5, 2010 on TSA and Terrorism (VIDEO)

MSNBC: "Doesn‘t it seem weird to build the same failed system all over again with the same known obvious loopholes?" (VIDEO)

It's rare when I put up some Rachel, so...bear that in mind.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

That is the implicit and sometimes explicit charge here, that President Bush somehow did it right, and President Obama is somehow doing it wrong.

It‘s worth noting that whatever we as a country were doing on September 12th and in the weeks after, doesn't seem to have worked all that well. It was about three months after September 12th that we got the failed terrorist attack that was essentially exactly like the one that happened this Christmas Day. Three months after 9/11, Richard Reid tried to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner with explosives that had been hidden in his shoes. Whatever we were doing with our 9/12 mentality wasn't enough to prevent that.

Our 9/12 mentality also wasn‘t able to prevent the growth and maturation of al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, al Qaeda chapters in Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, strong enough to pull off major terrorist strikes like the raid on the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in 2004, which left nine dead, the attack on oil company compounds in Al-Khubar in Saudi Arabia that same year that left 22 people dead, and the brutal murder of American engineer Paul Johnson also in Saudi Arabia in 2004.

An article in Sunday‘s “Washington Post” detailed the extent to which United States‘ missteps in Yemen allowed al Qaeda to expand and grow there as well.

This super-focus 9/12 mentality that conservatives now say we need to return also wasn‘t able to capture the perpetrators of 9/11, as we learned incidentally from last week‘s suicide bombing that killed seven CIA officers in Khost, Afghanistan. We are still looking for Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The Jordanian double agent recruited by the CIA was brought in to help U.S. officials find Zawahiri, 8 ½ years after our super focus 9/12 mentality.

The danger in these Bush policies being romanticized and retroactively imbued with some sort of magical efficacy they didn‘t really have is that we may start putting those failed policies in place again.

Today, we heard President Obama announce a new program for screening passengers coming into the United States.

That program was formally announced by the TSA this week. It calls for extra screening procedures for passengers traveling to the United States from 14 foreign countries.

That type of program, of course, evokes roughly one of the things the Bush administration did starting in 2002 when John Ashcroft announced a new system wherein any male under the age of 25 from this list of countries would have to register with authorities if they were working or visiting or living in the United States. It was called the NSEERS System.

That system that performed extremely well, produced precisely zero terrorism prosecutions. But it did turn a whole lot of people against the United States for a lifetime. It might make us feel better to have that sort of list, but those countries we just scrolled on the screen, you may have noticed didn't include the nations of Jamaica or England. Remember the shoe bomber, Richard Reid? He was a British citizen born to a family of Jamaican immigrants. He was radicalized at a mosque in London.

So, our super focus 9/12 mentality came up with the hugely costly, arguably quite counterproductive system that would not have screened out the next attempted bomber anyway.

By the way, the new Obama administration list from the TSA also doesn't include Jamaica and England. Not that it should. Not that there‘s anything special about Jamaica or England, but if we're trying to apply even the wisdom of hindsight here, doesn't it seem weird to build the same failed system all over again with the same known obvious loopholes?

It‘s one thing to pound your chest and brag on profiling because it makes liberals mad and it makes you feel tough. But how does the fact that it doesn't work intrude on your macho, macho feelings about it?

The danger of the Bush administration‘s approach being lauded as this good, tough approach that we wish we went back to is that it will currently increase the political appeal of emulating those failed approaches, being gratuitously unconstitutional in order to look tough is not the same thing as actually keeping us safe. No matter how much Mr. Obama's critics may want it to be so.

The "Simpler Time" in American History... (VIDEO)

If left to my own devices, I could easily turn giant swaths of this blog over to Daily Show clips.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Even Better Than the Real Thing
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Ralph Nader is a racist.

As I said before, we're starting to see something of a Liberal pushback against other Liberals in the media. Hendrik Hertzberg's piece in the New Yorker is merely the most literate example of this.

But there was a another quote mentioned in the piece that got my attention. One saying that Obama is, and I quote:

" Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations that are running our country.”

Sarah Palin picture, anyone?

Yes, I had a problem with this! (In case the title of this article didn't clue you in.)

If this was the first time Ralph Nader had used racially charged rhetoric in regards to this particular President, I'd have just been angry at him. But it's not.

It's the fourth.

June 25, 2008. Rocky Mountain News.

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic Party nominee, of downplaying poverty issues, trying to "talk white" and appealing to "white guilt" during his run for the White House.

July 28, 2008. Raw Story, in one that really bugged the @#$% out of me.

During a Sunday press conference and campaign rally attended by RAW STORY, Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader claimed that liberals and Democrats who will vote for Sen. Barack Obama as the "least worst candidate" are actually trapped in "political slavery."

And finally, November 5, 2008. Salon's War Room, where he said this crap...again.

During a radio interview on Election Day, independent candidate Ralph Nader said of Barack Obama, "His choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations."

Okay, Nader supporters...what am I to conclude from this? Believe me when I say, there are plenty of ways to go after this President. I know this because I've watched you do it for the last six months, and as wrongheaded as I think some of the criticism has been, as much as it has pissed me off...I can't recall a single instance (and I've been trying) where Liberals and/or Progressives on this site or others resorted to racial rhetoric to get their point across.

Things have gotten plenty heated between the various clans of Liberals (though the polling doesn't back that up), but y'all have never gone there.

So why is Ralph Nader, your supposed hero, ALWAYS GOING THERE?!!?

Newsflash, white folks. Because of your history with African-Americans, because of slavery, Jim Crow, and the general crappy way you've treated us for the last three hundred years (as America's only involuntary immigrants), you have lost the collective right to use certain bits of the language.

Don't like it? Tough. You never paid up forty acres and a mule. I think you got off cheap.

Mr. Nader may think that by using incendiary language he's going to quote-unquote "wake people up", but what he's really telling me that he's got an inferiority problem. Like the Tea-Baggers, the Birthers, and frankly a majority of the GOP, he cannot believe, nor can accept the fact that a black man got elected instead of him. So he's going to go out of his way, to remind himself, that despite the fact that Barack Obama is now the President, he's still superior.

Let's be clear, this is about Ralph Nader. Not about you. Ralph Nader has every right to bash the President, to call him a Corporatist, a sell-out, what have you. He doesn't have the right to inject race into his arguments...

...and still, he keeps doing it.

This is about him. Not about you.

It only becomes about you, should you keep excusing this nonsense.

The only conclusion I can come to is that Ralph Nader has no problem sticking up for the little guy, as long as the little guy knows his place.

Ralph Nader is a racist.

Some of y'all are not going to like that.

Some of y'all need to deal.

Bondad on Krugman...

A little more Krugman pushback, for any of you who are interested.

Krugman is essentially arguing that the current economic news is in fact a "blip" -- good news that is transitory, largely because of the "inventory bounce." He then argues that the good news will all go away soon. But let's look a little further. What's his proof? Notice how there is no mention of a specific set of numbers from the current economic news which bolsters his argument. He is merely saying "it's happened before." Using Krugman's logic we might as well bet on the Florida Marlins to in the World Series this year. Why? They've won it before.

What Krugman is really saying -- and what he should have outright said -- is we're not out of the woods yet and we need to guard against thinking we are out of the woods. That would have been an entirely appropriate argument to make. This is an argument against "getting comfortable" with the current situation when in fact the economy still has a long way to go.

But in defense of Dr. Krugman (who certainly doesn't need me to defend him), I think that's exactly what Krugman was saying...albeit in a slightly more drawn out way.

I've said it before. Krugman is a typical professor (y'know, aside from the New York Times column, New York Times blog, regular appearances on MSNBC, know, the whole...Nobel Laureate thing) in that he's got a universe of knowledge in his head, and sometimes doesn't react well when people don't understand what the hell he's talking about. (Bondad clearly does). This frustration tends to show up in his writing. He also has a tendency, when really, really mad, to ignore political realities and go into "just get it DONE" mode (which Dr. Krugman is kinda in now).

But the fact of the matter is, he does know what he's talking about. He may not have provided numbers in this particular column Bonddad refers to, but he certainly has in the past, and will again in the future. He's worried about 1937. So am I. So are we all.

Do I think Krugman is being overly pessimistic? Yeah, probably...given his history with the Stimulus. But is he right to point out that the same Stimulus might not have been enough? Hellz yeah.

Andrew Sullivan: Praying for an overreaction...

The following is a letter Andrew Sullivan received in regards to the Crotch Bomber, and the nature and true intent of Terrorism. It was so good, I felt a need to repost it here. Andrew advisers his readers to read the whole letter. I advise the same:

I keep hearing this even described as a failed terrorist attack on an airplane. But was it really? I keep hearing about how the system failed, but did it really? Think about it. First, what is the major goal of terrorism? It is not to bring down airplanes. It is not to destroy the West. It is, pure and simple, to create terror in people. Why? Because when people are afraid they overreact. And this includes most of us, yourself included.

If the intent of al Qaeda in this latest instance was to bring down an airplane, then it failed. But if its intent was to create fear and overreaction, then it succeeded Personally, I think it was the latter. It is quite possible (in fact I think probable) that the people who planned this event, and used the young man from Nigeria as a tool, were aware that due to security measures in place, there was no way they could actually get a bomb through that would actually work. The detonation equipment needed would have been detected. The same applies, by the way, to the shoe bomber.

Again, think about it. If you wanted to blow up a plane, would you attempt it from your seat, where somebody could quite possibly stop you? No, you would go to the washroom where you could set off the bomb without disruption.

Of course, if it failed to go off, then people wouldn't necessarily know what you were trying to do. Therefore you have to make sure it is one in the open, or the very failure is perceived as a terrorist attack. The fear result is the same whether or not the bomb goes off.

In addition to the torture lovers advocating a return to waterboarding, the administration sets up more stringent guidelines for air travel (most of which are unlikely to be effective at all) and other people call for the resignation of the head of DHS. In other words, the response is what al Qaeda and other terrorist groups want.

Al Qaeda has lost a lot of its prestige and influence in the Muslim world. They need something to get it back. How better than to do something that creates a reaction on the part of the US or Great Britain that shows just how bad we are and how we are so anti-Islam. After 9/11, recruiting by al Qaeda suffered until we invaded Iraq. That alone increased recruitment. Then when our torture policies became evident, it increased more. Lately, however, it has declined again. If we as a nation respond poorly to this "successful" attack, then they will achieve all their goals.

WaPo: Why Mark Halperin remains one of America's dumbest political hacks...

From Erza Klein's post "Articles that make me believe America will not be a superpower in 50 years":

Mark Halperin's list of five things President Obama did well in his first year and five things Obama did poorly in his first year is quite a document. As others have noted, the five things Obama did well, according to Halperin, amounted to "governing the country." The five things that Obama did badly (aside from Halperin's critique of the White House's internal policy process) are mainly about image management. To wit: "Managing his public image." The most egregious, though, is "wooing official Washington."

(Since I don't know how to format a quote within a quote, go to the article to read the ridiculous passage Erza's talking about.)

Apparently, the administration -- which is governing during one of the most crises-laden periods in recent history and which is still operating without a number of its key officials -- should be spending more time partying. The charitable interpretation is that Halperin thinks this prioritization is making Obama's life unnecessarily hard: The White House could be getting better press coverage, and more support from established powerbrokers, if it was fanning out to more embassy parties, and that would make governing easier.

You wonder, however, whether Halperin recognizes the rot and corruption he's suggesting in "official Washington." The same goes for his item on Obama's media failures, which argues that Obama's "image makers have not been deft enough in finding a happy medium that allows Obama to be Obama while neutralizing some of the more poisonous, potentially indelible story lines."

Official Washington consists mainly of people who are paid to understand American politics. They shouldn't need to be feted at parties. Indeed, if their conclusions are being changed by glimpsing Larry Summers at the British Embassy, they're doing a terrible job. Either Obama is governing well and is worthy of respect or he isn't, but the assessment can't be that he's governing well but not coming to enough parties. At least, not unless we're in some serious "Fall of Rome" days here in Washington.

Similarly, a journalist who is so uninformed about merits of what's actually going on that a slick call from David Axelrod changes her opinion of Obama's performance should be fired. It's one thing to play the perception game during campaigns. But governance actually has real, tangible things you can evaluate. Is Obama closer or further from passing health-care reform than his predecessors? Will the bill improve or hurt the situation? Could it have been substantially better or worse given the congressional constraints? If Halperin really believes that Obama's image should be in better shape than it is, then that's an indictment of his -- and my -- profession, not of the White House.

The Inherent racism of the Torture Debate...

From Andrew Sullivan:

(And for the record, I prefer Stephanie Miller's "Crotch Bomber" reference.)

Bloggers have had a great time exposing the inconsistency on the pro-torture right. Why should Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab be tortured as an enemy combatant while Richard Reid was prosecuted by civilian authorities under Bush? Isn't the unconscious truth obvious? One has an English name; the other has a very foreign-sounding Muslim name. One was born in Bromley and one in Kenya. One is "us"; the other is "them". And it is much easier to torture them than to torture us. It just seems to me that this distinction has no moral, legal or strategic basis.

What Liberal revolt?

From the National Journal online:

Does President Obama have a problem with his political base? That conclusion seems inescapable in recent weeks, as prominent liberal voices have expressed their unhappiness with the president, especially in regards to compromises in the health care reform legislation passed last month in the Senate. Howard Dean, for one, said he would prefer to "kill the Senate bill" and start over, as did groups like and prominent progressive bloggers like Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake and Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos.

Encapsulating the theme, Doonesbury's Mark Slackmeyer -- the comic strip's most "unreconstructed" liberal -- vented his frustration with Obama during a week in which the fictional NPR talk show host pronounced Obama a "complete disappointment" and declared that Obama had "totally lost me."

Now of course, Doonesbury is a work of fiction, but you still have to assume that if a pollster asked, Slackmeyer would have answered "disapprove" when asked to rate the president's performance. How many real-world liberal Democrats share that sentiment?

According to the daily tracking poll conducted all year by the Gallup organization, very few.

The chart below shows Obama's approval rating tabulated by a combination of party and ideology (published on Gallup's Web site). While Obama's rating has declined across the political spectrum, nearly nine out of 10 liberal Democrats -- an average of 87 percent in December -- approve of the job Obama is doing as president.

Monday, January 4, 2010

And we're suprised...why?

Rep. Parker Griffith (??-AL) switches to GOP.

Parker Griffith's Staff just about quit on the spot.

All of them.

What a revoltin' development...

The revolt against Huffington Post is kinda beginning. At least, I'd like to think so.

Granted, the link is just to blogpost on TPM, but it well illustrates my own dissatisfaction with Huffington Post in recent months. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on a Headline, only to find the exact opposite is true in the body of the article:

All the Huffington Post wants traffic. They want you to spread their rumors and links all over the place, regardless of the veracity of their stories.