| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Arizona State Snubs Obama | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, May 14, 2009
"By the Time I get to Arizona..." (VIDEO)
Obama's Speech at ASU (VIDEO)
Flash! President delivers speech at racist Arizona Community College.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Third Hand...
There’s a concept I’ve been discussing with my Father recently; a concept I’ve given to calling, the “Third Hand”.
When a Political Figure acts against his nature, for whatever reason, there’s usually some other force at work, something we don’t see.
Put a simpler way, you got one hand on Obama pulling him one way, you got another hand pulling him in reverse, and then comes another hand (hint-hint: a Third Hand), which pushes him the way he actually goes.
Think of it like this, if there’s a situation where Obama does something to deliberately anger his base, logic suggests that the alternative, whatever it may be, is far worse.
Thus, we come to the release, or non-release, of those Abu Ghraib Photos, and the President’s reversal on that decision. My fellow Progressives/Liberals are justifiably upset by the decision…or maybe not so justifiably.
Looked at on its own, by itself the decision to withhold those photos is indefensible. Lord knows people I read, admire and respect have been dumping all over it. (Though I will say, David Kurtz in TPM comes very close to the explanation I'm about to give you, and...after all...he's a professional, and got there first, so...kudos.)
But…and I hate to bring the West Wing into anything…but it’s like President Bartlet said in the episode Hartsfield’s Landing (Episode 58, Season 3): “See the whole board…”
What do I mean by that?
Ask yourself, what happened? What made President Obama change his mind, or more to the point, has something changed that would make President Obama change his mind??
I’d say, yes.
Mind you this is just a theory, but at the same time...
Since the last week of April, beginning of May, there has been a considerable uptick in the violence in Pakistan, as the Taliban has moved ever closer to Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan (within 60 miles, so it seems). Now, the United States has been using Aerial drones to ice people across the Pakistani Border. The Pakistani Government has been upset about that, but since Pakistani’s Prime Minister is Asif Ali Zardari (aka Benazir Bhutto’s widower) and Islamist Militants were the ones who killed her, I don’t think he’s that upset…you know what I mean?
(In fact, should I mention that the Pakistani Government wants "ownership" over U.S. Drones? God, I hope we told them "hell, no.")
The situation was so bad that General Petraeus said that Pakistan was two weeks from falling, and the President was asked about the security of Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal at his last press conference.
But something has happened into the interim. Pakistan’s population has decided that they don’t much like the Taliban, or Taliban rule. In fact now that the Taliban has closed within 40 miles of the Capital, suddenly, we don’t have to bribe the Generals into defending their own country anymore. They’re actually (finally) pulling troops off the Indian border to get into the fight with the extremists. In fact, it’s creating something of a humanitarian crisis as refugees flee the fighting.
So, we are left with a situation where the Pakistani Military has finally gotten off its collective, and ineffective ass to start dealing some payback to the Taliban. There's popular support for the offensive in mainstream Pakistan, and all this is coming off recent American pressure to do so.
...and into this hyper-mega-combustile mix, some folks want to release some 2000 more photographs of Americans torturing Muslims?!?
Can you say…Danish Cartoons?? Times ten??
The President said that these Photographs were "not particularly sensational, particularly when compared to the painful images we remember from Abu Ghraib." Maybe, maybe not. We only have his word on this. I've heard in some quarters, these photos were pretty bad. They were bad enough to have Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman write the President a letter begging him to not to release the photos. (It's too bad they couldn't have gotten a Democrat to sign that letter. I would have been helpful if it was bipartisan.)
With the Pakistani populace finally seeing things our way, why do we want to go and insert into the discussion something that makes the Pakistanis start thinking that the Taliban has a point?!?
Listen, some of the stories I’m seeing are using a specific word: stall and/or delay. I think the Administration is eventually going to release these photos, on their own accord. Either that, or I wonder how far they'll fight the case in court. Either way, they’re not going to release those photos yet, not until Pakistan stabilizes.
Personally, I want the photos released, too, but I'm personally okay with this decision as long as it's only a stall, or a delay...and not an outright cancellation.
At the end of Hartsfield's Landing, Sam Seaborn (in case you don’t remember, played by Rob Lowe), asks President Bartlet (Martin Sheen), a question. The answer is one that is both simple and complicated all at the same time, and is one of the reasons (I trust) we all voted for the President in the first place:
I think the President might owe us a better explanation than the “safety of American Troops”, which is both true and hollow all at once. But this advice is coming from his Generals (something we all thought Bush didn't do enough of), and its coming from his OLC (who may actually have read a Law Book or two in their careers).
Still, I think the real reasons play across a far wider board...one we all should try to see, but that the President is ultimately responsible for.
Please remember, there was a reason we decided we wanted this man to call the plays.
UPDATE (5:26pm Pacific): For the record, I beat Joe Klein to the punch.
When a Political Figure acts against his nature, for whatever reason, there’s usually some other force at work, something we don’t see.
Put a simpler way, you got one hand on Obama pulling him one way, you got another hand pulling him in reverse, and then comes another hand (hint-hint: a Third Hand), which pushes him the way he actually goes.
Think of it like this, if there’s a situation where Obama does something to deliberately anger his base, logic suggests that the alternative, whatever it may be, is far worse.
Thus, we come to the release, or non-release, of those Abu Ghraib Photos, and the President’s reversal on that decision. My fellow Progressives/Liberals are justifiably upset by the decision…or maybe not so justifiably.
Looked at on its own, by itself the decision to withhold those photos is indefensible. Lord knows people I read, admire and respect have been dumping all over it. (Though I will say, David Kurtz in TPM comes very close to the explanation I'm about to give you, and...after all...he's a professional, and got there first, so...kudos.)
But…and I hate to bring the West Wing into anything…but it’s like President Bartlet said in the episode Hartsfield’s Landing (Episode 58, Season 3): “See the whole board…”
What do I mean by that?
Ask yourself, what happened? What made President Obama change his mind, or more to the point, has something changed that would make President Obama change his mind??
I’d say, yes.
Mind you this is just a theory, but at the same time...
Since the last week of April, beginning of May, there has been a considerable uptick in the violence in Pakistan, as the Taliban has moved ever closer to Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan (within 60 miles, so it seems). Now, the United States has been using Aerial drones to ice people across the Pakistani Border. The Pakistani Government has been upset about that, but since Pakistani’s Prime Minister is Asif Ali Zardari (aka Benazir Bhutto’s widower) and Islamist Militants were the ones who killed her, I don’t think he’s that upset…you know what I mean?
(In fact, should I mention that the Pakistani Government wants "ownership" over U.S. Drones? God, I hope we told them "hell, no.")
The situation was so bad that General Petraeus said that Pakistan was two weeks from falling, and the President was asked about the security of Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal at his last press conference.
But something has happened into the interim. Pakistan’s population has decided that they don’t much like the Taliban, or Taliban rule. In fact now that the Taliban has closed within 40 miles of the Capital, suddenly, we don’t have to bribe the Generals into defending their own country anymore. They’re actually (finally) pulling troops off the Indian border to get into the fight with the extremists. In fact, it’s creating something of a humanitarian crisis as refugees flee the fighting.
So, we are left with a situation where the Pakistani Military has finally gotten off its collective, and ineffective ass to start dealing some payback to the Taliban. There's popular support for the offensive in mainstream Pakistan, and all this is coming off recent American pressure to do so.
...and into this hyper-mega-combustile mix, some folks want to release some 2000 more photographs of Americans torturing Muslims?!?
Can you say…Danish Cartoons?? Times ten??
The President said that these Photographs were "not particularly sensational, particularly when compared to the painful images we remember from Abu Ghraib." Maybe, maybe not. We only have his word on this. I've heard in some quarters, these photos were pretty bad. They were bad enough to have Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman write the President a letter begging him to not to release the photos. (It's too bad they couldn't have gotten a Democrat to sign that letter. I would have been helpful if it was bipartisan.)
With the Pakistani populace finally seeing things our way, why do we want to go and insert into the discussion something that makes the Pakistanis start thinking that the Taliban has a point?!?
Listen, some of the stories I’m seeing are using a specific word: stall and/or delay. I think the Administration is eventually going to release these photos, on their own accord. Either that, or I wonder how far they'll fight the case in court. Either way, they’re not going to release those photos yet, not until Pakistan stabilizes.
Personally, I want the photos released, too, but I'm personally okay with this decision as long as it's only a stall, or a delay...and not an outright cancellation.
At the end of Hartsfield's Landing, Sam Seaborn (in case you don’t remember, played by Rob Lowe), asks President Bartlet (Martin Sheen), a question. The answer is one that is both simple and complicated all at the same time, and is one of the reasons (I trust) we all voted for the President in the first place:
SAMI don’t know how you... I don’t know the word. I...don’t know how you do it.BARTLETYou have a lot of help. You listen to everybody and then you call the play.
I think the President might owe us a better explanation than the “safety of American Troops”, which is both true and hollow all at once. But this advice is coming from his Generals (something we all thought Bush didn't do enough of), and its coming from his OLC (who may actually have read a Law Book or two in their careers).
Still, I think the real reasons play across a far wider board...one we all should try to see, but that the President is ultimately responsible for.
Please remember, there was a reason we decided we wanted this man to call the plays.
UPDATE (5:26pm Pacific): For the record, I beat Joe Klein to the punch.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Obama at the White House Correspondent's Dinner (VIDEO)
Still looking for Wanda Sykes' introduction. She killed, too.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Fireside chat for May 9, 2009
"We need a durable and successful flow of credit in our economy, but we can't tolerate profits that depend upon misleading working families. Those days are over."
Friday, May 8, 2009
Here comes Employee Free Choice...
I hope to God this compromise is okay, and doesn't screw the Unions.
I'm getting this from Jane Hamsher's blogpost on HuffPo, but the data really comes from the National Journal (subscriber only).
...and I did mention the part where Diane Feinstein wants to be Governor of Union heavy California, right?? Being the one to stop EFCA's passage is a good way to make sure you don't become Governor.
I'm getting this from Jane Hamsher's blogpost on HuffPo, but the data really comes from the National Journal (subscriber only).
[Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.
...and I did mention the part where Diane Feinstein wants to be Governor of Union heavy California, right?? Being the one to stop EFCA's passage is a good way to make sure you don't become Governor.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Listen to David Plouffe
From the Huffington Post. David Plouffe speaking at the Panetta Institute in Monterey, California:
He's right. I just wish he hadn't said it in front of Karl Rove.
"Because we've won so many House seats in the last two elections, we have got more Democrat representing swing seats, so the balance has shifted a little bit," he said. "Right now the Republicans are, I think, at a core in the U.S. House, where there may be four or five House seats that you can plausibly suggest the Democrats have a chance of winning. We've won pretty much all there was to win in the last two elections."
Later in the event, he cautioned that "some people in my party" are "a little over-confident now," after recent sweeping victories.
He's right. I just wish he hadn't said it in front of Karl Rove.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The President's Press Conference of April 29, 2009 (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Obama's Town Hall from Missouri (VIDEO)
MSNBC edited out a very nice introduction by a former Republican Housewife (turned Obamacan), who's out there volunteering for Habitat for Humanity.
Oh well, what can I say? C-SPAN doesn't offer embeddable video.
Oh well, what can I say? C-SPAN doesn't offer embeddable video.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Fireside chat for April 25, 2009
With apologies. Departing for the L.A. Times Festival of Books bright and early caused this delay.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The GOP inherits the wind...
Believe it or not, Arlen Specter’s move wasn’t all that surprising.
I mean, think about it. This is how the cycle works. This is the process a party goes through when its knocked out of power.
The process is fairly routine. After a voter rebellion, the party out of power goes through some soul searching, a reformation if you will. During this time, the old guard fades away (either through retirements or being kicked out by the voters). The party becomes a more ideologically pure, while at the same time bringing on new talent (i.e. candidates) that will show the battered survivors new ways to communicate the overall Republican brand with the voters, and eventually find their way back to electoral triumph.
The only difference in this story is Arlen Specter, instead of waiting to be voted out of office, chose to jump ship. Rare, but it's happened before with Jim Jeffords and Joe Lieberman. It'll probably happen again.
After you take a bath like the Republicans have done, your big tent is going to be, by necessity, a wee-bit smaller. Once you get the riff-raff out of there, you can start widening it again.
But just remember, Republicans, when the new arrivals come onboard, not everybody is going to be of the same ideological stripe. But they’ll all agree that losing sucks, and it’s better to be in power than out of power. Everyone will hang together, hold their noses and vote for someone tolerable, someone with broad, national appeal. Once that happens, you can start winning again.
That being said, fellow Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, one of these days, the GOP Reformation will be complete. One of these days, they will be back in power. It’s inevitable. The last guy who thought there could be one party in permanent majority was Karl Rove.
It’s going to happen.
The only question is when.
However, the way the GOP is handling this reformation, I can tell you, it’s going to be long time.
And I mean a loooooooooooooooonnnnnnng time.
I already thought 2012 was a lost cause for them. Now, I’m starting to wonder if 2016 is toast as well.
If there is a reason that the Republican Party did as well as it did in the 1980s is that the Goldwater Wing of the Party, led by its ideological scion, Ronald Reagan, expanded the tent to include the Libertarians, Neocons/National Defense Hawks, Club For Growth Types and Religious Conservatives, all under his flag. That coalition held together for many years, despite losing power to Bill Clinton for a little while. Then, come 2000, the Neocons and the Religious Conservatives took over the party, pushed aside the Goldwater types, and promptly ran the Party into the ground (along with the country, but that’s the subject of another posting).
Right now, the Republicans should be turning to their Goldwater Wing to go “pick them a winner”. But that’s not happening, is it? Instead, the very factions of the Conservative movement that drove them into that ditch are somehow complaining they weren’t allowed to drive.
This particular wing of the party, the ones that lost you the 2008 Election, the people that left the country in such a state that it allowed African-American to be voted into Office, is actually out there yelling louder and louder that their ideas are the only one’s of merit.
Hell, they’re actually out they’re saying the they’re the only people who should be listened to, period (and not just in the party, but nationally).
It’s not like the Goldwater wing has died off or anything: Gov. Charlie Crist (FL), Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA), Senator Olympia Snowe (ME), Senator Susan Collins (ME), the 2000 era John McCain, not the guy who ran in 2008, and Senator Arlen—
--whoops.
But that’s just the point, isn’t it. Not only are these guys not running the show, they’re getting better deals from the Democrats, you know…the party they’re supposed to oppose??
Crist, Collins and Snowe both worked with President Obama to get the Stimulus passed. Schwarzenegger practically has a man-crush on the President. The 2000 era John McCain was asked to switch parties (alledgedly) by John Kerry. (As a side note, who would’ve been our Party’s nominee in 2008 if that had happened??!)
And Arlen Specter was so disgusted he left the Party all together.
What does this tell you!??
Apparently, nothing.
To tell you how sad things are. Even Bay Buchanan has a better grip on things than some of her colleagues on the right:
My personal expectation is that the American people have decided to give the new President a chance to un!@#$ us out of our current dilemma, thus, they will give him time. My personal bet is that very little changes in the House in the 2010 Midterms, and maybe a few seats gain for Democrats in the Senate.
And that’s assuming we stay on the economic path we’ve been on. If things start to look up, start to feel better, or worse (for Republicans) start to turn toward recovery, then look to 1936’s Congressional Composition as a marker (where there were only 17 Republicans in the Senate).
If that is the future you want, then by all means, keep plowing ahead. But there needs to be a debate in this country about our future and our direction. And even I, the consummate Republican hater, know they have good ideas to contribute. But "He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."
That was an actual Bible quote, fellas. (Trust me, I'm impressed myself).
But, I thought the Bible was a Book that the "Party of Family Values" was at least somewhat familiar with.
I'm not sure I, nor my party, nor the President himself can lay claim to being all that wise of heart. We're just doing the best we can. But there's little doubt as to who is the fool in this equation.
I mean, think about it. This is how the cycle works. This is the process a party goes through when its knocked out of power.
The process is fairly routine. After a voter rebellion, the party out of power goes through some soul searching, a reformation if you will. During this time, the old guard fades away (either through retirements or being kicked out by the voters). The party becomes a more ideologically pure, while at the same time bringing on new talent (i.e. candidates) that will show the battered survivors new ways to communicate the overall Republican brand with the voters, and eventually find their way back to electoral triumph.
The only difference in this story is Arlen Specter, instead of waiting to be voted out of office, chose to jump ship. Rare, but it's happened before with Jim Jeffords and Joe Lieberman. It'll probably happen again.
After you take a bath like the Republicans have done, your big tent is going to be, by necessity, a wee-bit smaller. Once you get the riff-raff out of there, you can start widening it again.
But just remember, Republicans, when the new arrivals come onboard, not everybody is going to be of the same ideological stripe. But they’ll all agree that losing sucks, and it’s better to be in power than out of power. Everyone will hang together, hold their noses and vote for someone tolerable, someone with broad, national appeal. Once that happens, you can start winning again.
That being said, fellow Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, one of these days, the GOP Reformation will be complete. One of these days, they will be back in power. It’s inevitable. The last guy who thought there could be one party in permanent majority was Karl Rove.
It’s going to happen.
The only question is when.
However, the way the GOP is handling this reformation, I can tell you, it’s going to be long time.
And I mean a loooooooooooooooonnnnnnng time.
I already thought 2012 was a lost cause for them. Now, I’m starting to wonder if 2016 is toast as well.
If there is a reason that the Republican Party did as well as it did in the 1980s is that the Goldwater Wing of the Party, led by its ideological scion, Ronald Reagan, expanded the tent to include the Libertarians, Neocons/National Defense Hawks, Club For Growth Types and Religious Conservatives, all under his flag. That coalition held together for many years, despite losing power to Bill Clinton for a little while. Then, come 2000, the Neocons and the Religious Conservatives took over the party, pushed aside the Goldwater types, and promptly ran the Party into the ground (along with the country, but that’s the subject of another posting).
Right now, the Republicans should be turning to their Goldwater Wing to go “pick them a winner”. But that’s not happening, is it? Instead, the very factions of the Conservative movement that drove them into that ditch are somehow complaining they weren’t allowed to drive.
This particular wing of the party, the ones that lost you the 2008 Election, the people that left the country in such a state that it allowed African-American to be voted into Office, is actually out there yelling louder and louder that their ideas are the only one’s of merit.
Hell, they’re actually out they’re saying the they’re the only people who should be listened to, period (and not just in the party, but nationally).
It’s not like the Goldwater wing has died off or anything: Gov. Charlie Crist (FL), Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA), Senator Olympia Snowe (ME), Senator Susan Collins (ME), the 2000 era John McCain, not the guy who ran in 2008, and Senator Arlen—
--whoops.
But that’s just the point, isn’t it. Not only are these guys not running the show, they’re getting better deals from the Democrats, you know…the party they’re supposed to oppose??
Crist, Collins and Snowe both worked with President Obama to get the Stimulus passed. Schwarzenegger practically has a man-crush on the President. The 2000 era John McCain was asked to switch parties (alledgedly) by John Kerry. (As a side note, who would’ve been our Party’s nominee in 2008 if that had happened??!)
And Arlen Specter was so disgusted he left the Party all together.
What does this tell you!??
Apparently, nothing.
I think the threat to the country presented by [the defection of Arlen Specter] really relates to the issue of whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority to have whatever it wants without restraint, without a check or a balance.- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest -- Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first.- RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
To tell you how sad things are. Even Bay Buchanan has a better grip on things than some of her colleagues on the right:
Did he give us a few things? Did he owe President Bush something because he flew into the fray in 2004 and saved him in the primary with Toomey? Were we able to call in a few chits? Absolutely. And now the Democrats will call in their chits. This is not good for Republicans. I’m not going to tell you that we’re cleansing the party and that this is good for Republicans.In the same article, even Gary Bauer showed flashes of sanity:
I would remind folks that Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush to be his running mate. Ronald Reagan understood that there was another element of the party that needed to be brought along. We gain nothing if we replace RINOS with Democrats.
My personal expectation is that the American people have decided to give the new President a chance to un!@#$ us out of our current dilemma, thus, they will give him time. My personal bet is that very little changes in the House in the 2010 Midterms, and maybe a few seats gain for Democrats in the Senate.
And that’s assuming we stay on the economic path we’ve been on. If things start to look up, start to feel better, or worse (for Republicans) start to turn toward recovery, then look to 1936’s Congressional Composition as a marker (where there were only 17 Republicans in the Senate).
If that is the future you want, then by all means, keep plowing ahead. But there needs to be a debate in this country about our future and our direction. And even I, the consummate Republican hater, know they have good ideas to contribute. But "He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."
That was an actual Bible quote, fellas. (Trust me, I'm impressed myself).
But, I thought the Bible was a Book that the "Party of Family Values" was at least somewhat familiar with.
I'm not sure I, nor my party, nor the President himself can lay claim to being all that wise of heart. We're just doing the best we can. But there's little doubt as to who is the fool in this equation.
Republicans, if you ever wonder why you lose...
...this would be the reason why:
I think the threat to the country presented by [the defection of Arlen Specter] really relates to the issue of whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority to have whatever it wants without restraint, without a check or a balance.- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Friday, April 24, 2009
Chris Matters kicks Rep. Thornberry's !@$!#$ (VIDEO)
For the record, Mac Thornberry (R-TX) is a lying sack of--
The amount of time, he spends twisting and contorting himself into a pretzel, labelling the torture at Abu-Gahrib a "systemic failure" that no one should be held accountable for. Ever.
The amount of time, he spends twisting and contorting himself into a pretzel, labelling the torture at Abu-Gahrib a "systemic failure" that no one should be held accountable for. Ever.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Declaration of War...
The Obama Administration is nearing a near that will put Health Care Reform through the Budget Reconciliation Process, basically immunizing it against Republican Filibusters in the Senate.
The Republicans have said if Democrats resort to Budget Reconciliation, that bipartisanship is dead.
Well, if the Teabaggers are any indication, bipartisanship has been dead. You guys killed it.
Best of all, at least to me, the Obama Administration has declared war.
The Republicans have said if Democrats resort to Budget Reconciliation, that bipartisanship is dead.
Well, if the Teabaggers are any indication, bipartisanship has been dead. You guys killed it.
Best of all, at least to me, the Obama Administration has declared war.
In a meeting with House Republicans at the White House Thursday, President Obama reminded the minority that the last time he reached out to them, they reacted with zero votes -- twice -- for his stimulus package. And then he reminded them again. And again. And again.
A GOP source familiar with the meeting said that the president was extremely sensitive -- even "thin-skinned" -- to the fact that the stimulus bill received no GOP votes in the House. He continually brought it up throughout the meeting.
Obama also offered payback for that goose egg. A major overhaul of the health care system, he told the Republican leadership, would be done using a legislative process known as reconciliation, meaning that the GOP won't be able to filibuster it.
Congress has until October 15 to pass health care or student lending reform under the normal process. If it doesn't, reconciliation can be used to eliminate the 60-vote requirement.
Hillary vs. Rep. Christopher Smith (VIDEO)
It's been a productive day from the Congress. I think we're starting to throw elbows.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Elizabeth de la Vega Interview (VIDEO)
Following through on Barack Oblogger's post from earlier today, is this interview from Countdown with Keith Olbermann from April 22, 2009
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Hillary vs. Pence (VIDEO)
Everyone's been talking about Hillary's "exchange" with the worthless Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), but her pushback against Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) (A 2012 wannabee) was ten times better. Professional. Firm. Honest, and best of all...she threw an elbow.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Namecalling 101, for Conservatives.
This is country was founded on debate. And even though the debate's gotten a touch bit nasty over the last couple of days, I wholeheartedly support the principle.
So, Conservatives, particularly of the Teabagging/Anti-Tax/Herbert Hoover/24 Percent crowd, say what you want to say. You've got that right. Think what you wanna think. You don't have to like the President. You can even call him names. Lord knows, I've done it to former President Bush. Fair's fair.
But if you're going to call the President names, please dear God, know what the hell you're talking about.
That scene of the CNN Reporter getting in the face (Oh, Lord forgive me) of that Tea-Bagger who was calling the President a Fascist, was embarrassing. Not just for the Tea-Bagger, but for the Reporter as well.
Don't tell him how offensive calling the President a Fascist is. Ask the moron if he even knows what the hell Fascist means?!? Because, clearly, he doesn't.
That scene of the CNN Reporter getting in the face (Oh, Lord forgive me) of that Tea-Bagger who was calling the President a Fascist, was embarrassing. Not just for the Tea-Bagger, but for the Reporter as well.
Don't tell him how offensive calling the President a Fascist is. Ask the moron if he even knows what the hell Fascist means?!? Because, clearly, he doesn't.
What, was he Sarah Palin all the sudden?
Does he understand the words that are coming out of his mouth?? (Chris Tucker, 1998)
Lord knows, y'all didn't understand what the hell Tea-bag meant, so let's start by--
Oh, wait--
--and I'm being told that this is a Family site, and no one wants to read that.
--and I'm being told that while some people to read that, there are sites that'll better serve those needs.
--and I'm being told that this is a Family site, and no one wants to read that.
--and I'm being told that while some people to read that, there are sites that'll better serve those needs.
And no, I'm not linking to any of them.
Let's start with our word of the day: Fascist.
This from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. (I'm using this Dictionary, because it is the first one I thought of. There's also Dictionary.com and Wikipedia you can use as well. I figured any Dictionary would provide the simplest definition.)
Let's start with our word of the day: Fascist.
This from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. (I'm using this Dictionary, because it is the first one I thought of. There's also Dictionary.com and Wikipedia you can use as well. I figured any Dictionary would provide the simplest definition.)
Fascism: A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
I'd like to ask that tool from the CNN Video, if he really thinks he's living in a centralized autocratic government, with the dictatorial leader, and the forcible suppression of opposition???
He does realize that he was just on TV, right? Going out to a national audience calling the President of the United States, the alleged dictator in this scenario, names??
Kinda eliminates the whole forcible suppression thing.
Again...confusing tyranny...with losing.
Next, we move on to our second definition, also from Merriam-Webster.
You do know that the Bailout of the Big Banks was started by George W. Bush right? Your guy? So, if anyone's the Socialist in this scenario, it's your guy, not mine.
Secondly, has the President seized the means of production (as Hugo Chavez actually did in March) anytime anywhere, and we all just missed it?
No. He's continued the program Bush started, and built some roads. (This is a massive simplification of the President's Agenda. The American Investment and Recovery Act is more than building roads. So, no, I haven't forgotten the High Speed Rail, the electronic medical records, or any of the other stuff.)
Third, because it has been used so often as an example of Bank Nationalization, it has been getting folks confused. Thus, let me remind everyone that the land of IKEA, Sweden, IS NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY!!!
Again...confusing tyranny...with losing.
Next, we move on to our second definition, also from Merriam-Webster.
Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
You do know that the Bailout of the Big Banks was started by George W. Bush right? Your guy? So, if anyone's the Socialist in this scenario, it's your guy, not mine.
Secondly, has the President seized the means of production (as Hugo Chavez actually did in March) anytime anywhere, and we all just missed it?
No. He's continued the program Bush started, and built some roads. (This is a massive simplification of the President's Agenda. The American Investment and Recovery Act is more than building roads. So, no, I haven't forgotten the High Speed Rail, the electronic medical records, or any of the other stuff.)
Third, because it has been used so often as an example of Bank Nationalization, it has been getting folks confused. Thus, let me remind everyone that the land of IKEA, Sweden, IS NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY!!!
Yes, they have Socialized some things in Sweden (Health care being at the top of that list), but they are a Capitalist Economy. There is Private Enterprise in Sweden. It is a Constitutional Monarchy, something I can personally verify to since I lived there when I was four. I still have the postcard they issued when King Carl Gustav XVI was crowned.
See???
Finally, I'd define Communism, but there's barely any difference between it and Marxism as far as I'm concerned. Though I think Communism is far more totalitarian than Socialism, and advocates that there is no private property at all.
Ain't no way Obama's takin' my Blu-Ray Player.
So, to sum up.
Teabaggers of the world, we get it, you don't like President's policies. You don't like the fact he was elected, and frankly, more than a few of you don't like the fact that he's black.
I'm sorry. I've seen the signs. Some of y'all are racists. Deal.
But just because you don't like the President, it doesn't mean you get to make asses of yourselves in the process. And repeatedly misusing and abusing the English language definitely counts as making asses of yourselves!!
Making a Photoshop picture of Obama as Hitler? C'mon. Do I really need to explain, historically, how stupid that is??
You do know that Fascism stands at the extreme of your own Conservative Values, right? (After all, you're the crowd that keeps saying Barack Obama is a liberal). Whereas Socialism stands at the extreme of Left Wing Values (something frankly we know Barack Obama isn't anywhere near).
HE CAN'T BE BOTH OF THESE EXTREME WINGS AT THE SAME TIME!!
I hope you've found this discussion helpful. But, let's be honest, you're not going to listen, and you're going wind up doing is driving more and more Independents and Obamacans our way ayway, so keep it up...please.
You do know that Fascism stands at the extreme of your own Conservative Values, right? (After all, you're the crowd that keeps saying Barack Obama is a liberal). Whereas Socialism stands at the extreme of Left Wing Values (something frankly we know Barack Obama isn't anywhere near).
HE CAN'T BE BOTH OF THESE EXTREME WINGS AT THE SAME TIME!!
I hope you've found this discussion helpful. But, let's be honest, you're not going to listen, and you're going wind up doing is driving more and more Independents and Obamacans our way ayway, so keep it up...please.
You could try to engage the Democratic Majority to at least try and get some of the things on your wish list, but all know you won't.
Just don't come crying to me when you lose again.
And if you do call me a name, at least use the right word.
Here's one you've been proven fond of; six letters, starting with N.
It's offensive, yeah. But you've proven that you know what it means.
The Fireside chat for April 18, 2009
“All across America, families are making hard choices, and it’s time their government did the same."
Cuts to Government programs are coming. And according to the President, "there will be no sacred cows."
4/18/09: Your Weekly Address from White House on Vimeo.
Cuts to Government programs are coming. And according to the President, "there will be no sacred cows."
4/18/09: Your Weekly Address from White House on Vimeo.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Keith with James Risen: Busy Night Part 3 (VIDEO)
Still more work to do on Warantless Wiretapping.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Keith with John Dean: Busy Night Part 1 (VIDEO)
This was a busy damn night. Lots of stories to cover, plus the Special Comment.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Sen. Roland Burris REMAINS Toast...
According to the Chicago Tribune, he's raised...$845 so far.
That's...Eight Hundred and forty-five dollars, in total...so far...for his campaign.
Couple that with $110,000 some odd bucks in debt. (I have no idea if this includes his legal fees or not.)
Good luck, sparky!
That's...Eight Hundred and forty-five dollars, in total...so far...for his campaign.
Couple that with $110,000 some odd bucks in debt. (I have no idea if this includes his legal fees or not.)
Good luck, sparky!
Did Holder just leave himself some Wiggle Room?
I got this from reading Andrew Sullivan (who was reading Marc Ambinder), so this is hardly a thought I can take credit for, but listen to what Ambinder has to say about Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement on the late and lamented Torture Prosecutions:
The emphasis is Ambinder's.
Now, I work around Lawyers. I work around them every day. My Dad’s new wife is, in fact, a Lawyer herself.
I’m just saying, I know how these guys sound, and I know when they leave themselves wiggle room.
Folks, that ain’t wiggle room, that’s more like a tunnel in which large eighteen wheels can pass.
Sullivan puts it better than I can:
Now, all that said “wiggle room” isn’t a substitute for action (which I think we, the ACLU, Senator Russ Feingold, and civil libertarians would prefer). But it is something, especially when you couple this with action from the Congress. Either Chamber will do.
I think, in the wake of our most recent NSA Spying Story, the Congress might find itself a little more willing to act.
Granted, it has an air of “It’s one thing to have the mob get wiretapped, but now that it’s one of us…” but again, it'll do.
Oh, and in case your fingers were crossed, uncross 'em. Spain isn't going to help:
We can only hope.
Here's what Attorney General Holder said today in his statement: "Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct."
The emphasis is Ambinder's.
Now, I work around Lawyers. I work around them every day. My Dad’s new wife is, in fact, a Lawyer herself.
I’m just saying, I know how these guys sound, and I know when they leave themselves wiggle room.
Folks, that ain’t wiggle room, that’s more like a tunnel in which large eighteen wheels can pass.
Sullivan puts it better than I can:
If evidence emerges of bad faith in torture sessions, then those staffers may well face legal consequences. Ditto if the legal advice was given in bad faith, along Nuremberg lines, Yoo and Bybee should start sweating. That's why the internal OPR report on the legal professionalism of the torture lawyers is so crucial and why it is being fought over so fiercely. If Yoo and Bybee's memos were so below legal standards that they can be objectively shown to be a means to get away with torture rather than good faith effort to apply the law to proposed torture techniques, then they too acted in bad faith. And they too are war criminals.
Now, all that said “wiggle room” isn’t a substitute for action (which I think we, the ACLU, Senator Russ Feingold, and civil libertarians would prefer). But it is something, especially when you couple this with action from the Congress. Either Chamber will do.
I think, in the wake of our most recent NSA Spying Story, the Congress might find itself a little more willing to act.
Granted, it has an air of “It’s one thing to have the mob get wiretapped, but now that it’s one of us…” but again, it'll do.
Oh, and in case your fingers were crossed, uncross 'em. Spain isn't going to help:
Despite recent reports to the contrary, Spain’s attorney general has now reportedly decided not to prosecute the Bush Six — the top legal officials in the Bush administration who allegedly approved the torture of terror suspects. Attorney General Candido Conde-Pumpio said that the United States would be the proper forum for such a case.
We can only hope.
Mark Kirk advocates violence to keep Taxes low?!?
This is a quote from Congressman Mark Kirk, currently considering a run for Governor of Illinois or for the Senate. When he makes up his mind, I'm sure we'll be the first to know, but...
This may be hyperbole, but in the current climate, with Texas Governors (and to a lesser degree Chuck Norris) advocating for the secession of their miserable state from the Union, with Right Wing Extremism on the rise, Gun sales up, and a constant drumbeat of threats against the President and his Family, this doesn't strike me as funny.
And then we have perennial douchebag Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a Senator, a representative of Oklahoma, a member of the (allegedly) world's greatest deliberative body, saying this:
You tell me. Is this the party of Lincoln??
"I think that the decision to raise taxes by 50 percent in Illinois is political suicide," Kirk said of Quinn's proposal to raise the tax rate to 4.5 percent from 3 percent, coupled with an increase in the personal deduction. "I think the people of Illinois are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes by that degree."
This may be hyperbole, but in the current climate, with Texas Governors (and to a lesser degree Chuck Norris) advocating for the secession of their miserable state from the Union, with Right Wing Extremism on the rise, Gun sales up, and a constant drumbeat of threats against the President and his Family, this doesn't strike me as funny.
And then we have perennial douchebag Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a Senator, a representative of Oklahoma, a member of the (allegedly) world's greatest deliberative body, saying this:
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) said this week that the administration will try “all sorts of things” to chip away at the individual right to own a gun, warning of gun control policies aimed at “disarming us.”
Speaking at a town hall meeting in Cushing, Oklahoma, Coburn warned that Attorney General Eric Holder “doesn’t believe in the second amendment” and “doesn’t even know what an assault weapon is.”
“He doesn’t believe in our right to own and hold a gun,” Coburn said of Holder, whose nomination he vigorously opposed. “He doesn’t believe the Second Amendment means it’s a right for me to have a gun to protect myself.”
You tell me. Is this the party of Lincoln??
Elizabeth Warren on the Daily Show (VIDEO)
For the record, Part 2 was waaay better than Part, and is the part that made Jon Stewart "feel" better.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 1:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Elizabeth Warren Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Part 2:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Elizabeth Warren Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
This is who they are...
The following is intentional. I have collected a small smattering of images from today's Teabaggin' Parties from the Washington Independents' Aaron Weiner and David Weigel, as well as some stuff from Daily Kos.
These images, of course, show the worst of the worst. Protestors advocating violence, or racism, or toeing that fine line.
These images do not show all protesters. There were those who merely wanted to protest taxation and the deficit. I merely find these people deluded, not dangerous. And it is danger of which we speak here.
Yeah, let's link our deadly enemy, the one we might have to go to war with, with the duly elected President of the United States.
And yes, the sign says "While Some Kenyan tries to Destroy America". Forget the "In Living Color" quote.
Anything to make the President look alien and foreign.
And of course, my "favorite" for the day...
Apparently, it was from Chicago.
Are you sure you want to go there?
These images, of course, show the worst of the worst. Protestors advocating violence, or racism, or toeing that fine line.
These images do not show all protesters. There were those who merely wanted to protest taxation and the deficit. I merely find these people deluded, not dangerous. And it is danger of which we speak here.
Yeah, let's link our deadly enemy, the one we might have to go to war with, with the duly elected President of the United States.
And yes, the sign says "While Some Kenyan tries to Destroy America". Forget the "In Living Color" quote.
Anything to make the President look alien and foreign.And of course, my "favorite" for the day...
Apparently, it was from Chicago.
Are you sure you want to go there?
Courtesy Chuck Todd...
From the First Read site (you may have to scroll down a tad):
Franken’s discipline: By the way, and it's a point we've made before, but it's been pretty impressive how Franken has been so disciplined during this recount period. Indeed, until last night, when had we heard from him. Clearly, the GOP thought they were dealing with the stereotype that was Al Franken -- not the guy who proved to be a candidate who, well, got more votes than Norm Coleman. In fact, this has been a problem for the GOP in general the last few years when it comes to dealing with Democrats: They believe their own stereotypes about their opponents, rather than actually dealing with their opponents at face value.
"Mental Gymnastics..."
Even when I disagree with him, Taibbi is always fun.
And, right now, I certainly don't disagree with him.
And, right now, I certainly don't disagree with him.
It requires serious mental gymnastics to describe the Obama administration — particularly the Obama administration of recent weeks, which has given away billions to Wall Street and bent over backwards to avoid nationalization and pursue a policy that preserves the private for-profit status of the bailed-out banks — as a militaristic dictatorship of anti-wealth, anti-private property forces. You have to somehow explain the Geithner/Paulson decisions to hand over trillions of taxpayer dollars to the rich bankers as the formal policy expression of progressive rage against the rich. Not easy. In order to pull off this argument, in fact, you have to grease the wheels with a lot of apocalyptic language and imagery, invoking as Beck did massive pictures of Stalin and Orwell and Mussolini (side by side with shots of Geithner, Obama and Bernanke), scenes of workers storming the Winter Palace interspersed with anti-AIG protests, etc. — and then maybe you have to add a crazy new twist, like switching from complaints of “socialism” to warnings of “fascism.” Rhetorically, this is the equivalent of trying to paint a picture by hurling huge handfuls of paint at the canvas. It’s desperate, last-ditch-ish behavior.
...
But actual rich people can’t ever be the target. It’s a classic peasant mentality: going into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master’s carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the fields. You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your shit. Whatever the master does, you’re on board. When you get frisky, he sticks a big cross in the middle of your village, and you spend the rest of your life praying to it with big googly eyes. Or he puts out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger. And that’s what we’ve got now, a lot of misdirected anger searching around for a non-target to mis-punish… can’t be mad at AIG, can’t be mad at Citi or Goldman Sachs. The real villains have to be the anti-AIG protesters! After all, those people earned those bonuses! If ever there was a textbook case of peasant thinking, it’s struggling middle-class Americans burned up in defense of taxpayer-funded bonuses to millionaires. It’s really weird stuff. And bound to get weirder, I imagine, as this crisis gets worse and more complicated.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Are The Tea Parties Racist??
I was flipping around Daily Kos today, and they posted a question that’s been on my mind for the last couple of days.
These…Tea Parties (I’m going to avoid calling these people Teabaggers)…
…are they for white people only?
‘Cause I’m looking at the photos, and…I ain’t seein' no people of color…
Anywhere.
Jim Crow Protest Rallies?
Really?
Are you kidding me?
Fortunately, I am not the first to have this thought. It turns out that a site called Jack & Jill Politics has been on this way before I was.
I'm not 100% percent convinced in the arguments they present in their piece. Still, I think they're onto something.
Are these the same people who were yelling "Terrorist" and maybe even "Kill Him" at some McCain-Palin Rallies not than long ago? To paraphrase the Governor of Alaska, you betcha.
Did we expect these people to simply engage in the debate and suddenly accept the fact that Barack Obama legitimately won the election? If Norm Coleman is any measure...
Does anyone…anywhere see any people of color in any of these photos in a participatory capacity, and not acting as Security Guards, Cameramen...or worse, picking up after these people?
Couple this with a report from DHS says Right Wing Extremism is on the rise thanks to the Economy (and blaming the Black President for it), there is always reason to be concerned.
Whatever reservations I have about their particular arguments, they did offer a handy guide to sniffing out an undercover racist attack on the President. It goes as follows (with corrections for grammar):
UPDATE 4:49PM Pacific: Michelle Malkin does not count. She started these damn things, and besides, I'd put her personal racially sensitivity quotient at about zero.
These…Tea Parties (I’m going to avoid calling these people Teabaggers)…
…are they for white people only?
‘Cause I’m looking at the photos, and…I ain’t seein' no people of color…
Anywhere.
Jim Crow Protest Rallies?
Really?
Are you kidding me?
Fortunately, I am not the first to have this thought. It turns out that a site called Jack & Jill Politics has been on this way before I was.
I'm not 100% percent convinced in the arguments they present in their piece. Still, I think they're onto something.
Are these the same people who were yelling "Terrorist" and maybe even "Kill Him" at some McCain-Palin Rallies not than long ago? To paraphrase the Governor of Alaska, you betcha.
Did we expect these people to simply engage in the debate and suddenly accept the fact that Barack Obama legitimately won the election? If Norm Coleman is any measure...
Does anyone…anywhere see any people of color in any of these photos in a participatory capacity, and not acting as Security Guards, Cameramen...or worse, picking up after these people?
Couple this with a report from DHS says Right Wing Extremism is on the rise thanks to the Economy (and blaming the Black President for it), there is always reason to be concerned.
Whatever reservations I have about their particular arguments, they did offer a handy guide to sniffing out an undercover racist attack on the President. It goes as follows (with corrections for grammar):
1) Is [said attack] unique to Obama. Is it a phrase we’ve never heard before applied to any other president or is it something we haven’t heard in recent memory?
For example: he’s not an American citizen or he’s a socialist who’s planning re-education camps for young people.
2) Is [said attack] illogical or impossible. Does the assertion plainly contradict the facts?
For example: not an American citizen, socialist, tax raiser, re-education camps for young people.
3) Is [said attack] repeated, over and over, by a desperate person whose team lost badly in the last election and who adopts a wide-eyed, credulous, nodding stare pronouncing the lie slowly, precisely, with a watchful eye to see if the listeners are buying it.
For example: not an American citizen, socialist, elitist, drug seller, tax raiser or terrorist. (aka, the entirety of the Glenn Beck Show)
Optional: Does the assertion cause nervousness, embarrassment or confusion among non-blacks (who are listening to said attack)? When other white people such as Tom Brokaw or John Stewart sense something wrong and start to ask questions like "Do you really believe that?," you know for sure you’re in the racist attack zone.
UPDATE 4:49PM Pacific: Michelle Malkin does not count. She started these damn things, and besides, I'd put her personal racially sensitivity quotient at about zero.
The President's Economics Speech at Georgetown University (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)