Anybody who slams the President over GITMO, and leaves out Congress, isn't worth your time. That includes you, Keith

It's a pity, because Keith did make an attempt at fairness by slamming New York, but he forgot to mention Congress's complicity in this decision, and that's a big deal.



It's not like Keith is under a Network's time constraints. He could have put it in there. It's not like he had a Producer saying "Hey, we have to trim five seconds off Worst Persons". So, the only excuses for Keith were that either he didn't want it in there, or he forgot.

Either way, bad call.

Are we done with Huffington Post yet? I mean collectively, as a Civilization? Shouldn't we just quit?

I love this. First, HuffPo notes the presence of Keith's Worst Person's video, only it wasn't a worst person's video. It was a Special Comment (a fact that even this tiny little blog noted, and got right), and Keith noticed that HuffPo screwed the story up.

This was all after Huffngton Post decided to pull noted racist Andrew Brietbart from its front page, mere hours after their decision to stand by him.

Huffington Post still sucks, but dangit all if Arianna didn't get herself paid.

David Shuster speculates (probably pretty damn accurately) what happened to Keith Olbermann

This is from a Transcript of David Shuster's appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources. Remember, David was fired by MSNBC for taping a pilot for CNN (when his MSNBC was about to expire, and it wasn't going to be renewed). David's gag order has been lifted just as Keith's is going to into effect, so judge for yourself:

KURTZ: Let me turn to David Shuster.

SHUSTER: I'm not sure if I can accept your assertions of what was going on at NBC, but in any case --

KURTZ: But you worked there a long time.

SHUSTER: Yes.

KURTZ: You had a good relationship with Olbermann. You filled in for him periodically on "Countdown."

What about this constant friction? I described it as a war between him and top executives at NBC and MSNBC.

SHUSTER: Well, look, I mean, everybody knew that with the new sort of Comcast coming in to take over from General Electric, that the reporting structure within MSNBC was going to be different. Until Comcast comes in, you have Phil Griffin, who very much was a Keith Olbermann protector, reporting directly to Jeff Zucker, the head of NBC News.

Under the new arrangement, Steve Capus, from NBC News, he will essentially be right above Phil Griffin. And so NBC News is going to have much more of an influence over what happens on MSNBC. And I think Keith anticipated, perhaps justifiably so, that his wings might be clipped, that some of the special commentaries that he would be making, that there would be much more sort of deference that would have to be paid to NBC News' standards and judgments.

And I think Keith felt that he built this franchise for eight years, it was highly successful. He treasured his independence, and he treasured the fans, the 250,000 who signed the petitions back in November, demanding that he put right back on the show.

Everything's going to hell...unless it isn't...

In the span of twenty minutes, you were told, most assuredly that things were either total crap on the Violent rhetoric front...or getting much better...by two Hosts of two different shows on the same network.

First, we had Keith's Special Comment from Monday night...

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

...which bled into Rachel's segment containing happiness, sunshine, rainbows and unicorns (well, happiness, sunshine, rainbows and unicorns for her):

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

In truth, this is Liberalism. We have debates even among each other. We don't always agree (see: Deal, Tax Cut...and Option, Public), but at least we have the debate. It's not like a version of Colbert's frequent question: "George Bush, Great President...or the Greatest President?!?"

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Great President...or Greatest President?
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

Erza Klein on the reality of Governing. You play the hand you're dealt.

If there's one area about Countdown with Keith Olbermann that even I, the affirmed Liberal, can't stand is his propensity for "You're Not Doing It Right" Television.  It's always easier yelling from the cheap seats than actually having to, you know...coach the Team.  Likewise, governing is always easy in theory.  When you get down to the brass tacks of it, when it's your ass on the line (and in the President's case, a lot more than that) it gets a lot harder.

Erza Klein opened a piece today with all the various scenarios that coulda/woulda/shoulda happened over the Tax Cut Deal.  It's hard to imagine the President not getting a similar menu of options. Which would you have chosen? I know I was probably with Krugman more than anything, but I'm at least willing to admit that there were possibly heavy costs to that chosen path. Wonder if he'd be willing to acknowledge them?  I wonder if Keith will have even one guest on that will challenge his already held belief that this was a bad deal (like say...Erza?)

No deal: Paul Krugman made the case for this yesterday. In a "no deal" scenario, Republican demands to extend the tax cuts for high-income earners are met with simple refusals from the Democrats. The two sides can't agree, and the tax cuts expire. This sparks a bitter showdown, with the Republicans blaming Democrats, and vice-versa. It also hurts the economy, as markets both adjust to the idea that taxes might increase and that the two political parties prefer outcomes that neither side likes -- and that the public opposes -- to compromise.

Partial deal: Two months ago, President Obama could've simply issued a veto threat against extending the tax cuts for income over $250,000. Multiple high-profile Republicans had admitted that there was little they could do in that scenario. The tax cuts for the rich would have expired. The rest of the tax cuts would have been extended permanently -- at a much higher total cost to the deficit. But an angry Republican Party wouldn't have cooperated on unemployment benefits, the tax extenders or the payroll tax cut.

Bad deal: Democrats simply get rolled in the negotiations. There's a two- or three-year extension of all the tax cuts, and a short extension of unemployment benefits. That's about it.

Better deal: Democrats get more out of the negotiations. There's a two-year payroll tax cut, and a vote to lift the debt ceiling (which will have to happen in February, anyway). There's also a direct spending component of some kind, probably on infrastructure.

I find ranking these quite difficult. The Partial Deal was the White House's preference, but I think extending the bulk of the tax cuts in perpetuity is bad policy. On the other hand, it's likely to happen anyway. No Deal might take care of that problem, but it's potentially damaging to an economy that remains weak and a market that remains skittish. Better Deal looks good in some ways, but all this money will eventually have to be paid back, so the more you spend, the more deficit reduction you'll have to do later -- and there's no guarantee that the mix of policies we use for deficit reduction will be good.

The reality is that it's hard to judge this deal without knowing the deals that will come after it...

I think we wound up a hair's breadth short of Better Deal. (I don't recall Infrastructure spending being part of this deal, so...)

And who saw this coming? (At least Chris Kofinis got hisself a job)

Longtime Countdown fans should know Chris Kofinis. He's on every once in while telling us the Political lay of the land. He's a committed Liberal, and pretty good on TV.

Well, say goodbye, because Chris is going to be busy for a while.

He got hisself a job. (Pulling that Unemployment rate down one person at a time, eh Congress?)

He's going to work...for Joe Machin??

West Virgina U.S. Senator Joe Manchin named Chris Kofinis as his chief of staff on Monday.

Mr. Kofinis, a former top aide to Wesley Clark and John Edwards’ presidential campaigns, also advised Manchin, D-W.Va., behind the scenes during this year’s Senate campaign.

“I am extremely pleased that Chris has agreed to lead my Senate team,” Mr. Manchin said in a statement Monday.

Really? That Joe Manchin?!??

Whatever floats your boat, Senator.

I hope Chris talks him out of becoming a younger version of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE...allegedly).

Republicans against Federal Spending...who don't want to acutally do anything about it (VIDEO)

From last night's Keith. Great stuff:

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

The Media meltdown over the Rally to Restore Sanity continues (VIDEO)

Yes, I have my own issues with Keith Olbermann (directly apparently). Still, I missed this tweet, where he claims Jon "jumped the shark":

"It wasn’t a big shark but Jon Stewart jumped one just now with the “everybody on Thr cable is the same” naiveté"

Riiiight.

The normally reasonable Ta-Neishi Coates chimed in as well:

I also think Stewart's critique of media as some kind of corrupting force, at times, borders on demagoguery. It's funny to humiliate MSNBC, Fox News or CNN. In fact, both networks are desperately fighting to give their slice of America what they hunger for. We may not like it. It may seem insane to us--but it should never be forgotten that Bill O'Reilly is serving an actual audience, one that would surely invent O'Reilly if he didn't exist. Indeed they've invented him before.

It's interesting that Stewart took a stand on Rick Sanchez's firing. He's certainly argued that Williams shouldn't have been fired before on his show. I may have missed it, but I don't recall him being nearly that generous with Sanchez.

Are we detecting a little media sensitivity out there?

UNLEASH THE MEDIA!!!



Actually, Ta-Neishi, pretty much everyone in America (except for you, apparently) heard Jon Stewart say...on several occassions...that he shouldn't have been fired.

But it wasn't all bad. Andrew Sullivan chimed in:

The point, it seemed to me, was that politics isn't all there is to life, there is something slightly off about those who think it is, and that political ideology has come to define us culturally and personally far too much. So this wasn't an angry rally for the alienated Democratic left; or even a joyous rally like last fall's March for Equality; or a desperate and frustrated rally like the Tea Partiers. No one was demanding their country back; they were just demanding, well asking, for a little less polarization, and a little more mutual understanding. It was an Obama rally that didn't want to be an Obama rally. And it was only an Obama rally sotto voce because he seems currently the only adult in Washington with any interest in compromising with anyone.

There are, after all, three political groupings in American politics Republicans, Democrats and Independents. But there are also three cultural groupings: ideologues, the pragmatists, and the totally indifferent. This was a rally for the pragmatists, which made it, for my money, the core Obama base.

Remember, Andrew's the Conservative in this equation.

UPDATE 3:21pm, Pacific: Believe it or not, Huffington Post looks like it has a good slideshow on the Media reaction to the Rally.

Okay, so...@KeithOlbermann answered me...

Okay, mucho respect. The man took the time type out an answer. I know he's busy, Game 4's on tonight after all. But he did take the time, so thank you, Keith.

But I didn't get it.. I'm going to put this one on me. Anyone want to help me on this??

the election is Tuesday. One side: Tea Partiers & GOP who say they will NOT compromise. So Libs can only BE compromised

Personally, I see value in both messages. I had one or two reservations about Jon's closing argument (I think you can safely call a lot of Teabaggers racists), but to me, both men were saying, don't reward crazy.

@KeithOlbermann One has to ask, what makes Jon's message "terribly timed" and your message (3 days earlier) A-Okay?

I saw Keith Olbermann's tweet about the Rally to Restore Sanity, and I scratched my head:

he did not hurt my feelings. I thought his message, on the eve of an election full of Tea Psychos, was terribly timed

Terribly timed!??

Excuse me, Keith...but didn't your anti-Tea Party/anti-Insanity Special Comment air just 3 days earlier? So how is Jon's message "terribly timed" and yours is fine?

Methinks this has a lot more to do with Jon and Stephen eviscerating the Media than anything.

"Fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding": Keith's Special Comment on the Tea Party (VIDEO)

Dear old Dad (a frequent reader and critic of this blog) complained about the length of this Special Comment, saying that he already knew most of the information in it.

Problem is, that a lot of people don't, and it always helps to have this stuff in one space. This was a good Special Comment. I'm not always on board with Keith a 100% of the time, though we are both Liberals, but this one was pretty good.

Long yes (almost 20 minutes), but good.



Legal issues probably prevented a Broadcaster from NBC/Universal from using a short clip from MGM's 1954 classic "Inherit The Wind", but YouTube places no such restriction...at least until the MGM Lawyers get ahold of it.



The really good part of the speech, the "you have the power to do more" the user unfortunately cut off.


But because I'm a screenwriter I gotta put the text up.  Respect for the author...

Henry Drummond: I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy, you can only punish. And I warn you, that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys every one it touches. Its upholders as well as its defiers.

Judge: Colonel Drummond...

Henry Drummond: Can't you understand? That if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!

Judge: I hope counsel does not mean to imply that this court is bigoted.

Henry Drummond: Well, your honor has the right to hope.

Judge: I have the right to do more than that.

Henry Drummond: You have the power to do more than that.

CNN: FBI says Powder in package sent to Arizona congressman is 'nontoxic' (VIDEO)

Coming off Keith's breaking news last night, I'd say a lot of us were worried.



Well, apparently it wasn't so "confirmed", this according to CNN:

The suspicious powder inside a swastika-adorned package sent to an Arizona congressman is "nontoxic," an FBI spokesman said Friday.

Staffers checking mail in the Tucson, Arizona, office of U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva on Thursday found a white, powdery substance and drawings of two swastikas inside an envelope, Grijalva campaign spokesman Adam Sarvana told CNN.

Almost a dozen people were in the office when the incident happened around 12:30 p.m. Thursday (3:30 p.m. ET), he said. All of them were checked on-scene by local authorities and sent home.

Scientists at an FBI laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, conducted a full analysis of the substance, according to Sarvana. Those tests came back negative midday Friday, according to FBI Special Agent Manuel Johnson.

Johnson said the FBI would have no further comments, as "the investigation is ongoing."

The incident was the third security issue at Grijalva's district offices this year, Sarvana said.

Even though he's a fellow Liberal, I'm not the biggest Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) fan in the world (He was in the "Bill Killer" caucus for a time). Still, I want him safe, alive and in the Congress to keep on aruging with.

But we know who did this, and we know what they'll tolerate.

And now the New York Times is looking at who is buying this election (VIDEO)

From yesterday's New York Times:

Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kicked off a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations.

Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.

And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending. These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret, as it is allowed by law — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s Congressional elections.

They suggest that the recent allegations from President Obama and others that foreign money has ended up in the chamber’s coffers miss a larger point: The chamber has had little trouble finding American companies eager to enlist it, anonymously, to fight their political battles and pay handsomely for its help.

And these contributions, some of which can be pieced together through tax filings of corporate foundations and other public records, also show how the chamber has increasingly relied on a relatively small collection of big corporate donors to finance much of its legislative and political agenda. The chamber makes no apologies for its policy of not identifying its donors. It has vigorously opposed legislation in Congress that would require groups like it to identify their biggest contributors when they spend money on campaign ads.

Andrew Sullivan: "If I were buying stock right now, I'd say [President Obama] is under-priced."

In response to something David Corn penned, Andrew Sullivan winds up writing a virtual response to Keith Olbermann's brain fart yesterday that is far more elegant and artful than what I wrote:

David Corn complains that this is the kind of self-criticism that does not help before an election, and that in arguing that his biggest error was under-estimating Republican obstructionism, the president cannot also argue that he can work with the GOP, if necessary, in the next two years.

I don't agree. This kind of quote is why I still believe, despite my frustrations in some areas, that Obama is the best option we've got and we're lucky to have him. I want a president who can acknowledge error, is not cocooned, can speak publicly about this, and is unafraid of self-criticism. Isn't that why so many of us supported him in the first place?

And, look, another reason we supported him is that after eight years of Rove, we actually wanted a president who got the policy right. I think his success in this is quite remarkable, in fact.

Preventing a second Great Depression, which was a real possibility (and not just the jobless recovery we're in, but a full-scale collapse), rescuing the banks without nationalizing them, saving the auto-companies with precision and technocratic skill (I didn't think it would work at all, and it did), re-setting relations with the rest of the world, bringing a new sanity and balance to Middle East policy, taking out 400 al Qaeda operatives, using the myth of the surge to get the hell out of Iraq (for the most part), upping the ante to get a deal with the Taliban and enacting a centrist, moderate law that for the first time in history ensures that anyone can get health insurance in this country ... really, in perspective, pretty damn remarkable.

Politically, he had to deal with a GOP gone insane, and a propaganda machine of such virulence and relentlessness that you can see he is where he is. But although he is right that he lost the connection to us, his supporters, I don't think he could have kept up the hope and change inspiration indefinitely.

He would rightly have been ridiculed for not being serious at governing, of being all words and no action, of all hat and no battle.

And where he is politically is really not that bad anyway - doing better than Clinton or Carter at this point, and better than Reagan, whose polling trajectory he still follows the most closely of recent presidents. The man's favorables are still 47 percent in a recession - way ahead of his competitors on the right; his approval rate is not far behind with unemployment at record highs; if and when the GOP take back the Congress, their talk radio schtick will have to face the reality of governing's hard choices. And in that battle for the center, I'd bet on Obama's reason and calm over Gingrich's flame wars, Palin's delusions and Boehner's corporate tan.

If I were buying stock right now, I'd say the president is under-priced.

Just because I’m a Liberal, doesn’t mean @KeithOlbermann gets to insult my intelligence. (VIDEO)

I could be wrong about this, but I actually read the Peter Baker piece I think he was referring to, and...I’m having the darnedest time finding some of the quotes Keith mentioned in it.



Now, Keith called the piece “an interview”, and later referred to the same piece in another segment. This is where I could be wrong. “The Education of President Obama” is not a straight up interview. It’s kind of a profile piece, containing segments of interviews from a lot of people. If there is another piece Keith is referring to, I’d love to see it, because what I read ain’t it.

Still, there’s something about reading something before you hear from the pundits, and watching their analysis go off like a runaway rocket.

Yes, I'm saying I think Keith screwed this one up. The job he did on this seems as bad as any Fox News piece. If I wanted his level of half-ass analysis, I'd read Huffington Post.

Now, the money quote Keith mentioned about Obama being seen as a Tax and Spend Liberal was far more nuanced in the piece I read.

Well, why don't you read it for yourself:

While proud of his record, Obama has already begun thinking about what went wrong — and what he needs to do to change course for the next two years. He has spent what one aide called “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0” with his new interim chief of staff, Pete Rouse, and his deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina. During our hour together, Obama told me he had no regrets about the broad direction of his presidency. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” He realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works. Perhaps he should not have proposed tax breaks as part of his stimulus and instead “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise.

I’m trying to figure out why exactly Bill Burton needed to clarify any of that with Keith. Seems pretty damn clear to me. How exactly does this depress my fellow Liberals?

So for months, Keith and the Huffington Post set scream and holler that the President wasn't doing "it" right. The President in a moment of self reflection admits it, and...the same set pummels him for admitting it???

Also, Keith didn’t mention the very next paragraph:

Most of all, he has learned that, for all his anti-Washington rhetoric, he has to play by Washington rules if he wants to win in Washington. It is not enough to be supremely sure that he is right if no one else agrees with him. “Given how much stuff was coming at us,” Obama told me, “we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.”

Strikes me that the President kinda gets the idea that there is no profit in the notion of “taking care of the policies and the politics will take care of itself.”



Then, what really got on my nerves is Keith dug in with a second reflection on the same article (again, could be wrong). This time I saw the quotes he was talking about, and he still selectively edited the damn thing.

Keith made it sound like the President was ready to give up the whole store to the Republicans.

Wanna read what was actually in the article?:

“There are a lot of lessons learned in the last two years in terms of how we might improve internal communication, encourage greater accountability without discouraging individual initiative,” said one aide familiar with the discussions led by Rouse and Messina. Obama has been aggravated by friction among his advisers. “He’s a little frustrated with the internal dysfunction,” the aide said. “He doesn’t like confrontation.” But his initial choices to fill open slots have been drawn largely from his administration, suggesting more continuity than change.

Rouse and Messina see areas for possible bipartisan agreement, like reauthorizing the nation’s education laws to include reform measures favored by centrists and conservatives, passing long-pending trade pacts and possibly even producing scaled-back energy legislation. “You’ll hear more about exports and less about public spending,” a senior White House official said. “You’ll hear more about initiative and private sector and less about the Department of Energy. You’ll hear more about government as a financier and less about government as a hirer.”

Obama expressed optimism to me that he could make common cause with Republicans after the midterm elections. “It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible,” he said, “either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

I asked if there were any Republicans he trusted enough to work with on economic issues. The first name he came up with was Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who initially agreed to serve as Obama’s commerce secretary before changing his mind. But Gregg is retiring. The only other Republican named by Obama was Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin congressman who has put together a detailed if politically problematic blueprint for reducing federal spending. The two men are ideologically poles apart, but perhaps Obama sees a bit of himself in a young, substantive policy thinker.

Even if such an alliance emerges, though, the next two years will be mostly about cementing what Obama did in his first two years — and defending it against challenges in Congress and the courts. “Even if I had the exact same Congress, even if we don’t lose a seat in the Senate and we don’t lose a seat in the House, I think the rhythms of the next two years would inevitably be different from the rhythms of the first two years,” Obama told me. “There’s going to be a lot of work in this administration just doing things right and making sure that new laws are stood up in the ways they’re intended.”

What was I said about “taking care of the policies and the politics will take care of itself?”

And "perhaps Obama sees a bit of himself in a young, substantive policy thinker??" That's the writer going off on a tangent, not the President.

I know. The "he doesn't like confrontation" quote didn't do anything for me either. Still, he doesn't have to like it. He just has to do it.

Also, this isn't exactly a new idea. Should have been Keith's outraged when Obama supporter, and Tea-Party hater Colin Powell said pretty much the same thing about a month ago on his very network?

MR. GREGORY: Do you think that Republicans are poised to retake at least the House? And would you like to see them do that with this--the current slate of candidates and some of the ideas?

GEN. POWELL: I, I don't know. The, the pollsters would tell us that the Republicans are poised to take over the House. That wouldn't break my heart, I wouldn't go into a funk. Frankly, it might be good for the president to have the Republicans owning one of the two bodies of our Congress.

MR. GREGORY: How so?

GEN. POWELL: Because then they have responsibility. You can't just say no to everything. You can't just sit around beating up the president. But the president also has to, I think, shift the way in which he has been doing things. I think the American people feel that too many programs have come down. There are so many rocks in our knapsack now that we're having trouble carrying it. I think the president has to, like a, like a, like a razor blade, just go right after the single issue that is uppermost in the minds of the American people and that's employment. And he's done a lot with health care, with cap and trade, with education, and I understand the importance of all of that; but as far as the American people are concerned, the main attack is employment, and he's got to fix that.

I disagree with General Powell's idea that too much was done. Folks need to get over that.

Look, you be the judge. From where I stand, this is the same pragmatist that we voted into office. I think the President needs to take more political advantage of the Republicans if they do take the House. He needs to make a punching bag out of them sometimes, especially if they launch as many investigations as they're threatening.

At the same time, I will make this warning to the President. Right now, for Liberals, the choice between him and the Republicans is clear. If he caves too much to the Republican agenda, especially after watching them do nothing but thwart his for two years, then a lot of Liberals aren’t going to be disappointed in him, they’re going to be pissed off, and then they will stay home in 2012. We didn’t vote him in to sign in a Republican Agenda. If the GOP tries a Government Shutdown, his reaction cannot be "you know they're got a point".

When dealing with these scumbags, he needs to make sure he’s getting the maximum out of the GOP that he can.

Wouldn’t it be ironic, if it was a Republican Congress that passed a Public Option?

The whole article was a worthwhile read, but it is very long. Still, do yourself a favor, hit the link, print it out...and don’t rely on someone else to do your reading for you.

Not even Keith.

Does anyone else smell a lawsuit brewing in Tennessee? (VIDEO)

A quick repeat of last night's Number One story on Countdown with Keith Olbermann:



Think Progress:

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground:

Paul Krugman:

This is essentially the same as denying someone essential medical care because he doesn’t have insurance. So the question is, do you want to live in the kind of society in which this happens?

Jonathan Cohn:

I really don't know enough about the specifics of this story to address it authoritatively, other than to share the general sense of shock that Foster seems to feel. (The fire fighters stood there and let the house burn? Really?) But I also understand the libertarian argument and think this story exemplifies the problems of applying that theory to other issues. Yes, I'm thinking primarily of health care reform.

Fire protection is usually compulsory. You pay for it with your taxes, just like you pay for police protection, a national defense, and Social Security. But in rural areas, apparently, some people who could pay for fire protection don't--in the same way that some people who could buy health insurance today don't. The trouble with this arrangement is that some people who decline protection will need it.

Foster (who, by the way, is a really interesting writer I just discovered a few weeks ago) says that the firefighters should have accepted the offer for payment, on the spot, and doused the flame. I'd go a bit farther than that. To me this is a classic case for requiring payment up front--that is, an individual mandate. People shouldn't have the option to decline fire protection if protection is available. If they refuse to pay the fees, assuming they are reasonable relative to their means, they should be subject to financial penalties. The same goes for health insurance. Don't let people go without basic coverage, but make them pay for it, to whatever extent their income allows.

Does that make me a little paternalistic? You bet. And I'm ok with that. We all make really poor decisions sometimes. And while I think suffering the consequences of those decisions is generally a good thing, or at least a necessary thing, some consequences strike me as too extreme.

Here's a question. How negligent is the Fire Department for not stepping in and stopping the first fire when it started, and preventing it from spreading to the next house which had paid the fee. If they had been allowed to do their job, the second house would not have burned.

I think the owner of the second house has a case against the state of Tennessee. He paid his fee, and the actions of Fire Department caused his house to catch fire.

This is why we don't do this in civilized societies. It's not about wagging a finger at the man who didn't pay a fee, this is supposed to be about making sure fire damages as few homes as possible, and the Tennessee law failed to do that.

You have a chance to do something about this November 2nd, because if the Tea Party wins, this philosophy will spread.

MSNBC: Pundit Reaction to the Speech

Reactions to the Iraq Speech:

First, Rachel Maddow:

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

Eugene Robinson (Dead trees):

President Obama’s Oval Office speech was good, but the iconography was great.

In his address marking the effective end of the Iraq War, Obama used the setting well. The flags behind him, the family pictures on either side, the flag pin in his lapel, the red tie, white shirt and blue suit... it all projected patriotism and authority.

One thing that worked in the speech was his drawing a straight line between the vast monetary cost of the war and the economic slough of despond in which we're mired. One thing that didn't work was his assertion that with the end of combat in Iraq, we were turning a page. We're still at war, and Obama said that now more resources are available for Afghanistan.

Politicos will be universally dissatisfied. Liberals will say he gave George W. Bush too much credit; conservatives, not enough. But I think he did himself and his party some good tonight. He was generous enough to Bush, resolute in his intentions and obviously sincere in his praise of the troops. He wore the presidency with an accessory that Americans expect and appreciate: gravitas.

Adam Server (bit of whining):

Conversely, while conservatives are busy angrily denouncing the president for not giving more credit to Bush for implementing the surge -- by which they mean not acknowledging that conservatives were right -- that wouldn't have been appropriate either. This speech was about the commitment of those who actually served, not the better part of valor displayed by those who sat in front of their keyboards and hammered out empirical or ideological arguments for or against the war.

That's not to say that the speech was devoid of politics. Obama's style of politics is to pretend he's above politics, and this speech fits that mold. But the biggest reason not to rehash the argument over going to war in Iraq is that he won it already. It's part of why he's president. Obama doesn't need to convince the American people that the war in Iraq was a mistake, because a majority of Americans already believe that. Conservatives want to reargue the war from 2007 onward, but treating the Iraq war as though it began with the surge is a bit like running over someone on the street, backing up over the body a few times, and then demanding a special merit badge for finally deciding to call 911. And as I wrote yesterday, this still isn't really over.

The most disappointing part of the speech was that the president failed to acknowledge the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the war. Doing so would not have diminished his tribute towards American servicemembers, but it would have been a helpful reminder that treating the rest of the world like a game of RISK has real human consequences. Unlike the president's refusal to reargue the war, his failure to acknowledge the suffering of Iraqi civilians -- more than an estimated 100,000 of whom died as a result -- is an inexcusable omission.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson:

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

And Eugene again, this time on Video:

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

Almost.

After cracking on Keith’s Special Comment on Obama a couple of days ago, I felt it only appropriate that he should be given his due praise for his recent work where he almost nailed it in his Worst Person in the world segment when he ripped on Dr. Laura for her recent racist rant on the radio.

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

Almost.

Somehow it has gotten into the American consciousness that only saying “N----r” and burning a cross on the lawn counts as racism. As someone who lives with the prospect of my life ending at a routine traffic stop, being followed around in stores, on watching as a perfectly legitimate application for an Apartment is rejected, I know better. These are examples of everyday, common racism that still happen. What Dr. Laura did was extraordinary and public, but hardly unique.

So this is a long way of saying that Keith really nailed the moment when he said that the N-bomb wasn’t the most offensive part of the segment. He was telling his audience that there was more racism there, and he was right.

But the part that offended me wasn’t the bit Keith highlighted, where she assailed black people for hyper-sentivity (which was offensive, don't get me more), it was Dr. Laura’s insufferable demand that the caller prove to her (the white woman) that what happened was racist.

You got to listen to the whole segment (which Randi Rhodes played last week), which I cannot stomach to bring you here.

Again, African-Americans are perfectly capable to determining for themselves what is and isn’t racist. No offense white folks, we really don’t need your help on it. We do need your help in the discussion that follows. But in the end, we will determine what offends us, not you.

But we're starting to get a good look at what passes for racial discourse nowadays, and it's starting to tick me off. There are (at least) two parties in any debate. In a racial one, such as this, there is a African-American and a White Person. Both have a role to play in the discussion to come, but for some reason on the TV, only one is allowed to speak.

I still am stung by the idea that when Rand Paul revealed his true colors, there weren't many black people called onto the air to offer their opinion outside Rep. James Clyburn. That ticked me off.

Now, we're seeing the same thing happen when the Park 51/Cordoba Mosque B.S. As people scream, hem and haw, has there been any Muslim...well...anybody brought to the air to defend the place. Or is this just another discussion happening exclusively among white people?

Julian Bond destroys Gov. Bob McDonnell (VIDEO)

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

Why not have a commemoration of Civil War Month, in which you talk about the valor, the honor of soldiers on both sides of the army?

Surely, the Union Soldiers were just as courageous, just as valorous, just as honorable as those who fought for the other side. Surely, they loved their families and homes and defended with the same compassion and interest.

But somehow or another, this blind allegiance to one side—in fact, to the losing side—to the only side bearing a flag which fought the United States and was defeated, but which is regularly displayed all over the United States. We don‘t see Japanese flags, German flags or the other flags of nations we‘ve fought and beat displayed around on the backs of trucks, on bumper stickers, but we see this flag, the battle flag of the Confederacy.

And, as I say, the NAACP, and I think many, many others, think it is time it stopped.

President Obama takes questions from Senate Democrats (VIDEO)

I wrote this passage last night, waiting for the White House to put up their (much better than C-SPAN) Video of the event. Unfortunately, Rachel and Keith then went on to make many of the same comments I did:

Not quite as hostile as the House Republicans...

At the same time, why was the President the only one to bring up Health Care in its proper context? I mean, Senators mentioned it in passing, but none of them took it head on.

Which tells me that they think their job is mostly done. (They still owe us reconcilliation).

Michael Bennett rambled a bit, but I wound up liking the guy more than I thought.

Blanche Lincoln was insufferable. Her question was about as bad as most of the House Republicans from a couple days ago. Talking point with a question buried in there somewhere. She's just about the only Democrat I'm looking forward to losing her job next year.

Here's the White House Video:



Here's Keith:

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

Here's Rachel:

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