Fort McHenry II

It turns out, Mittens is so rich, he's actually FORGOTTEN how much money he has.

2012-01-27T18:00:00.000-08:00

Dang, Rachel had a busy night tonight. Didn't she?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Don't worry about the Space suit. You know it was all about Newt's Moon Base before this clip, right?

Wow. Apparently, Mittens believes in "Pray Away the Gay"... (VIDEO)

2012-01-27T17:30:00.000-08:00

Uhhh, this is gonna be a problem for Mittens...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow explains to you why Politifact sucks at what it does... (VIDEO)

2012-01-27T17:00:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

MSNBC: The unfortunately slow death of the Birther Movement (VIDEO)

2012-01-27T16:43:00.001-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Elizabeth Warren (VIDEO)

2012-01-27T16:00:00.000-08:00

Warren, Warren, Warren all the time.

Fine with me!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama Discusses the Blueprint for American-Made Energy in Las Vegas, NV (VIDEO)

2012-01-27T15:30:00.000-08:00

President Obama Discusses Energy in Aurora, Colorado (VIDEO)

2012-01-27T15:00:00.000-08:00

President Obama discusses College Affordability in Ann Arbor, Michigan (VIDEO)

2012-01-27T14:30:00.000-08:00

I'll resist making any commentary...

...but I expect multiple visits to Columbus, OH in compensation.

UPDATE: 2:59pm, Pacific: Ugh. Denard Robinson was in the House? Well, Coach Meyer will be waitin' for him come the 2012 Season. GO BUCKEYES!!!

Capping off a busy week in GOP racism: Ron Paul. Willing AND Stupid?

2012-01-27T14:21:00.000-08:00

Here we go...again. First Jenny Sanford, then Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Jan Brewer, and certainly not forgetting Newt "Food Stamps" Gingrich...

Thus, I give you...today's Washington Post:

Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

And...

In the past, Paul has taken responsibility for the passages because they were published under his name. But last month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.’’ Paul said.

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

It is unclear precisely how much money Paul made from his newsletters, but during the years he was publishing them, he reduced his debts and substantially increased his net worth, according to his congressional and presidential disclosure reports. In 1984, he reported debt of up to $765,000, most of which was gone by 1995, when he reported a net worth of up to $3.3 million. Last year, he reported a net worth up to $5.2 million.

The newsletters bore his name in large print and featured articles on topics ranging from investment advice to political commentary. Frequently written in first person, they contained personalized notes, such as holiday greetings from Paul and his wife, Carol.

And...

Hathway, the former Ron Paul & Associates secretary, said: “We had tons of subscribers, from all over the world. . . . I never had one complaint’’ about the content.

No, I suppose you wouldn't.

Andrew Sullivan, in serious slinging bullshit mode:

I cannot and will not defend the newsletters. And Paul's apparent lies about his involvement make the matter worse. And I don't think Paul is the "best vehicle" for advancing the ideas TNC cites. He's a very flawed vehicle, like most politicians and human beings. And I corrected immediately the record on the MLK holiday.

But when Paul has said what he has said in these debates, when he has walked into the lion's den of a GOP primary and attacked the criminal justice system for racial bias, lacerated the war on drugs, and cut to the core of the delusions behind American global aggression, he deserves to be judged on his recent history as well as his increasingly distant past. His message that more liberty makes diversity more possible is a vital one.

Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?

I acknowledge this newsletter incident is ugly, indefensible and, above all, cynical. I don't think it is all that matters in the remarkable late career of congressman Paul. And that hunting for heretics rather than celebrating converts is a losing political strategy.

Ta-Neishi Coates (written before Sullivan):

If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.

What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul "legislated" for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul's heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of evidence, be made to look ridiculous.

Let me provide answer Mr. Sullivan's "question":

Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?

Now, Mr. Coates, can write his own response, but the answer is yes, provided Mr. Coates, me and rest of the black community were convinced RFK had not changed, that he was, deep down, hostile to African-Americans (or in the parlance of the time: Negroes). When RFK emerged from McCarthy's shadow, blacks were wary of him, but he eventually came out from under that cloud through good works, and more to the point, good deeds. He came out of that cloud enough so that Mother to the day she died, would almost burst into tears just thinking about 1968.

Ron Paul, through his own actions, and the actions and statements of his son Rand, remains racially hostile (at the very least racially suspect) to African-Americans, with their combined statements against the Civil Rights Act, and Lunch-Counters being a matter of "defending property", and not as a matter of Human Rights, etc.

Simply put, yes, Ron Paul is saying some stuff in front of GOP Debate Audiences, and that seems to be the limit of what he's willing to do. He's said some equally onerous things about race in recent memory that make us believe that the Ron Paul from the 1990s has not changed one damn bit.

Chris Christie seems to be a willing racist (VIDEO)

2012-01-26T17:37:00.000-08:00

I'll listen to Christie the moment he explains how my Father (who would've been alive of this bull@#$% idea) would have been allowed to vote in said referendum.

Oh, that's right. The white people of the South would've had to grant him his rights, voluntarily.

Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver of New Jersey crushed the Governor better than I could:

In a comment related to his call for a voter referendum on the proposal to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie said Wednesday, “People would have been happy to have referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.”

The governor, who on Tuesday called for a referendum on the Nov. 6 ballot that would ask voters to decide if the state should legalize same-sex marriage, also said he will veto the Democratic legislation to allow it when the proposal reaches his desk.

The comment that the civil rights movement of the 1960s could have been settled through a national or southern states voter referendum stunned Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver (D-Essex), who became the first African-American woman to head the lower house in 2010.

“Gov. Christie better sit down with some of New Jersey’s great teachers for a history lesson, because his puzzling comment shows a complete misunderstanding about the civil rights movement,” Oliver said. “It’s impossible to ever conceive that a referendum on civil rights in the South would have been successful and brought justice to minorities. It’s unfathomable to even suggest a referendum would have been the better course.

“Governor – people were fighting and dying in the streets of the South for a reason,” the Assemblywoman said. “They were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It look legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans.

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Homophobe...and willing to be a racist piece of @#$%.

Jan Brewer would fall into the Stupid category... (VIDEO)

2012-01-26T16:39:00.000-08:00

Rememeber, your choices are Blind, Willing or Stupid. And we're going with stupid...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From KHPO:

Brewer said their heated exchange Wednesday started on the tarmac with a handwritten letter she gave the president inviting him to come back to Arizona to have lunch with her and make a visit with her to the border.

She said that's when he started criticizing her on how she portrayed him in her recent book.

"I felt a little bit threatened, if you will, in the attitude that he had, because I was there to welcome him," she said.

The governor describes the final part of their exchange Wednesday as disrespectful towards her.

"I believe that when we were in the conversation, I was in the middle of a sentence and he walked away," Brewer said.

Well...maybe not.

Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa, Ariz., declined to say exactly what he heard Obama and Brewer talk about during their now-infamous tiff next to Air Force One.

But the mayor said he was standing right next to the governor when the exchange took place and Obama didn’t seem to be in any kind of hurry to leave.

“There was no sense that he was running to or from anything,” Smith told TPM. In fact, he said, the president stayed and had a pleasant conversation with Smith, who’s a Republican, and Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat.

It was “just the four of us,” Smith said. “Mayor Stanton and I had a decent talk with him.”

The portrayal of a calm, friendly president seems to at least partly contradict what Brewer has said about the encounter in numerous interviews since Wednesday afternoon.

Seriously, the GOP has a major race problem on its hands. Racism is a very good way to win primaries, but also a good way to lose elections.

"An Economy Built to Last" in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (VIDEO)

2012-01-25T15:30:00.000-08:00

The Enhanced State of the Union speech for 2012 (VIDEO)

2012-01-25T15:07:00.000-08:00

Complete with a making of...

The Daily Show's complete extended interview with Elizabeth Warren (VIDEO)

2012-01-25T11:02:00.000-08:00

"The Pats are gonna spank the Giants. I'm sorry, it's just reality..."

Right there, Warren avoided any comparisons to Martha Coaxley. And thank goodness for that...

Part 1:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part 2:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

"I will recover and return..."(VIDEO)

2012-01-25T10:54:00.000-08:00

Even Boehner was gracious. (Even teared up a little from what I can tell, toward the end).

"Score another one for U.S. Special Operations..." (VIDEO)

2012-01-25T09:29:00.000-08:00

Once again, Navy SEALS...absolutely BADASS!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You're welcome, Denmark!

The Daily Show's complete extended Interview with Sec. Kathleen Sebelius (HHS) (VIDEO)

2012-01-24T15:19:00.000-08:00

Part 1:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part 2:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Rick Santorum: Blind, Stupid and Willing... (VIDEO)

2012-01-23T15:20:00.000-08:00

Here we go again.

If you want to know what I think about this, allow me to modify [somewhat] my blog post where I attacked Jenny Sanford for doing this exact same thing.

When you provide cover for the racism of others, as [Rick Santorum] does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. [Rick Santorum] is ~~not~~ stupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country, [but Santorum may be an exception.]

So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?

I respect the heck out of @chucktodd, he needs to understand why we trust The Daily Show more than Cable News... (VIDEO)

2012-01-22T11:39:00.000-08:00

Is it just possible that after the Bush years, after watching the media be willing accomplices in the march to war, after watching Editorial decisions being made with the stockholders more in mind than the audience, after watching how a Reporters access matters more to them than the story they're trying to tell me, is it any wonder why we trust the Daily Show more than we do most reporters?

I wish Chuck Todd got it, because this is some weak-ass sauce:

Chuck, it's simple. It's a matter of trust, and a lot of your colleagues (especially your colleagues at Fox News) have made it very hard to trust Journalism. We see too much manipulation of journalists, and journalist who are too-willing-to-be manipulated.

I am learning more from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report than I am from the Nightly News. I am getting more actual NEWS CONTENT from them. They're not wasting my time. They're not just giving me a giggle. They are educating me, and they're doing a better job than Free Broadcast TV News, and they're doing a HELL of a lot better than Cable News.

Gingrich and Santorum are not the only racists in the GOP (Jenny Sanford anyone?) (VIDEO)

2012-01-20T16:12:00.000-08:00

I watched this interview with Jenny Sanford, curious about what she had to say about Newt Gingrich. Now I’m never going to be curious about anything she has to say ever again.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There’s no other way to put this, but Jenny Sanford is a racist. I wish she wasn’t, but there it is. She’s a Southern Belle, who herself is the privileged daughter of other Southern Belles, who apparently thinks African-Americans like me been making all this Racism stuff up these last three hundred and fifty years.

To have Chris Matthews show her the video tape of Newt Gingrich actually being thanked for "putting Juan Williams in his place", and to have her say there was nothing wrong with that, that all this dog-whistle talk is a media fabrication, speaks volumes for her lack of character.

Actually, no it doesn’t. It tells me, plainly and simply, she’s a racist.

The big problem that exists in America today is that too many (mostly White) Americans think that one only meets the definition of racism if you're buring a cross on someone's lawn, and doing it when you're wearing a sheet over your head.

Not so. I see evidence of racism in small ways in everyday life, committed by people who if asked, even quiet rooms where such things are discussed, will insist that they're not racist.

But clutch your bag a little tighter in the elevator when a black man walks in? Follow around young black men in the store? Assume because of my Skin Color that I can't qualify for credit or a loan? These are judgments and actions being taken on the basis of my skin color.

And when you provide cover for the racism of others, as Jenny Sanford does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. Jenny Sanford is not stupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country.

So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?

Now, if you are a White Republican, and have a problem with what I'm saying. What can I say, but @#$^ off. I'm African-American. I know what racism is, you don't. I know what the dog-whistles sound like, you don't.

I get to judge what offends me, you don't.

You want another Dog Whistle? James Fallows of Atlantic Monthly (rightly) took Newt to task for his racial coding. Here's what an angry reader sent to him:

Many times you present your perspective fairly, but in today's footnote comments about the South Carolina debate in your Final on Huntsman blog posting, one of two things is apparent. Neither alternative reflects well upon you.

You cited as a "dog whistle" Newt Gingrich's comment that Obama is "the food stamp President". By calling that a dog whistle you are dog whistling to your own constituencies about how terrible and racist those evil Republicans are.

You should certainly be aware that Newt Gingrich and other Republican candidates have many times in recent months made the argument that President Obama's administration has resulted in record numbers of Americans receiving food stamps, while record numbers of Americans are unable to find jobs. They then promise policies that will result in more jobs and fewer people needing food stamps as employment improves. They may make the point as well that it is more personally uplifting to feed one's family as a result of holding employment, than it is to be dependent on food stamp assistance.

Alternative one is that James Fallows is ignorant of this argument or fails to see that it might resonate with people of all races who hope to support themselves in the job market. That would imply an obtuseness that other evidence does not support.

Alternative two is that James Fallows understands this formulation but pretends not to for the specific purpose of unfairly accusing its proponents of racism. Given that the distribution of food stamp assistance is broadly represented among whites, Latinos, and blacks in America, even if the argument were "nobody should be receiving food stamps", which it clearly isn't, where is the racial viciousness supposed to come from? The ugly smearing appears to be coming from this hypothetical James Fallows alternative two.

Look, there are plenty of cultural, aesthetic, and policy issues you may have with the Republican South Carolina campaign. It might be wise to confine your arguments to those real differences rather than smearing people for slurs they do not make.

See that? Same mentality as Jenny Sanford.

And yes, that was racist, too.

Fallows promptly ripped the reader to shreds:

Here is a third alternative, the one I believe: that Newt Gingrich knows exactly what he is doing when he calls Obama the "food stamp" president, just as Ronald Reagan knew exactly what he was doing when talking about "welfare Cadillacs." There are lots of other ways to make the point about economic hard times -- entirely apart from which person and which policies are to blame for today's mammoth joblessness, and apart from the fact that Congress sets food stamp policies. You could call him the "pink slip president," the "foreclosure president," the "Walmart president," the "Wall Street president," the "Citibank president," the "bailout president," or any of a dozen other images that convey distress. You decide to go with "the food stamp president," and you're doing it on purpose.

And what am I supposed to think of people who deny that what Newt is doing is being done on purpose?

Now the good news is that people get it. People (mostly notably, a lot of White people, like Fallows) are calling this stuff for what it is. Nothing makes me happier.

But clearly, Newt Gingrich, Rick "Blah People" Santorum, Jenny Sanford and this douchebag who wrote in to Fallows are not the only racists in the Republican Party or Conservative set. My problem is that within the party of Lincoln, the cancer is growing.

(By the way, you did notice we haven't even touched on the racist crap Ron Paul's done, right?)

I have known and continue to know a lot of Republicans in my life. The Republicans I know are primarily Eisenhower-style, Small Government, Fiscally Conservative, yet Socially Liberal types. Yes, they are out there...

...but they’re also out there providing cover for the racists that are out there, and now it is their silence that is starting to speak volumes to me.

You want more examples? How about this?

Or this from December of 2011?

Okay, so maybe that last one wasn't code so much.

Don't joke with us. We know the codes. Stop using them, or get called out for what you really are.

The Compleat Stephen Colbert appearance on Morning Joe (VIDEO)

2012-01-20T10:06:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"I-I-I-I-I'm...so in love with you..." (VIDEO)

2012-01-20T08:00:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or does the President seem...really, really, REALLY chill this election season?

As a side-question to the non-African-Americans out there: we all understood the Sandman reference, right?

UPDATE 9:11am, Pacific: Okay, now Josh Marshall, proprietor of Talking Points Memo, is getting all kinds of video of the President singing. Can an Album drop be too far behind?

Aretha Franklin:

Dionne Warwick:

You deserve to read the President's whole answer on Simpson-Bowles...

2012-01-19T15:45:00.000-08:00

This is from the Fareed Zakaria's interview with President Obama (his questions are in red). And I highlight it because noted deficit-scold Andrew Sullivan, posted just a little teeny-tiny bit of the Simpson Bowles answer toward the end of the interview (the part in blue).

Personally, I'd like you to read the whole thing:

You talked a lot about how foreign policy ultimately has to derive from American strength, and so when I talk to businessmen, a lot of them are dismayed that you have not signaled to the world and to markets that the U.S. will get its fiscal house in order by embracing your deficit commission, the Simpson-Bowles. And that walking away from that,which is a phrase I’ve heard a lot, has been a very bad signal to the world. Why won’t you embrace Simpson-Bowles?

I’ve got to say, most of the people who say that, if you asked them what’s in Simpson-Bowles, they couldn’t tell you. So first of all, I did embrace Simpson-Bowles. I’m the one who created the commission. If I hadn’t pushed it, it wouldn’t have happened, because congressional sponsors, including a whole bunch of Republicans, walked away from it.

The basic premise of Simpson-Bowles was, we have to take a balanced approach in which we have spending cuts and we have revenues, increased revenues, in order to close our deficits and deal with our debt. And although I did not agree with every particular that was proposed in Simpson-Bowles — which, by the way, if you asked most of the folks who were on Simpson-Bowles, did they agree with every provision in there?, they’d say no as well.

What I did do is to take that framework and present a balanced plan of entitlement changes, discretionary cuts, defense cuts, health care cuts as well as revenues and said, We’re ready to make a deal. And I presented that three times to Congress. So the core of Simpson-Bowles, the idea of a balanced deficit-reduction plan, I have consistently argued for, presented to the American people, presented to Congress.

There wasn’t any magic in Simpson-Bowles. They didn’t have some special sauce or formula that avoided us making these tough choices. They’re the same choices that I’ve said I’m prepared to make. And the only reason it hasn’t happened is the Republicans were unwilling to do anything on revenue. Zero. Zip. Nada.

The revenues that we were seeking were far less than what was in Simpson-Bowles. We’ve done more discretionary cuts than was called for in Simpson-Bowles. The things that supposedly would be harder for my side to embrace we’ve said we’d be willing to do. The whole half of Simpson-Bowles that was hard ideologically for the Republicans to embrace they’ve said they’re not going to do any of them.

So this notion that the reason that it hasn’t happened is we didn’t embrace Simpson-Bowles is just nonsense. And by the way, if you talk to some of these same business leaders who say, Well, he shouldn’t have walked away from Simpson-Bowles, and you said, Well, are you prepared to kick capital gains and dividends taxation up to ordinary income —

— which is what Simpson-Bowles —

— which is what Simpson-Bowles called for, they would gag. There’s not one of those business leaders who would accept a bet. They’d say, Well, we embrace Simpson-Bowles except for that part that would cause us to pay a lot more.

And in terms of the defense cuts that were called for in Simpson-Bowles, they were far deeper than even what would have been required if the sequester goes through, and so would have not been a responsible pathway for us to reduce our deficit spending. Now, that’s not the fault of Simpson-Bowles. What they were trying to do was provide us a basic framework, and we took that framework, and we have pushed it forward.

And so there should be clarity here. There’s no equivalence between Democratic and Republican positions when it comes to deficit reduction. We’ve shown ourselves to be serious. We’ve made a trillion dollars worth of cuts already. We’ve got another $1.5 trillion worth of cuts on the chopping blocks. But what we’ve also said is, in order for us to seriously reduce the deficit, there’s got to be increased revenue. There’s no way of getting around it. It’s basic math. And if we can get any Republicans to show any serious commitment — not vague commitments, not “We’ll get revenues because of tax reform somewhere in the future, but we don’t know exactly what that looks like and we can’t identify a single tax that we would allow to go up” — but if we can get any of them who are still in office, as opposed to retired, to commit to that, we’ll be able to reduce our deficit.

Now, to your larger point, you’re absolutely right. Our whole foreign policy has to be anchored in economic strength here at home. And if we are not strong, stable, growing, making stuff, training our workforce so that it’s the most skilled in the world, maintaining our lead in innovation, in basic research, in basic science, in the quality of our universities, in the transparency of our financial sector, if we don’t maintain the upward mobility and equality of opportunity that underwrites our political stability and makes us a beacon for the world, then our foreign policy leadership will diminish as well.

Can we do that in a world with so much competition from so many countries? One of the things you do hear people say is, You know, we have all this regulation. You’re trying to make America more competitive, but you’ve got Dodd-Frank, you’ve got health care. There’s all this new regulation. And in that context, are we going to be able to be competitive, to attract investment, to create jobs?

Absolutely. Look, first of all, with respect to regulation, this whole notion that somehow there’s been this huge tidal wave of regulation is not true, and we can provide you the facts. Our regulations have a lower cost than the comparable regulations under the Bush Administration; they have far higher benefits.

We have engaged in a unprecedented regulatory look-back, where we’re weeding out and clearing up a whole bunch of regulations that were outdated and outmoded, and we’re saving businesses billions of dollars and tons of paperwork and man-hours that they’re required to fill out a bunch of forms that aren’t needed. So our regulatory track record actually is very solid.

I just had a conference last week where we had a group of manufacturing companies — some service companies as well — that are engaging in insourcing. They’re bringing work back to the United States and plants back to the United States, because as the wages in China and other countries begin to increase, and U.S. worker productivity has gone way up, the cost differential for labor has significantly closed.

And what these companies say is, as long as the United States is still investing in the best infrastructure in the world, the best education system in the world, is training enough skilled workers and engineers and is creating a stable platform for businesses to succeed and providing us with certainty, there’s no reason why America can’t be the most competitive advanced economy in the world.

But that requires us to continue to up our game and do things better and do things smart. We’ve started that process over the last three years. We’ve still got a lot more work to do, because we’re reversing decade-long trends where our education system didn’t keep pace with the improvements that were taking place in other countries; where other countries started to invest more in research and development, and we didn’t up our game; where our infrastructure began to deteriorate at a time when other countries were investing in their infrastructure; and, frankly, where we have gotten bogged down politically in ways that don’t allow us to take strong, decisive action on issues in ways that we’ve been able to do in the past.

And so my whole goal in the last three years and my goal over the next five years is going to be to continue to chip away at these things that are holding us back. And I’m absolutely confident there’s no problem that America is facing right now that we can’t solve, as long we’re working together. That’s our job.

Andrew Sullivan on the fallout from his "Obama's Critics are Dumb" piece... (VIDEO)

2012-01-19T15:22:00.001-08:00

The first Obama Campaign Ad, in case you missed it (VIDEO)

2012-01-19T10:28:00.001-08:00

Running now in six swing states. Take THAT Turd Blossom!

American Prospect: Who knew the State Department was so hip? (VIDEO)

2012-01-19T09:20:00.000-08:00

Great stories from both the American Prospect and Foreign Policy.

Can't say we didn't try.

Oh, yeah...the Russians did just that:

Apparently, this is Moscow's idea of rolling out the "red carpet": Russian state television today launched an all-out assault on new U.S. Ambassador Mike McFaul.

"The fact is that McFaul is not an expert on Russia. He is a specialist in a particular pure democracy promotion," read a report published on Russia 1, the channel that is run by the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK).

The Russian government was evidently displeased that McFaul met with human rights activists in his first official function at the Moscow embassy, where he was joined by visiting Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns. The Russian media's public smear campaign against McFaul accused him of working on behalf of the "so-called democratic movement" in the country during the early 1990s, when he visited there on behalf of the National Democratic Institute -- an organization "known for its proximity to the U.S. intelligence services," according to the TV report.

The report then quotes from several of McFaul's writings and from The Cable's post on McFaul to accuse him of having an agenda of supporting Russian opposition groups in an attempt to destabilize the Russian government.

The hostile welcome represents a sharp rebuke to McFaul's message of openness and cooperation that he brought with him upon arriving in Moscow last week.

Once you had a deal with Bain Capital, Romney would always lowball you...

2012-01-18T13:09:00.000-08:00

Figures.

From a piece in the Washington Post called "When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond":

[To the filmmakers and bankrollers of "When Mitt Romney Came To Town"] the Bain way is nothing less than “turning the misfortunes of others into . . . enormous financial gains.” The film spends most of its time interviewing people who lost their jobs and much of their savings after working at various companies that Bain bought, milked and sold to generate those huge profits.

Yet, there is another version of the Bain way that I experienced personally during my 17 years as a deal-adviser on Wall Street: Seemingly alone among private-equity firms, Romney’s Bain Capital was a master at bait-and-switching Wall Street bankers to get its hands on the companies that provided the raw material for its financial alchemy. Other private-equity firms I worked with extensively over the years — Forstmann Little, KKR, TPG and the Carlyle Group, among them — never dared attempt the audacious strategy that Bain partners employed with great alacrity and little shame. Call it the real Bain way.

Here’s how it worked. Private-equity firms are always eager to find companies to buy, allowing them to invest chunks of the billions of dollars entrusted to them and from which they earn hundreds of millions in fees. One ready source of these businesses is Wall Street bankers hired to sell companies through private auctions. The good news is that when a banker puts together a detailed selling memorandum about a company, chances are very high that company will be sold; the bad news is that these private auctions tend to be very competitive, and the winning bidder, by definition, is most often the one willing to pay the most. By paying the highest price, you win the company, but you also may reduce the returns you can generate for your investors.

I never negotiated directly with Romney; he was too high-level for any interaction with me. Rather, I dealt often with other Bain senior partners, who were very much in his mold. In my experience, Bain Capital did all that it could to game the system by consistently offering the highest prices during the early rounds of bidding — only to try to low-ball the price after it had weeded out competitors.

By bidding high early, Bain would win a coveted spot in the later rounds of the auction, when greater information about the company for sale is shared and the number of competitors is reduced. (A banker and his client generally allow only the potential buyers with the highest bids into the later rounds; after all, you can’t have an endless procession of Savile Row-suited businessmen traipsing through a manufacturing plant if you want to keep a possible sale under wraps.)

For buyers, the goal in these auctions is to be one of the few selected to inspect the company’s facilities and books on-site, in order to make a final and supposedly binding bid. Generally, the prospective buyer with the highest bid after the on-site due-diligence visit is selected by the client — in consultation with his or her banker — to negotiate a final agreement to buy the company.

This is the moment when Bain Capital would become especially crafty. In my experience — which I heard echoed often by my colleagues around Wall Street — Bain would seek to be the highest bidder at the end of the formal process in order to be the firm selected to negotiate alone with the seller, putting itself in the exclusive, competition-free zone. Then, when all other competitors had been essentially vanquished and the purchase contract was under negotiation, Bain would suddenly begin finding all sorts of warts, bruises and faults with the company being sold. Soon enough, that near-final Bain bid — the one that got the firm into its exclusive negotiating position — would begin to fall, often significantly.

Of course, some haggling over price is typical in any sale, and not everything represented by sellers and their bankers is found to be accurate under close examination. But Bain Capital took the art of negotiation over price into the scientific realm. Once the competitive dynamics had shifted definitively in its favor, the firm’s genuine views about what it was willing to pay — often far lower than first indicated — would be revealed.

At such a late date, of course, the seller is more than a little pregnant with the buyer. Attempting to pivot and find a new buyer — which knew it had not been selected in the first place, but was now being called back — would be devastating to the carefully constructed process designed to generate the highest price. Once Bain’s real thoughts about the price were revealed, the seller either had to suck it up and accept the lower price, or negotiate with a new buyer, but with far less leverage.

Needless to say, this does not make for a very happy client (or a happy banker). By the end of my days on Wall Street in 2004, I found the real Bain way so counterproductive that I no longer included Bain Capital on my buyer’s lists of private-equity firms for a company I was selling.

Bill Clinton: "I think Barack Obama will be the next president..."

2012-01-18T11:56:00.000-08:00

Bubba layin' it down in the latest issue of Esquire. But it's always nice to hear him say it again:

ESQUIRE: Who do you think the next president will be?

CLINTON: I think Barack Obama will be the next president. I think he will win. Because I think that whatever feelings the American people have about their own conditions and however much they may wish he had moved more quickly, I think that they will conclude that it takes a long time to get out of the kind of economic distress we were in and that his direction and policies are more likely to move us out of that than if they give the White House and the Congress to a party that will give them more of what they just had.

I think that the rapid decrease in popularity of the Republican governors in places like Florida and Ohio and Wisconsin will help him.

It shows you how inexact the voting process is, and how people vote for candidates based on some fleeting rhetorical impression or their sense of the connection between that election and their own circumstances, rather than listening to what candidates actually say they intend to do. Because every one of those governors is just doing what they said they were gonna do.

But I think that the president will win. He'll be able to talk about the difference in the auto industry between when he took office and the way it is now. I think he'll be able to talk about much more progress in certain sectors of the economy, and he's going to have a very strong national-security record to run on, so he won't be vulnerable there. In fact, the Republican may be more vulnerable than he is there. So even though the conditions of the country are difficult, I expect him to win. And I also think, based on what happened in 2008, that once he gets an opponent in the general election, I think except for Fox and the conservative outlets, the media will tilt back toward him. The coverage won't be as anodyne and evenhanded as it has been.

Something the Professional Left, #OWS and other "disappointed" Liberals need to remember..

2012-01-17T14:59:00.000-08:00

From Andrew Sullivan's cover story on Newsweek/Daily Beast:

But the right isn’t alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels. From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.

They miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements. Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus. Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law. Politifact recently noted that of 508 specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician.

What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don’t-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen. This took time—as did his painstaking change in the rule barring HIV-positive immigrants and tourists—but the slow and deliberate and unprovocative manner in which it was accomplished made the changes more durable. Not for the first time, I realized that to understand Obama, you have to take the long view. Because he does.

Or take the issue of the banks. Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street, of being railroaded by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner into a too-passive response to the recklessness of the major U.S. banks. But it’s worth recalling that at the start of 2009, any responsible president’s priority would have been stabilization of the financial system, not the exacting of revenge. Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush.

And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.

P.R. in Action! Jodi Kantor gives the exact same interview on two different shows! (VIDEO)

2012-01-17T10:44:00.000-08:00

Watch, gentle reader, with amazement as Jodi Kantor goes onto two different shows, with two different tempraments, and two different hosts...only to give the exact same interview:

First Lawrence O'Donnell:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And then Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Remember, in the end, both shows are right. Ms. Kantor never called the First Lady and Angry Black woman in her book. That is important to clear up. Of course, that the first stories to leak out from the book were about arguments did not help.

But my main problem with the book, isn't the reporting, but the fact that Kantor in some parts of the book she used a third person, novelistic, inner monologue to have the First Lady describe her actions and thoughts, when she (ahem) hadn't interviewed the First Lady. That, in my book, is more than a little bullshitty. If Kantor had stuck to straight reporting, and just told what she learn from Aides and people close to Michelle, I would have zero problems with this book.

Then again, there would be zero controversy for her P.R. people to market, and thus zero reason to go on with Lawrence and Stew-Beef!

So what's it going to be Republicans, your wet dream of destroying a Government Agency or denying the President a victory? (VIDEO)

2012-01-13T18:00:00.000-08:00

Here's how the President just tattooed the Republicans (in case you missed it), as explained by Greg Sargent.

[What the President did today] could help enable Democrats to recapture the dynamic that played in the favor of Democrats during the payroll tax cut fight. Obama is co-opting a supposedly traditional Republican argument — government should be made leaner — and forcing Republicans to choose between placing themselves at odds with a core position and allowing an Obama victory on their own turf. During the payroll fight, Republicans struggled to explain their opposition to cutting taxes, relying on shifting justifications that ultimately proved politically untenable.

The GOP pushback is that Obama’s move suggests he is conceding that the Republicans argument has been right along. “After presiding over one of the largest expansions of government in history, and a year after raising the issue in his last State of the Union, it’s interesting to see the President finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control,” Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mitch McConnell, says. But will Republicans support it?

Second, the move could maneuver Republicans into having an argument about process, even as the White House touts specific proposals for getting things done. During the payroll tax cut fight, Republicans ended up arguing that the tax cut shouldn’t be extended for two months because a year-long extension would represent sounder government — even as Dems emerged as the primary advocates for immediate action to cut taxes on 160 million working Americans. Similarly, Repulicans may find themselves opposing this proposal on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough, while Obama insists on immediate action.

During his speech today, Obama bashed wasteful government; proposed to consolidate six commerce-related agencies into one; and said the proposal was driven by “one mission: helping American businesses to succeed.” He added: “With or without Congress, I’m going to keep at it.”

In other words, this dovetails with Obama’s political strategy of bashing Congress as dysfunctional while continuing to project unilateral action on the economy, in this case, helping small businesses by simplifying government — which, again, is supposedly traditional GOP turf.

The Compleat Stephen Colbert/Jon Stewart evisceration of Citizens United (VIDEO)

2012-01-13T17:36:00.001-08:00

Drop 'em, Jimmy!

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

He may not win, but Newt will certainly wind up defining Mittens for us (VIDEO)

2012-01-12T15:57:00.000-08:00

Once again, question about Mitt's...veracity.

If the Kennel was as airtight as he says...how did anything leak out of it?

Unleash hell...

2012-01-12T14:28:00.000-08:00

Worried, like I was about the Bain Attacks coming too early? Well?

Some pundits have thrown out the idea that because the Bain story is coming up sooner than expected, it will be that tougher for Democrats to go on the offensive later as per their original plan.

“[If] Romney wins the nomination, this early fuss might have inoculated him against the Scrooge gambit,” TIME columnist Joe Klein wrote.”The public may feel Bain is same old, same old by October.”

Don’t buy it, Democrats say. Even while they acknowledge that they planned to roll out the Bain angle later for a reason, they find it pretty hard to contain their grins overall.
“I would have preferred to wait, yes, to keep the bottle of whup-ass fresher,” one Obama campaign strategist told TPM. “At the same time — and this is important to note — having the Republicans eat their own actually makes the Bain story more potent than we ever could because it instantly validates it as a line of attack and falls on independent ears as a matter of legitimate debate, not as a partisan line of attack.”

Jim Messina: 2011 Fourth Quarter Fundraising Update...and fundraising challenge (VIDEO)

2012-01-12T11:30:00.000-08:00

The following Video is not from Wisconsin last year, but Indiana this year... (VIDEO)

2012-01-12T11:00:00.000-08:00

Hat tip, Daily Kos.

Overall turnout for NH Primary was up, but actual GOP Participation fell by 16 percent. (VIDEO)

2012-01-12T10:38:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So let's remember what Rachel said. The New Hampshire Secretary of State predicted Record turnout for the GOP Primary, and pretty much nailed the number. You can't stick a landing any better than that. What was not clear what how much of that record turnout was powered by Independents (or even mischievous Democrats), since New Hampshire has an Open Primary. And we won't know the damage until the SOS comes out with the full tableaux of figures later on.

Well, the uber Conservative Washington Examiner has got itself a projection...and its a damn good reason to panic, if you're a Republican:

Though overall turnout in the primary is projected to set a record, eclipsing the 2008 tally, turnout among Republican voters is on track to be down by roughly 16 percent.

The reason for the discrepancy is that because there was no competitive Democratic primary this time around (as well as several GOP candidates aggressively chasing their votes), there was a huge spike in the number of independents and Democrats who were voting in the Republican race, something Granite Staters can do in the open primary system.

When you eliminate independents and Democrats from the 2008 equation, actual registered Republicans made up 61 percent of the roughly 239,000 votes cast in the GOP primary, putting the turnout among Republicans at around 145,790. But last night, actual Republicans only comprised 49 percent of the electorate, according to exits. Even if we round up the final 2012 turnout number to 250,000, which would be slightly higher than current projections, that would only leave actual Republican turnout at 122,500, which would represent a 16 percent drop.

Remember, the Examiner's figures are projections based on Exit Polls, but the math is pretty compelling, and accurate, when verified by Professor Dad.

Finally, after a painful stink of a Season, Rex Grossman comes through for worker's rights....

2012-01-12T09:58:00.000-08:00

Yeah, I can't believe it either:

Jay Cutler and Rex Grossman have no love for each other when they face off as quarterbacks of the Chicago Bears and Washington Redskins. But when it comes to protecting the rights of workers in their shared home state of Indiana, they both take the same position.

Cutler and Grossman joined fellow Hoosiers Courtney Roby of the New Orleans Saints, Trai Essex of the Pittsburgh Steelers, Mark Clayton of the St. Louis Rams, and Kris Dielman of the San Diego Chargers in sending letters to Indiana legislators opposing the anti-worker bill that is moving swiftly to through the House.

Cutler, from Santa Claus in Southern Indiana, called the so-called right to work bill “a political ploy against workers.”

All the players belong to the NFL Players Association, which formally opposed “right to work” in a statement last week. Unfortunately, anti-worker legislators aren’t listening; they voted the bill, which will weaken bargaining rights and depress wages across the state, out of committee after only six minutes of consideration.

In a few weeks, Indianapolis will be in full spotlight as they host Super Bowl XLVI. With players making their opposition to the pending legislation vocal, workers may be on a very public collision course with anti-worker legislators as February 5th approaches. Protesters have already filled the statehouse and forced the retraction of an ordinance which would keep them out. Watch as Governor Mitch Daniels and his secret corporate backers seek to force a vote as soon as possible – before they have to explain footage of angry protesters to a rapt worldwide audience.

From Main Street, a project of Working America.

"Governor, good luck...you're gonna need it..." (VIDEO)

2012-01-11T11:09:00.000-08:00

First caught by Andrew Sullivan. As he said: "You see a man meet a machine"

Study this well, fellow Democrats. This is why Romney is going to lose the 2012 Election.

It's not even this particular position. It's his total inability to listen, to engage in a...well, human way with this man, or anyone.

All he had to say was: "Listen, my own moral/religious convictions preclude me from supporting the idea of anything but a man and a woman getting married, but...you're right, the spouses of Gay Soldiers deserve all the familial and visitation and health care rights provided to straight couples, and I think Federal Law can fix that."

It would still be bullshit, because if Mittens hasn't noticed, the rest of the country has moved on. The guy still might not vote for him in the fall, but at least Mitt would keep the guy in the undecided column.

That's one thing Mitt is ultimately good at...you can't stay "undecided" around him for long, particularly when you look him in the eye.

Primaries 101

2012-01-10T14:00:00.000-08:00

First caught by Sullivan. Good stuff.

President Obama Honors the Dallas Mavericks (VIDEO)

2012-01-10T06:00:00.000-08:00

After his Daily Show fiasco, Joe Kaufman explains himself... (VIDEO)

2012-01-09T07:00:00.000-08:00

Remember Nezar Hamze, the Muslim Republican, who wanted to gain the admission into the Broward County (FL) GOP?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Well, Mr. Kaufman released this statement to...ahem...explain himself.

Friends,

With the intention of exposing and helping to bring national attention to the infiltration of Islamist groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood, I agreed to do an interview with Comedy Central’s Daily Show, which was to take place on October 25th. The piece aired January 5th.

For over two hours, I was asked questions about my run for Congress against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and my thoughts regarding the Broward Republican Party’s refusal to grant membership to local CAIR leader Nezar Hamze.

I had been outspoken against Hamze gaining a position in the party, due to the extremist nature of the organization he represents and due to his own radical past. I had distributed information to party members detailing these facts (See attachment of flyer).

According to Hamze, he had been "encouraged" to join the Republican Party by Javier Manjarres, a campaign staffer for one of my opponents in the upcoming Republican Primary, Karen Harrington. It is the opinion of many that Manjarres, who has a criminal background, attempted to destroy the local GOP by bringing Hamze in. It backfired, as Hamze was voted down 158 to 11.

Upset, Manjarres - defending Hamze - complained to the Miami Heraldthat the vote was a “set up.” He said the Republican Party was practicing “bigotry.”

Prior to the vote, I had the chance to formally ask Hamze, in front of the party, if he would support either Allen West or myself for Congress and if he was a supporter of terrorism. He declined to answer the questions.* Indeed, Hamze has in the recent past been fervently outspoken against Congressman West and other prominent Republicans, including Adam Hasner. *[reporter's note: It's a suspect claim to say Hamze refused to say he was against terrorism]

Following the vote, I praised local party leaders and members for how they conducted themselves during the voting process. I stated that groups connected to terrorism should have no role in the Republican Party and should not exist within the United States.

Although the Daily Show segment skewed the serious nature of the subject of CAIR and radical Islamic outfits and edited out so much of what I had to say, we can now hope this small shred of national exposure can begin the serious dialogue on the truth regarding these groups.

Make note, the only reason why I did this show was to have another opportunity to speak out against the hate and terror of CAIR and the like. For the past ten years, I have devoted my life to exposing these groups, and I am extremely proud of the work I have done to help protect the nation I grew up in and love.

I have never been afraid of the terror-related groups I write and speak about, even after receiving numerous threats. I most certainly will never be afraid of doing a comedy show.

Joe Kaufman

Yeah.

McClatchy News had this to say in the same article:

But, for now, this is a win for Kaufman. Getting mocked on liberal-leaning Daily Show isn't bad for a Republican (more here). And being an Islam basher isn't a killer in heavily Jewish South Florida. But it's a pretty disastrous prospect to be defined as an object of mockery, even if Kaufman was caught off guard. If Kaufman makes it out of the primary, he'll likely go up against Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who's not just beloved in her heavily liberal district. She can define words like "against."

As Randi always says, there's a reason Florida is shaped like it is.

Allow me to paraphrase @NancyPelosi to GOP House. "GET YOUR [something] BACK TO WORK!!" (VIDEO)

2012-01-09T06:30:00.000-08:00

And yes, Pelosi says it's okay to run against Congress.

Sounds like Mittens has a damn good reason to hide his Tax Returns... (VIDEO)

2012-01-09T06:00:00.000-08:00

It's not how much he withheld...but where:

I think Mittens is under the impression he's been vetted. He hasn't. He's never EVER been the nominee before. And should he get it, his life is going to be combed through like he can never imagine.

President Obama's Speech on the upcoming cuts to the Defense Dept. (VIDEO)

2012-01-06T17:12:00.001-08:00

More of the Richard Cordray rollout (featuring guest star Barack Obama) (VIDEO)

2012-01-06T15:44:00.001-08:00

And on Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jonathan Chait: The Economy Might Save Obama After All

2012-01-06T14:38:00.000-08:00

A wholehearted recommend. If you're an Obama fan, nothing will make you feel better than reading this.

Well, almost nothing.

Also, Andrew Sullivan highlighted this bit of the piece first:

Defeating an incumbent president, historically, seems to require either a major scandal, a failed war, or a terrible economy. We have a terrible economy. But the direction seems to matter more than the level — Ronald Reagan famously cruised to reelection with a high unemployment rate because the economy bounced back from the deep but quick 1982 recession. Mitt Romney has made the state of the economy his central theme against Obama. The entire premise of his campaign is that the economy is bad because Obama's economic program has failed.

If voters think the economy is improving, Romney has no ammunition left. That is still the smart play for Romney, because if the economy feels strong, he probably can't win anyway, so he needs to plan for the scenario that gives him a chance to win. A few months ago, that scenario was looking almost certain. Now it's looking far less likely.

Best...headline...ever. (Suck on this, Iran Edition)

2012-01-06T09:33:00.000-08:00

Thanks to @symmetry11 on Twitter for catching this first.

Oh, and by the way, you're welcome Iran!:

U.S. Navy rescues Iranian hostages held by pirates

A member of the same U.S. aircraft carrier group that Iran has warned not to return to the Strait of Hormuz has rescued 13 Iranians held hostage by pirates in the Arabian Sea, the Pentagon said on Friday.

POTUS is going to make Romney spend money...in Arizona (VIDEO).

2012-01-05T15:15:00.000-08:00

Released just before New Years...

You see what the interesting thing is about those maps?

Only one of them contains Ohio.

Now, that's not to say that the President isn't interested in carrying Ohio (he is), or that he's not going to win Ohio (what, you think Romney's going to win Ohio. Child, please), but it's interesting so see that there are still paths victory without Ohio.

And more to the point, I think in the end, no matter who the nominee is, you're going to see the President win on a combination of these paths, just like Jim says in the video.

And on top of all that, the President is going to make Romney spend money...in Arizona.

Ooohh, it lookin' good...

Oh, and by the way, make sure you give money to the campaign. The more we have on hand, the better.

Why it was worth getting Cordary into his job, and getting him working... (VIDEO)

2012-01-05T14:59:00.001-08:00

If you want to know why Mitt Romney would be a horrible President, look no further than Seamus...his Dog.

2012-01-04T16:09:00.000-08:00

Great catch by Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere:

A Vanity Fair excerpt from "The Real Romney", a forthcoming book by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, contains an intriguing story about likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. It happened during a family road trip 28 and 1/2 years ago, when Romney was 36.

"The destination of this journey, in the summer of 1983, was [Romney's] parents' cottage, on the Canadian shores of Lake Huron. The white Chevy station wagon with the wood paneling was overstuffed with suitcases, supplies, and sons when Mitt climbed behind the wheel to begin the 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario.

"As with most ventures in his life, he had left little to chance, mapping out the route and planning each stop. Before beginning the drive, Mitt put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. He had improvised a windshield for the carrier to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

"Then Mitt put his sons on notice: there would be pre-determined stops for gas, and that was it. Tagg was commandeering the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, when he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. 'Dad!' he yelled. 'Gross!' A brown liquid was dripping down the rear window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.

"As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Mitt coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the road with the dog still on the roof.

"It was a preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management. But the story would trail him years later on the national political stage, where the name Seamus would become shorthand for Romney's coldly clinical approach to problem solving."

Problem solving...or problem creation.

Let us not forget that this little "crisis" was entirely of Mitt's own making.

Let us also not forget that this crisis of Mitt's making was because his belief in the superiority of his planning turned out to be bullshit. (Pun only partially intended).

And also let us not forget that after cleaning up the mess of his own creation, he went right back to doing what he'd done in the first place.

I think this story is highly illustrative of what kind of President he would be. Out of touch, non-responsively, not pliant, and tone deaf.

Fortunately, these very same qualities are going to sink him as a Candidate.

The President's somewhat confrontational speech in Cleveland, OH (and we LIKE the confrontation!) (VIDEO)

2012-01-04T14:35:00.000-08:00

Oh, and while I remember, there's this, too:

It isn’t just Richard Cordray. Obama is also set to use recess appointments to install his picks to the National Labor Relations Board, according to White House officials and others familiar with ongoing discussions.

The move, which is arguably as important as the Cordray appointment, will ratchet up opposition from Republicans and make this an even bigger fight, since they have been attacking the NLRB regularly for its moves to streamline union elections and inform workers of their rights.

Obama is set to appoint Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin to the board — something unions have made a big priority for them in the new year. Senate Republicans have opposed the recess appointments to the NLRB on constitutional grounds, but unions charge that Republicans are only interested in rendering the agency inoperative.

Obama’s move, which will help energize unions in advance of the 2012 election, is yet another sign that he is determined to circumvent GOP opposition and make government functional again by any means necessary. It’s another sign that the White House and Dems have abandoned the illusion that anything can be done to secure bipartisan compromise with Republicans on the major items on Obama’s agenda.

And why is this important Talking Point Memo's Brian Beutler??

Republicans were threatening to block Obama’s NLRB nominees in a bid to extinguish the board’s power. So just as with Obama’s decision to recess appoint Richard Cordray to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this move does more than fill vacancies. It actually restores the power the agency was given under the law — power Republicans were hoping to strip without passing new legislation.

Who's going around the Constitution again.

"So I hear you think you know something about Iowa..." (VIDEO)

2012-01-03T14:42:00.001-08:00

Made me laugh my ass off it was so good.

I like Ron Wyden, I respect Ron Wyden, but he needs to get his ass kicked for this...

2011-12-14T17:51:00.000-08:00

But the President and Democrats should kick his ass for this. No Privatization of Medicare, ever.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who has been castigated by Democrats and hailed by Republicans for his plan to privatize Medicare, will on Thursday unveil a new approach that would preserve the 46-year-old federal health program.

Working with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the Wisconsin Republican is developing a framework that would keep government-run Medicare as an option for new retirees starting in 2022, along with a variety of private plans.

Seniors would still receive a set amount of money from the government to buy insurance, as they would under the Medicare proposal Ryan included in the budget blueprint that passed the House last year. But the new approach would let that subsidy, known as premium support, rise or fall along with the actual cost of the policies — creating more protection for seniors and saving potentially far less in the budget.

The unusual alliance between Ryan and Wyden could complicate election-year politics for both parties on an explosive issue. In recent days, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has embraced the Ryan privatization plan, and GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich has offered qualified support. Democrats, meanwhile, have been gearing up to challenge the GOP across the board on the issue, accusing Republicans of pushing to “end the Medicare guarantee.”

Ryan and Wyden said in an interview Tuesday that they joined forces in hopes of lifting the Medicare debate above the divisive political rhetoric and forging a genuine compromise that could save the program along with the government’s solvency.

I think we're going to enjoy hearing from American LP (VIDEO)

2011-12-12T15:32:00.001-08:00

The complete 60 Minutes interview with President Obama... (VIDEO)

2011-12-12T06:00:00.000-08:00

Sen. Lautenberg and Rep. McCarthy write a really dumb-ass column together...

2011-12-09T13:36:00.001-08:00

Here is the actual headline in the piece o' crap Huffington Post today. Mind you, not the headline that makes you click on the story, but the actual headline:

Tell President Obama: Stop the NRA From Making Our Laws.

And the gist of the piece is?

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822) would allow gun owners to carry a concealed firearm across state lines even if they weren't issued a permit by that state. That means Texas Governor Rick Perry could decide who can carry a concealed weapon in your state -- even if they have a criminal record that your state would consider a barrier to owning a gun.

This gun industry bill recently passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, with a little bit of Democratic help as well.

Americans of conscience who believe in protecting public safety should join us in asking President Obama to issue a veto threat to this ridiculous bill now, before it goes even further in Congress.

We have a petition, at www.StopHR822.com, to send President Obama a strong message from regular Americans across the nation that we will not let the gun manufacturers make laws that benefit them at the risk of public safety.

Click here immediately to call on President Obama to veto H.R. 822 -- we can't let this bill go any further.

Uhhh, excuse me Senator Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey...and Congresswoman McCarthy, Democrat of New York.

It strikes me you really should be going after to the people who would actually helped pass (and thus stop) said legislation.

Oh yeah...THEY WOULD BE CALLED SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES!!!

Look, these are two of the good guys when it comes to Gun Control. But it strikes me that people who are in a position to actually do something about bad legislation in its tracks have real nerve demanding President Obama do their damn job for them.

McCarthy is outnumbered. She's got an excuse. But in case you've forgotten, Senator...this hasn't passed the Senate yet, and there are things you yourself can do to stop this thing from happening. You work within the single most dysfunctional branch of Government. A Single Senator has the ability to grind any piece of legislation to a halt. So how about putting a hold on the legislation? How about organizing a filibuster?

How about you do your damn job before you go bitching to President Obama.

The bizarre alternate Universe where Insurance Companies have ASKED for more Federal Regulation is this one!

2011-12-09T11:21:00.001-08:00

Uhh...say that again Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post??

A lot of coverage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law focuses on what isn’t happening: How the White House can’t get a head for its Consumer Financial Protection Bureau through Congress in the face of Republican opposition, how the law could become more vulnerable with the retirement of one of its architects, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. Just this morning, as Suzy reports, former FDIC chair Shelia Bair called for part of the law to be scrapped altogether.

But, quietly, parts of the law are indeed moving forward, albeit with few headlines and little fanfare. This very morning, a new Dodd-Frank office got underway with work to reform one of the country’s most complex regulatory systems: insurance regulation.

The Federal Insurance Office was created by Dodd-Frank to bring a more national voice to how we oversee insurance. Until now, a federal agency to focus on insurance regulation just didn’t exist.

“Despite the sector’s size and important,” said deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin, “the federal government had no central repository for comprehensive insurance expertise.”

The new office doesn’t make many headlines; you won’t see many mentions outside of some trade journals. But industries understand its important: The FIO drew a standing-room-only crowd to its first ever meeting at Treasury this morning. And at that meeting, insurance executives asked the Dodd-Frank agency to bring more federal regulation into their industry — not exactly an everyday affair in Washington.

It’s not a normal request, but insurance isn’t exactly a normal industry when it comes to regulation. States tend to oversee all insurance products, from health to life to homeowners. And that worked fine decades ago, when insurance companies tended to be more localized. But for any national company operating now, having 50 state regulators set 50 different standards has made it a complex system.

“The current system is highly inefficient,” says John Johns, chairman of the Protective Life Corp., which sells life insurance policies. Or, as Consumer Federation of America’s J. Robert Hunter put it, “If Nebraska is regulating hurricane insurance in Florida and flood insurance in Georgia, we have a problem.”

The President's Barnburner of a Speech in Osawatomie, KS (VIDEO)

2011-12-07T14:44:00.001-08:00

What else can I say, but...whoa.

The Fireside Chat for December 3rd, 2011 (VIDEO)

2011-12-03T14:48:00.000-08:00

I'm sorry, but did that Obama Black Friday Email "annoy" or "exasperate" any of you??

2011-12-02T10:50:00.001-08:00

Damn villagers, again.

Look, I love Erza. Read him all the time. But like the rest of us, he can occasionally be full of shit:

Guess who tweeted this: “This Black Friday, take 10% off all purchases of...gear with code 10%TURKEYDAY”

Wal-Mart? Best Buy? A hedge fund trying to unload Greek bonds?

Nope. That was the official Twitter account of President Barack Obama — excuse me, President @BarackObama. And it’s not the first time Obama’s 2012 campaign has sounded more like a commercial for Al’s Used Car Lot.

Last month, “Barack Obama” e-mailed me with the subject line “Last chance at dinner.” “Because you and I don’t have a lot of chances to have dinner together,” he — or, more accurately, a campaign staffer claiming to be him — wrote, “I hope you’ll take advantage of the one that’s coming up this fall.” Then he asked me to donate some money so I could be entered into a raffle to have dinner with him.

Another e-mail, again from Obama, carried the subject line, “If I don’t call you.” Again, the upshot was you could donate money to be entered into a dinner raffle. But as Garance Franke-Ruta noted at the Atlantic, the e-mail writers at the Obama campaign had taken one of the most distinctive voices in American politics and left him sounding like a plaintive boyfriend.

All of this is, of course, a fundraising effort. And it’s working. The Obama campaign has received donations from more than 1,000,000 individuals, and 98 percent of those donations were for $250 or less. Some of those donations, to be sure, are Obama schwag. When you buy a hat or a shirt, technically, you’re donating to the campaign, and the campaign is sending you a token of its thanks. But it’s hard to argue with the results: at this point in the 2008 race, the Obama campaign had fewer than 400,000 donors. “This is what a grassroots campaign looks like,” the campaign brags in an infographic celebrating the million-donor mark.

But there’s something tawdry about it. This isn’t transformational politics. This is, almost definitionally, transactional politics. You give me money for my campaign, I give you a beer koozie with Vice President Joe Biden’s face on it.

I asked the Obama campaign about that seeming disconnect, but didn’t get much back. “We don’t talk specifics about merchandise because we don’t talk specifics about fundraising in general,” Katie Hogan, the campaign’s deputy press secretary, told me.

In a sense, these e-mails and tweets — and the annoyed, exasperated reactions many of their supporters have had to them — perfectly encapsulate one of their biggest challenges going into 2012: resolving the yawning chasm between the sort of politics America wanted from the Obama campaign and the sort of politics, the Obama administration has found, work in Washington.

All this was a preamble to a moderately decent piece highlighting the President's accomplishments while in Office, and the difficulties of changing the culture in Washington. (File under No shit, Sherlock).

But I want to ask, were any of you annoyed or exasperated by that Obama Email? Or were you like me, swimming around the site seeing if there was anything you'd like to buy.

This is what concerns me about my Hometown. This is another instance of the damn bubble again, and it confirms what we all know. It's not just the Presidents who live in it. Nine times out of ten, its the people in the Washington cocktail circuit who live in it. These are the people writing the columns, making the policy and talking to each other about the rest of us...all without the benefit of the rest of us being a part of the conversation.

Simply put, Ezra. I know of exactly ZERO people who were annoyed or exasperated by the President's fundraising efforts, and I'm betting I talk to a lot more actual Obama Supporters than you do. I know of exactly ZERO people from among the Liberal "disappointed" set who were annoyed or exasperated.

Now, I don't know of any one who bought anything either. My guess is they looked, they shopped around a little, then trashed the email, and went back for a nap during the Frisco-Baltimore game.

And "tawdry" who the hell said anything about tawdry??

This is not something actual Obama Supporters are talking about, sorry Ezra. This is all in your head.

Who exactly are these people Ezra is talking about--...

...ooooh, that's right. A bunch of Washington DBs talking to other Washington DBs.

Sorry, this one got on my nerves.

"Hello, Scranton..." (aka the President's Speech in Scranton, PA) (VIDEO)

2011-12-01T10:55:00.001-08:00

And Lawrence's commentary, complete with an interview with Jay Carney, the President's Press Secretary:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Fireside Chat for November 24th, 2011 (VIDEO)

2011-11-24T14:56:00.000-08:00

The Fireside Chat for November 19th, 2011 (VIDEO)

2011-11-19T15:06:00.000-08:00

And now a Republican "Ruh-Roh" moment brought to you by the Washington Post and Small Donors...

2011-11-18T14:28:00.001-08:00

Watch out now...

Even with low approval ratings and an uncertain path to reelection, President Obama is exceeding expectations in one area: His campaign is doing far better at attracting grass-roots financial support this year than his GOP rivals or his own historic effort in 2008, according to new contribution data.

The sheer scale of small donations, totaling $56 million for Obama and his party, has surprised many Democratic strategists and fundraisers, who feared that a sour economy would make it difficult for Obama to raise money from disenchanted and cash-strapped voters.

President Obama’s reelection campaign and DNC together raised $70 million in the third quarter of 2011. Outside of fundraising, the president is ramping up support for his reelection with his visits and talk about focusing on the economy.

A Washington Post analysis shows that nearly half of his campaign contributions, and a quarter of the money he has raised for the Democratic Party, has come from donors giving less than $200. That’s much higher than it was four years ago, and far beyond what the best-funded Republicans have managed.

Sonofagun...guess that "Satan Sandwich" is gettin' a bit tastier...

2011-11-18T10:27:00.001-08:00

From The Hill:

The bipartisan debt-limit deal, famously called a “Satan sandwich” by a prominent Democrat this summer, is looking more heavenly to the left.

Republicans crowed after striking the agreement with President Obama, while congressional Democrats cried foul. Despite the White House’s endorsement of the bill, 95 House Democrats voted against it.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the Budget Committee, subsequently said Republicans called Obama’s bluff. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he got 98 percent of what he wanted in the deal.

Three months later, members of both parties are looking at the deal much differently.

A GOP lawmaker who requested anonymity told The Hill that “it’s the 2 percent that’s killing [Boehner] … I’ve never understood why we thought 12 people could come up with a solution any better than we could.”

With the supercommittee deadlocked, the sequestration cuts of $1.2 trillion are now likely to be triggered. Those reductions would hit national security programs, but not call for structural reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and/or Social Security.

Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services committees were wary of putting defense cuts in the trigger, but Democrats essentially said the GOP would have to choose between tax increases or cuts to the military. Republicans opted for the latter, despite major concerns expressed by House Armed Service Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.).

Now, in sharp contrast to this summer, Democrats say they are in the driver’s seat. They note that Republicans are already vowing to torpedo the sequestration cuts to the Defense Department, something Democrats say they will not go along with.

Many Democrats would prefer the sequestration cuts over a deal that would make major reforms to entitlement programs.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who voted against the debt deal on Aug. 1, is openly rooting for the super-panel to fall short.

“I hope that they cannot reach an agreement,” Nadler told Capital New York.

Nadler favors major cuts to the military — which could happen in 2013 if Congress cannot pass a deficit-reduction bill.

Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), who dubbed the debt deal a “Satan sandwich,” has tempered his critique.

He, along with dozens of congressional Democrats and Republicans, has called for the supercommittee to “go big” and find deficit savings in the $3 trillion to $4 trillion range. Part of that savings, Cleaver has made clear, should come from the expiration of the Bush tax rates.

There's more, but you get the idea.

Jonathan Chait explains the SuperCommittee Jujitsu in a way that most of us will enjoy...

2011-11-17T09:43:00.001-08:00

My favorite bit is Hensarling's little warning to his colleagues. I think this is the first time I've heard a Republican publicly acknowledge that they might not win the White House.

By the way, you know Chait's moved to New York Magazine, right?

Recent coverage of the supercommittee budget negotiations has trumpeted the fact that some Republicans have agreed, in theory, to increase tax revenue. But this isn’t any kind of compromise, and Democrats would be crazy to take this so-called “concession,” even if it came attached to no spending cuts at all.

The Republican offer is a response to the fact that Democrats hold all the leverage. At the end of 2012, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire. If that happens, tax rates would return to Clinton-era levels, and revenue would increase by $3.7 trillion over a decade. That would solve the medium-term deficit problem without cutting a single dollar in spending.

Of course, it would also effectively hike taxes on the middle class, which Democrats oppose, or claim to oppose. But if those tax cuts expire in a way that allows Democrats to avoid the blame, they could have a win-win.

It’s the flip side of the situation they faced at the end of 2010, the last time the tax cuts were set to expire. Democrats couldn’t afford to yank the economy off life support before the 2012 elections, and so agreed to extend the cuts in exchange for extending some stimulative measures like payroll tax breaks and unemployment insurance.

Now that the tax cuts have been extended through 2012, the Democrats can afford to hang tough. They can make the election a choice between the Republican vision of keeping Bush-era tax rates on the rich and slashing retirement programs, and the Democratic vision of higher levels of retirement spending financed by higher taxes on the rich. That’s a very favorable contrast for the Democrats. And if the two parties fail to reach an agreement, the tax cuts disappear automatically. The bottom line: The expiration of the tax cuts poses a huge threat to the GOP.

Republicans understand this problem, and their offer before the supercommittee is a tactical effort to reduce the potential risk. The GOP is offering to increase tax revenue slightly above current levels – about $250 billion over a decade – in return for locking in the Bush tax cuts permanently. And they are only offering this in return for Democrats agreeing to cuts in entitlement spending and privatization of Medicare.

I’d be willing to consider a deal that cut entitlements in return for higher revenue. But the GOP deal wouldn’t produce higher revenue — it’s merely a hedge. Jake Sherman and Manu Raju report that Jeb Hensarling, an arch-conservative on the supercommittee, has made exactly this case to his colleagues:

“In a 20-minute presentation Tuesday, Hensarling told his House Republican colleagues that it was in their interest to cut a deal now since Obama could keep the White House, and Republicans should look at the proposal as avoiding a huge rate hike in 2013, when the Bush tax cuts expire. The usually rambunctious House Republican Conference gave Hensarling a standing ovation.”

Republicans are publicly framing this offer as a concession, in return for which they must get tax reform and entitlement cuts. But if Democrats really want to cut a deal, they need to demand higher tax revenue without locking in the Bush tax cuts.

It is certainly true that many House conservatives are freaking out at the supercommittee Republican offer, insisting that the party can never allow taxes to go even one cent higher under any circumstances. But this is merely the expression of the party’s anti-tax fanaticism – they are so dogmatically committed to the anti-tax cause that they won’t even buy what’s essentially an insurance policy to protect against a huge possible tax hike. The split within the GOP is not a split between anti-tax fanatics and deficit hawks. It’s a split between anti-tax fanatics who understand how to protect their interests and anti-tax fanatics who are too uncompromising to do even that.

The Fireside Chat for November 12th, 2011 (VIDEO)

2011-11-12T15:08:00.000-08:00

What heroism can look like... (VIDEO)

2011-11-11T09:39:00.001-08:00

Yes, even here on a political blog, the Penn State Scandal's icy claw can reach in. But this was too good not to share.

To stand against the winds of adversity. To speak against the mob. Man, that's something.

This may be Veteran's Day, and there may be bolder, more life-threatening, more life-changing kinds of heroism than this, but in terms of what it means to be an American? You'll find few better examples.

And bear in mind, apparently the kid wearing the Dorsett jersey (not a good thing in my mind since I'm a Redskins fan) is a cousin of Dorsett's. All the cheap shots thrown his way? The kid didn't blink. Good for him. I hope he runs for office, because despite his nefarious Dallas Cowboys connection, he may just get my vote..

Randi Rhodes' Interview with John Nichols of the Nation Magazine on Tuesday's elections (AUDIO)

2011-11-10T10:28:00.001-08:00

"That's exactly what I said. Let Detroit go Bankrupt..." (VIDEO)

2011-11-10T09:47:00.001-08:00

The Daily Show Interview with Bill Clinton (VIDEO)

2011-11-09T15:48:00.000-08:00

Part 1:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part 2:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part 3:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

But before everyone gets all happy about Bubba's return to the stage, I have to point out another example of Bill's temper getting the better of him...this time in print:

In his new book, Bill Clinton writes, as Politico puts it, that he was "mystified that Democrats last year would have agreed to Republican demands to extend the Bush era tax cuts without insisting on a simultaneous increase in the federal debt limit." That Obama — what an amateur! But yesterday, Clinton recanted his criticism, telling an audience at the New York Historical Society, "I was wrong."

Clinton — being interviewed by his daughter Chelsea Clinton — said he recently received a clarifying email from Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling, who also worked in the Clinton White House. Sperling, Clinton recounted, assured him that, “Oh, we tried.” The Democrats’ efforts, according to Clinton’s account of what Sperling told him, were thwarted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), who threatened to filibuster the entire package if an increase in the debt limit was included. Clinton said he incorrectly believed that Senate rules would not have allowed a filibuster of this type of fiscal measure.

Usually this is something you would try to find out before penning a criticism of a fellow Democratic president. Bill, you're worth a bazillion dollars — maybe spring for a research assistant next time.

The Story of Broke (VIDEO)

2011-11-09T08:46:00.000-08:00

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) explains the Occupy Wall Street Movement (VIDEO)

2011-11-07T14:45:00.000-08:00

What if...?? (VIDEO)

2011-11-07T14:25:00.000-08:00

60 Minutes: The Jack Abramoff Interview... (VIDEO)

2011-11-07T14:10:00.000-08:00

Also known as the Lobbyist's playbook...

UPDATED 4:10pm, Pacific:

There was more, and I'm putting it all down here.

How to use Congressional Hearing to destroy people...

The Culture of Corruption:

And just to remind you, an emphasized segment detailing the murky-language "perfect" tactic:

And what of Jack's time in Prison?

Best Sacha Baron Cohen character...ever (VIDEO)

2011-11-07T09:37:00.001-08:00

The Fireside Chat for November 5th, 2011 (VIDEO)

2011-11-05T15:10:00.000-07:00

Guest starring Joltin' Joe Biden!!

The post where I introduce you to Imran Khan, and tell Pakistan to bite me.

2011-11-04T16:12:00.000-07:00

There's a Politican named Imran Khan. He's attracting big crowds, getting a lot of attention, and he may be bad news.

First off, it seems he may be getting financial support from the ISI, but more importantly:

The real key to Khan's popularity lies in his public stance against U.S. foreign policy, and what he describes as Washington's interference in Pakistan's internal affairs. He has consistently condemned drone strikes against militants in Pakistan's tribal belt, and argued that Pakistan's alliance with the United States is the main reason why the country is now facing a Taliban insurgency. Khan was careful on Sunday to indicate that he would be open to continued ties with the United States if he came to office, but only on Pakistan's terms. This is a heartening message for millions of Pakistanis who are still reeling from the audacity of the unilateral U.S. raid against Osama bin Laden's compound in May, which many saw as a brash violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty and an act of betrayal by a so-called ally. If this tactic succeeds, Khan will not be the first Pakistani politician to convert anti-Americanism into votes.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Also, reeling from the audacity of the unilateral U.S. raid against Osama bin Laden's compound in May, which many saw as a brash violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty and an act of betrayal by a so-called ally? Bite me, Pakistan. Your Military and Intelligence command hid target number one and refused to cooperate in his capture, so we went in and got him. @#$% you.

One would think Mr. Khan also knows how to add, and will get into office, look at the amount of funding we're giving him and make his actual decision from there.

It's very possible that he'll still dial back the Pakistani-American relationship. Then again, we seem to be anxious to dial it back ourselves.

I hope Mr. Khan understands that should there be another High Value Target in his country, alliance or no, we're still taking him out, and there's incredibly little Pakistan can do about it, except maybe get off a lucky shot. (Remember Pakistan scrambled fighters to intercept our Raid Team's Choppers, but by the time we got there, they were already outta there, and UBL was dead.

Yes, Pakistan has nukes...but so does another country that's veeeery close to them...and we like them better.

The other Black Man relavent in the Herman Cain fiasco...and it's not who you think it is...

2011-11-04T15:37:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago, the residents of my hometown, Washington D.C. were treated to the spectacle of Marion Barry's arrest, and his subsequent...

Well, I'm not going to say downfall...

Let us say his trials due to his addiction to crack cocaine.

(Note: if you've watched the above video, just so you know, Jesse Jackson did not run for Mayor.)

I was in my teens at the time when the problem first became apparent to one and all. I was living in heavily suburban, but black Prince Georges County, Maryland, just over the border from substantially poorer, but still black District of Columbia.

Years before he arrest, I was a sophmore in High School when I saw the Mayor onstage, making a speech about the dangers of drug addition, and doing it in a mania very reminiscent of present-day Charlie Sheen. I knew the man was doing drugs. I just laughed it off at the time as ironic, and went to buy more of these new-fangled things called CDs.

I was a Sophmore at the University of Maryland when they finally got him. I watched this very broadcast of the CBS Evening News after about a full days coverage from the Local News. These where the days when Oprah wasn't yet Oprah, and you could have 3-4 hours of Local News a night.

America (by which I mean White America) was all atwitter. A Mayor? An elected Official doing drugs?? Surely, America thought, this menace would be going to jail.

Hold up. Not so fast.

The problem for the outside world...and by outside world I mean the non-African-American world outside of the Washington D.C. Area, was that the champion for putting this man behind bars was prosecutor Jay Stephens, a white Reagan appointee (featured at the 1:49 mark of the video). Even I knew at that young, still somewhat politically naive age that there was no way Black Washington D.C. was ever going to let a white Reagan Appointee tell them who was or who wasn't going to be their Mayor.

Four years after the arrest, the black residents of D.C. proved me right when, even after spending two years in jail, Marion Barry was returned him his fourth and final term as Mayor of the District.

I believe we're starting to see somewhat similar circumstances flow around the Herman Cain situation. But instead of the hard-headed, prideful (sometimes overly so) black residents of D.C., this is about the hard-headed, hyper-prideful, rabid, hyper-right wing base of the Republican Party.

And there is no way that any D.C. Establishment Cocktail Party Republican is going to tell them they have to "accept Mitt Romney" as their nominee.

While these folks hate Mitt Romney, they probably hate the D.C. Establishment Republicans even more. These are the people who say they'd rather lose to Barack Obama with one of their faithful, than to even make it close with Multiple Choice Mitt.

These are people who hate the mainstream media so much, who distrust it so much that they'd rather stick a thumb in their own eye and flush their electoral chances down the tubes in order to prove to the world just how hardcore they are. More importantly, they'll do this to prove that they can't be pushed around by the Villagers in the D.C. Republican Establishment.

That's why I think we're seeing a bump in Cain's fundraising numbers and his polling numbers. The establishment is trying to tell the base that he's dead (as a Candidate), and the base is saying...hold up, not so fast!!

(Note: For those who want to relive the glory days of the 1990s, there was a Documentary made about two years ago called The Nine Lives of Marion Barry. It didn't get picked up for distribution, but was shown on HBO and is now available at the iTunes Store for 9.99. It was worth a look.)

This is an intersting idea from #OWS...(VIDEO)

2011-11-03T17:30:00.001-07:00

Never get into a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrell... (VIDEO)

2011-11-03T16:33:00.001-07:00

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Here's what's coming for Mitt Romney in 2012 (VIDEO)

2011-11-02T16:16:00.000-07:00

The Fireside Chat for October 29th, 2011 (VIDEO)

2011-10-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

Hey, Alabama! Stephen Colbert TOLD YOU SO (about your B.S. Immigration Law)!!!

2011-10-27T11:45:00.000-07:00

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

And yes, here's Colbert's complete actual Testimony in front of Congress:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The Daily Show: Science, what's it up to?

2011-10-27T11:16:00.001-07:00

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Why Sen. Marco Rubio is finished (as a potential Vice Presidential Candidate)

2011-10-26T17:16:00.000-07:00

Remember, Marco Rubio did not lie. He took advantage of a lie to promote his Political biography. And when caught, he has waffled between doubling-down on the lie he took advantage of, and well...waffling even more.

As Chris Matthews explains in the clip below, in Politics you are either attacking or explaining.

Rubio is now into week two of explaining.

This here's coming out an inch at a time...and there's at least a few more feet to go.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From the St. Petersburg Times:

On May 18, 1956, Mario and Oriales Rubio walked into the American Consulate in Havana and applied for immigrant visas. The form asked how long they intended to stay in the United States.

"Permanently," Mr. Rubio answered.

Nine days later, the couple boarded a National Airlines flight to Miami, where a relative awaited.

So began a journey that seems as ordinary as any immigrant story, but decades later served as the foundation of an extraordinary and moving narrative told repeatedly by their third child as he became one of the most powerful politicians in Florida and then a national figure.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio has come under fire for incorrectly linking his parents to the Cubans who fled Fidel Castro beginning in 1959. He insists they are exiles nonetheless and angrily denounced the suggestion he misled for political gain.

"My upbringing taught me that America was special and different from the rest of the world, and also a real sense that you can lose your country," Rubio said in an interview this week.

But the visa documents cast clearer divisions between his parents, who came for economic reasons, and the Cubans who scrambled to leave their homeland but thought they could soon return. And the documents come to light amid new discrepancies since Rubio's time line came under scrutiny last week.

From Politico (and mind you, these are the stories from today):

In Miami’s Little Havana, the Cuban exile community has rallied to the defense of its favorite son, Sen. Marco Rubio, as he fights off allegations he embellished his family history to boost his meteoric political career.

But well beyond Calle Ocho, the freshman Florida Republican still faces a bigger challenge selling himself to the broader Hispanic electorate. Rubio is expected to encounter tough questions from voters and activists over his hard-line stance on immigration as he heads to Texas and possibly Arizona next week to court Hispanic voters and high-dollar donors. As his personal history morphs into a national political story, it’s clear Rubio still has plenty of skeptics in the Latino political community.

“He is a laughing stock in the Southwest … because people discovered he wasn’t telling the truth about his political Cuban exile history,” said DeeDee Garcia Blase, founder of Somos Republicans, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based GOP group that backs a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. “They are saying, at the end of the day, ‘He is just like us. His mom and dad came here; they migrated because of economic reasons, just like the rest of us.’”

The controversy about when — and under what circumstances — his family arrived in the U.S. has proved to be the first major test for the rising GOP star as he transitions from Sunshine State politics to the national stage, where the exile experience that he’s embraced doesn’t resonate among non-Cuban Hispanics as much as it does in the quaint cafes and bustling streets of Little Havana.

That cultural divide between his home crowd and the larger Latino electorate could pose a problem for Republicans who have billed Rubio, a favorite for the vice presidential spot in 2012, as their party’s great Hispanic hope.

And the Washington Post:

Republicans who are eager to repair the party’s battered image among Hispanic voters and unseat President Obama next year have long promoted a single-barrel solution to their two-pronged problem: putting Sen. Marco Rubio on the national ticket.

The charismatic Cuban American lawmaker from Florida, the theory goes, could prompt Hispanics to consider supporting the GOP ticket — even after a primary contest in which dust-ups over illegal immigration have left some conservative Hispanics uneasy.

But Rubio’s role in recent controversies, including a dispute with the country’s biggest Spanish-language television network and new revelations that he had mischaracterized his family’s immigrant story, shows that any GOP bet on his national appeal could be risky.

Democrats had already questioned whether a Cuban American who has voiced conservative views on immigration and opposed the historic Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina justice, could appeal to a national Hispanic electorate of which Cubans are just a tiny fraction but have special immigration status. And Rubio’s support in Florida among non-Cuban Hispanics has been far less pronounced than among his fellow Cubans.

That ethnic calculus was further complicated by records, reported by The Washington Post last week, showing that Rubio had incorrectly portrayed his parents as exiles who fled Cuba after the rise of Fidel Castro. In fact, their experience more closely resembles that of millions of non-Cuban immigrants: They entered the United States 2 1 / 2 years before Castro’s ascent for apparent economic reasons.

Rubio made the exile story a central theme of his political biography, telling one audience during his Senate campaign, “Nothing against immigrants, but my parents are exiles.” A video, apparently produced for the conservative site RedState.com, shows black-and-white footage of Castro as Rubio speaks.

Even after the new reports of his parents’ entry, Rubio has said he remains the “son of exiles,” saying his parents had hoped to return to the island but did not because of the rise of a Communist state.

But in elevating exile roots over the apparent reality of his parents’ more conventional exodus, Rubio risks setting up a tension point with the country’s Hispanic voters — most of whom are Mexican American and have immigrant friends or ancestors who did not have access to the virtually instant legal status now granted to Cubans who make it into the United States.

“If he does take that mantle, there’ll be a lot of clarification that he’ll have to make on a whole lot of issues,” said Lionel Sosa, a longtime GOP strategist.

The President's appearance on the Tonight Show (VIDEO)

2011-10-26T11:50:00.000-07:00

Which I forgot to DVR last night, so here we go. (And be prepared for a lot of commericals)...

Here's the cold open, which was funny in a...ehhh, Jay Leno way (but made its point):

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

The President's Speech launching Project Rebuild (VIDEO)

2011-10-25T15:56:00.001-07:00

And he met with a Las Vegas family who was able to buy a home with help from the Administration's housing policies.

The Fireside Chat for October 22nd, 2011 (VIDEO)

2011-10-22T15:12:00.000-07:00

Why I disagree with Jonathan Bernstein, and Marco Rubio is in for a looong year...

2011-10-21T15:07:00.000-07:00

First off, Jonathan Bernstein, at his own blog A Plain Blog About Politics, made this point about the recent revelations about Marco Rubio's past:

The oddity of the Rubio situation is that I don't recall such an obvious VP frontrunner in any previous cycle. Now, preseason Veepstakes is notoriously silly; after all, guessing the pick even when there's just a few weeks to go and we know who is doing the picking rarely works out well. And the usual caveat applies: the bottom of the ticket doesn't really matter very much in November. So I'm not speculating about whether Rubio will actually get the nod. But it is, I think, worth pointing out that near as I can tell there's been a pretty solid consensus that Rubio is the obvious selection, and that such a consensus is unusual. My guess is that this story doesn't really shake the current consensus -- although whether everyone's expectations now have anything to do with who actually gets the pick is unknown and unknowable.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. Courtesy Chris Cilliza:

Say what you will about the birthers, but don’t call them partisan.

The people who brought you the Barack Obama birth-certificate hullabaloo now have a new target: Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a man often speculated to be the next Republican vice presidential nominee. While they’re at it, they also have Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana and perhaps a future presidential candidate, in their sights.

Each man, the birthers say, is ineligible to be president because he runs afoul of the constitutional requirement that a president must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Rubio’s parents were Cuban nationals at the time of his birth, and Jindal’s parents were citizens of India.

The good news for the birthers is that this suggests they were going after Obama, whose father was a Kenyan national, not because of the president’s political party. The bad news is that this supports the suspicion that they were going after Obama because of his race.

The quick video of Hillary learning of Gaddafi's capture (which eventually led to his death) (VIDEO)

2011-10-20T15:45:00.000-07:00

I never though I'd say it, and it cannot be said enough: Hillary Clinton is going down as one of the great Secretaries of State in our history.

The President's statement on Gaddafi's death... (VIDEO)

2011-10-20T15:29:00.001-07:00

The Democrats may now have a candidate to run against Scott Walker in a recall (maybe)...

2011-10-20T13:41:00.000-07:00

And he's a good one, should he choose to do it:

Former longtime Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI) is joining the call among Democrats to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2012. He would also consider running as a candidate himself in such a recall -- but would prefer to see candidacies by either Sen. Herb Kohl, who is retiring in 2012, or Milwaukee Mayor and unsuccessful 2010 Democratic nominee Tom Barrett.

However, Obey also said that when he has talked to the other two men about running for governor, they politely told him to stop "pestering" them about it.

Obey told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board that "there is so much anger out there" against Walker, predicting that Democrats would successfully collect enough signatures for the effort. (The Dems need to collect over 540,000 signatures, plus a significant buffer that campaigns routinely collect in order to protect against signatures being disqualified over one imperfection or another.)

The Initial BBC Timeline of Gaddafi's death...

2011-10-20T09:53:00.000-07:00

This is the kind of reporting I like: raw. It still hasn't been filtered or formed.. The Editors and Producers haven't gotten ahold of it to shape it and change it (usually for the worse). It's basically as close to reporters notes as you can get.

Thus, I present to you this from the BBC:

In the last fortnight, National Transitional Council (NTC) forces mounted a major offensive against the city and succeeded in pushing Gaddafi loyalists back towards the sea.

The last significant pocket of resistance was reported to be in District 2, in the north-west of the city.

In the early hours of Thursday it appears that some pro-Gaddafi forces attempted to break out.

An armoured convoy of vehicles, which according to some reports contained key Gaddafi loyalists and his son, Mutassim Gaddafi, attempted to fight their way through NTC lines.

It is not clear whether Col Gaddafi himself was part of this convoy or whether the convoy itself formed part of a wider diversionary plan to allow him to slip away.

Air strike

At around 0630 GMT Nato aircraft are reported to have attacked the convoy, according to Daily Telegraph reporter Ben Farmer approximately 3-4 km west of the city.

There are some reports that Col Gaddafi was then initially captured, with serious injuries, at around noon on Thursday.

Pictures circulated by Agence France-Presse showed a large concrete pipe in which the deposed leader apparently took refuge.

Arabic graffiti above the pipe reads: "This is the place of Gaddafi, the rat... God is the greatest."

A fighter loyal to Libya's interim authorities told the BBC he found Gaddafi hiding in a hole and the former leader begged him not to shoot. The fighter brandished a golden pistol he said he took from Col Gaddafi.

A man claiming to be an eyewitness told the BBC that he saw Col Gaddafi being shot with a 9mm gun in the abdomen at around 1230 local time.

A fairly graphic video of Gaddafi being drug out of that sewer can be found here.

President and Mrs Obama on the American Jobs Act Bus Tour

2011-10-19T17:27:00.000-07:00

The President's speech on the American Jobs Act in Jamestown, North Carolina (VIDEO)

2011-10-18T17:09:00.000-07:00

The President's speech on the American Jobs Act in Emporia, Virginia (VIDEO)

2011-10-18T17:07:00.000-07:00

President Obama's speech dedicating the MLK Memorial in Washington D.C. (VIDEO)

2011-10-17T17:35:00.001-07:00

The President's speech on the American Jobs Act at Asheville NC Regional Airport (VIDEO)

2011-10-17T17:10:00.000-07:00