The Bubble Cuts Both Ways…

The Bubble. The mysterious object that floats over and around all Presidents, cutting him off from all thought, all sanity, all objection. (Think old episodes of “the Prisoner” only harder to get through...)



There’s something to this concept, but in the end I think it’s more of a “mental” bubble than an actual one.

One of the surprises coming out of last nights highly successful (at least to me) State of the Union Address, is that an CBS Instant Poll (and y’all know how much I loooove instant stuff) gave the President 83% Approval for his policy proposals.

That’s a whopper of a number. Even I, Mr. Sunshine, was expecting at most the high sixties. But more polling is sure to come later today, and I expect it to be mostly positive.

What happened last night, to paraphrase the West Wing yet again, is that people were reminded why they like the President so much. (Sorry, I can repeat that line in sign-language…regular West Wing watchers will know what I mean). I think another reason for the (presumed) polling success of the speech, is the that the people felt like they were heard last night. The people got through the “bubble” and got through to the President. The polling should reflect that:

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -- immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades -- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

At the same time, I would like to respectfully remind my fellow citizens that the bubble cuts both ways. That sometimes (actually a lot of times) what the President says to the people doesn’t get through to them.

Ahhh, remember all those times the President said that turning around the economy “was going to be tough”, and that “it took us a long time to get into this mess, and its going to take us a long time to get out of it”, and he was going to “make mistakes”??

It was like the American people heard that. Let that sink in for about two days, and then started asking “WHY HAVEN’T YOU FIXED THE ECONOMY, YET?!?!?” They also seemed shocked that the President made a few mistakes along the way.

By way of example let me present you a quote from last night’s speech, specifically on America’s Foreign Policy:

As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.

Now, I took that quote as a statement on America’s role in the world, and why its important to stay involved, and more importantly, reminding America that even in these tough times, doling out Foreign Aid was pretty damn important, and has important consequences.

Juan Cole, who’s forgotten more about the Middle East than I will ever know, took it another way:

The attempt to position the US military occupation of Afghanistan and the sabre-rattling and threatened sanctions against Iran as somehow beneficial to women in those countries is a continuation of Bush administration rhetoric that is unworthy of Obama. These themes may appeal to the Mavis Leno faction of American feminists, but are unconnected to Afghan and Iranian women's lived reality. The position of women in Afghanistan is better now than under the Taliban, but the new Afghanistan is still an Islamic republic, and president Karzai pandered for votes among the Shiite Hazaras by allowing Shiite law to operate among them on personal status issues, rather than national law. One implication of this step is that Hazara women are now liable to marital rape. So this is the liberation the Obama administration is bringing Afghan women? Moreover, Obama's escalation of the war will have a negative impact on women and families caught in the crossfire. It is a foolish argument to make because so easily disproven.

I’m not trying to dismiss the concerns Dr. Cole is making, but…that’s not the point President Obama was making in that phase of the speech. America is spending money, money it could be argued, is best spent in areas of domestic concern right now. He needed to stand up and say: “Hey, I know this money isn’t being spent here, but it’s going to do long term good around the world, and its going to make us friends that we’re going to need into the future."

What Dr. Cole does here is telescope everything through the lens of his particular field of expertise, and in no small way, crowding out all the other information therein. I don’t want to call it disingenuous. It's not. It’s a natural enough habit (particularly for University Professors -- yeah, I'm talking to you, Dad), but it doesn’t provide a fair reading of the speech.

We also have the usual critics and pontificators rambling on and on. Dana Milbank thought it was long detailed and tepid. Marc Halperin was baffled by it. How Mark Halperin isn’t baffled by spelling his name correctly eludes me, but someone appointed Mark Halperin an expert on Politics. Someone ought to clue the Mainsteam Media that that person was Mark Halperin. Ross Douthat thinks if Obama keeps going this direction, he’s going to lose reelection. But…Douthat’s an asshat, so…

But there were people who got it, and absorbed it in the way I thought (and Obama hoped) it would be absorbed…

Joe Klein:

It was a terrific performance. He almost seemed to be having fun up there; he delivered the speech in a free, almost informal manner. It was easily digestible, user-friendly...but it was also a fighting speech. Certainly, he stuck the needle time and again into the hides of the recalcitrant elephants in the room. It started early in the speech when he recounted the numerous tax cuts that had been passed in the past year as part of his much-distorted Stimulus Plan, to applause from Democrats and silence from Republicans, and he ad-libbed, staring at the Republican side of the room, "I thought I'd get some applause on that one."

Andrew Sullivan:

This was the president I supported and still support and will support because he alone is calling us away from the cynicism, the ideology, the rhetorical poison, and the red-blue divide that keep us from the reform we desperately need.

Josh Marshall:

Listening to this litany, I'm reminded how Republicans are on the wrong side -- just politically, let alone on policy -- of most signature issues in a populist economic moment. I think there were zero Republicans standing up on any part of Obama's financial reform agenda -- something that polls exceedingly well in addition to being good public policy.

I’ll admit it. I got most of these highlights from Andrew’s blog, but they’re some of my favorite writers, and they all saw it pretty much as I did.

Then there was Chris Matthews...forgetting the President was black.



Yeah.

As I mentioned before, I sure as hell didn’t forget the President was Black. I can’t. I’m black. I see the way he’s attacked, and I can’t forget.

But Chris? Really? You want to go there??

I could say a lot at this point, but TaNeishi Coates said it first, and better:

I think it's worth noting that Chris Matthews wasn't trying to take a shot at anybody. I also think it's worth noting that he was attempting to compliment Obama and say something positive about what he's done for race relations. (See Matthews' clarification here.) But I think it's most worth noting that "I forgot Obama was black"--in all its iterations--is something that white people should stop saying, if only because it's really dishonest.

One way to think about this is to flip the frame. Around these parts, we've been known, from time to time, to chat about the NFL. We've also been known to chat about the intricacies of beer. If you hang around you'll notice that there are no shortage of women in these discussions. Having read a particularly smart take on Brett Favre, or having received a good recommendations on a particular IPA, it would not be a compliment for me to say, "Wow, I forgot you were a woman." Indeed, it would be pretty offensive.

The problems is three-fold. First, it takes my necessarily limited, and necessarily blinkered, experience with the fairer sex and builds it into a shibboleth of invented truth. Then it takes that invented truth as a fair standard by which I can measure one's "woman-ness." So if football and beer don't fit into my standard, I stop seeing the person as a woman. Finally instead of admitting that my invented truth is the problem, I put the onus on the woman. Hence the claim "I forgot you were a woman," as opposed to "I just realized my invented truth was wrong."

Ditto for Chris Matthews. The "I forgot Obama was black" sentiment allows the speaker the comfort of accepting, even lauding, a black person without interrogating their invented truth. It allows the speaker a luxurious ignorance--you get to name people (this is what black is) even when you don't know people. In fact, Chris Matthews didn't forget Barack Obama was black. Chris Matthews forgot that Chris Matthews was white.

I'm put back in the mind of the The Wire, when Slim Charles tells Avon that it really doesn't matter that our wars are based on a lie. Once we're fighting, we fight on that lie until the end. I would submit that a significant number of white people in this country, can not stop fighting on the lie. They can't cop to the fact that they really have no standing to speak on Obama's relationship to blackness, because they know so little about black people. It's always hard to say, "I don't know." But no one else can say it for you.

More racism...yay!

Courtesy of TPM. Looks like a new Tea Party Emailer just got sent out:


Chris Matthews may have forgotten he was black. I sure as hell didn't, and neither did these clowns.

More evidence pointing to "Thank you, Jesus..."

Rep. Lynn Wooseley, a Progressive Rep. who's been getting on my nerves lately, has finally struck the right (and overdue) note:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, told ABC News in an interview that she’s “absolutely” certain that a health care bill will pass, but added that it’s “only a beginning.”

“The day this bill passes, and if it doesn’t have a public option in it, I’m introducing my public option bill,” said Woolsey, D-Calif. “On to the next.”

Bingo! This is what House Progressives should be doing. This is what Tom Harkin said a couple of weeks (months?) ago. With the passage of even the crappier Senate Bill, Health Care turns from a one a decade discussion to a yearly discussion. "How are we going to improve the Bill this year?"

“Once you break the [special interest] stranglehold and you get the architecture in place, then it is not a massive reform to change this or add this or modify that,” he said. “My hope is that we move ahead on this and as reforms are in place, people will begin to say, ‘Gee, I didn’t realize that was what they were talking about.’ As more and more of these reforms take place, people will say that this is good, but we need something else, to change this or do that.

“In the future, amending it and changing it isn’t going to be as tough as passing it in the first place. We amend Medicare and Social Security all the time. We are changing rates, fixing this, doing this to make sure that they are viable. That’s what we will do in health care. I’m absolutely convinced of it.”

And there is one other thing Harkin is convinced will eventually come to pass: A public option.

“At some point in the near future, and I don’t know exactly how long it is going to be, we are going to have some sort of a public option out there,” he said. “We might not get it in this bill, but it will come in as the years go by and as people begin to look at insurance companies and how much they are charging. I have no doubt in my mind that we are going to have to go to some kind of a public option, some type of a single-payer type system to bring the costs down. When the administrative costs of Medicare is somewhere around the 3 percent range, but the administrative costs of the private insurance companies are in the 15 percent range, there is a lot of money that can be saved by going to a better system such as a single-payer or a public option-type system.”

Fine by me. More (and quicker) Public Option, the better...

Thank you, sweet Jesus...maybe.

It's been a mixed up hour or so, in regards to the Congressional Democrats who (allegedly) want Health Care Reform.

Yesterday, we had word (courtesy of TPM) that the House was prepared to go with Plan B, in effect passing the Senate version of the bill, coupled with a Senate promise to amend the bill to the House's liking via reconciliation.

Leading Democrats in the House still insist that "all options are on the table" to move ahead on health care. But for the first time since last Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, it's clear that they're coalescing around the most widely discussed option: moving ahead with the Senate bill once it's clear that it will be changed through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. Before they can move ahead, they need the Senate to make some real headway on their end of the bargain--and they're not getting the signs they need.

Fine, this is what I wanted since the New Year. Failing all else,and seeing what appears to me to be 41 solid "No" votes in the Senate, this would appear to be the only track available.

But no...

Politico then came out with a story that set my hair on fire. That Nancy was considering a two track solution, in effect passing the stuff we all like (like the ban on pre-existing conditions), and holding a comprehensive bill to the end with the stuff we might not (like the individual mandate). Never mind that the two items have to be paired together or Health Care costs will skyrocket...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday floated the idea of a two-track plan for health care reform — with Congress pursuing easier-to-pass incremental changes now and comprehensive reform later.

That last phrase being the "hair on fire part". It actually prompted immediate calls to the Speaker's Office and my own Congressman Adam Schiff.

Still, in the very next paragraph she was quoted as saying:

“We believe that it’s possible to have comprehensive health care reform as we go forward, but at the same time, it can be on another track where some things can just be passed outside of that legislation, and we’ll be doing both,” Pelosi said in an interview with POLITICO.

Which doesn't quite match up to what was summarized (by the ever un-trustworthy Poltico) before.

TPM seemed to back this same story up this afternoon.

"We can work on a comprehensive bill...we've got to figure out what the process is, who goes first, and whether the Senate goes first or second it doesn't matter but the fact remains that it could take a couple weeks for them to debate on the floor," the aide said. "While we're doing that: What else can we do in the meantime?"

"This is just an example," the aide went on, "but the anti-trust exemption isn't in the Senate bill. So that couldn't be added through reconciliation. So the House could pass a couple of smaller things that can pass as freestanding items, and can't be added through reconciliation."

But now, the National Journal is reporting that Nancy has the votes for Health Care, in effect going back to Plan B.

Offering Democrats a potential means to revive their top domestic priority, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flatly predicted Wednesday afternoon that she could muster enough votes to pass the Senate version of health care reform if the upper chamber agreed to adjust the bill through the reconciliation process.

Speaking to columnists just hours before President Obama's first State of the Union Address, Pelosi said that if the Senate used the reconciliation process to revise elements of the legislation unacceptable to her members, the House could approve such a two-track approach. "What I'm saying to you is the Senate bill, stand-alone, I don't see any chance of it [passing the House]," she said. "Reconciliation resolving some of the issues: then we can pass this thing."

So I don't know what the hell is going on right now. Sounds like to me, this last quote from the National Journal was the same thing as Politico got...but Politico decided to spin it their own special way.

"Progressives vs. the President"

I'm turning onto Huffington Post less and less as the days wear on. Bob Cesca is a lonely voice out there...

Stating the obvious by way of a preface, the goal of the progressive movement is to, of course, move government further to the left and thereby achieve progressive policies. The argument right now is about how best to achieve this goal in the context of the current political landscape. I've always thought that a successful progressive movement involved three things: an ongoing marginalizing of the far-right; arguing for progressive policies; and promoting and encouraging the careers of politicians and organizations that are best equipped to help pass progressive legislation.

With that in mind, one of the many reasons why I endorsed, voted for and still support President Obama is because I strongly believe that he's perhaps the only American politician equipped to move the nation in a distinctly leftward direction from within the context of the Oval Office. But at no time have I ever held any delusions that he was some kind of progressive superhero -- a Kucinich or Sanders or Dean with a better jump shot and Jon Favreau on the payroll.

While Barack Obama is, in fact, a liberal, he's not necessarily a progressive who fits squarely into the progressive movement's wheelhouse.

But he's close.

I've always believed that he would be, and currently is, the most liberal president in a generation -- if not since FDR. Furthermore, he's uniquely equipped with the talents to sell it. Who else, off the top of your head, has the presidential right stuff while also being as relatively left-leaning as Barack Obama? I'm talking about the complete package here. Loyal family man, well-above-average intelligence, sense of humor, dynamic personality, legendary oratory skills, political instincts, the knack for managing chaos and possessing a fundamentally liberal world view. (Say nothing of the historical nature of his presidency.)

All that said, he's not perfect. I don't know anyone who's suggesting he is. He's made a variety of miscalculations in his first year, and he'll surely make more mistakes as his first term continues to roll out. Some of the mistakes are only mistakes in that they don't entirely line up with progressive priorities; some of the mistakes are political errors regardless of policy.

Here's where everything begins to fall apart in terms of the anti-Obama left. How do we best call out these mistakes? What does accountability look like?

Some very prominent members of the progressive movement have taken a punitive approach, not only towards the president but even towards allegedly disloyal progressive members of Congress. You've read all of the various descriptions of this movement. The kill-billers. Activists and writers who have a penchant for suggesting that the president is too similar to George W. Bush. Some have promoted the idea of pressuring Bernie Sanders with a primary opponent, while others have suggested that maybe progressive Democrats in the House should return their donations as punishment for (eventually) voting for health care reform without a public option. Some have attempted to team up with wingnuts like Grover Norquist and Dick Armey's tea party movement to attack the administration, as if this will somehow help progressivism.

"This thing's coming out an inch at a time, and there's still a mile to go..."

Last night on Countdown, I thought Keith went a little overboard in his comparisons of the Landrieu Phone...thing...to Watergate. I thought this was odd, since Keith had recently admitted that he had been a little over the top on recent shows...

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

But now, instead it seems...he may have been onto something...

Granted, Andrew Breitbart paying one of the Mary Landrieu "burglars" (we might as well call them that) may be nothing. But as of last night, I thought this was O'Keefe's ego getting out of control and doing something stupid...but doing it on his own.

But now, we have to ask...what did Breitbart know...and when did he know it? Did he authorize these actions? Did he play any part in these actions?

And, of course, was someone paying him?

You can bet the Federal Marshals are going to be asking him these questions in the next 24 hours.

"This thing's coming out an inch at a time, and there's still a mile to go..."

More...surely...as it comes...

New Look...

New look. I needed a way to widen the posts, and found one on them internets.

Widen the posts, widen the blog...and thus I need a new image.

Let me know if I need a better quote. Seemed right for the times.

TPM: "Okay, Well One of Us Has Jumped the Shark, Anyway"

My favorite poster at Talking Points Memo strikes again, the Commenter Formerly Known As NC Steve.

Jared Bernstein on the Freeze... (VIDEO)

From the White House blog:

First, an important note on timing. No one is arguing that we should take our foot off the accelerator today, when the economic recovery remains fragile and job growth has yet to return. In fact, you’ll hear from the President tomorrow night about measures we should undertake right away to jumpstart job creation. In his words and deeds, the President has made clear that recovery comes first. But that doesn’t mean we should wait to start changing the same bad habits in Washington that left a $1.3 trillion deficit on our doorstep when we entered office in January 2009, especially when we can do so without cutting back on our jobs agenda.

Second, a little background on freeze-eology: there are two ways to do a freeze like this: (1) an across-the-board freeze on every program outside of national security; and (2) a surgical approach where overall totals are frozen but some individual programs go up and others go down. In short, a hatchet versus a scalpel.

During the campaign, you may recall that John McCain touted option 1 – the hatchet approach of an across-the-board freeze.

The President was critical of that approach then, and we would be critical of it now. It’s not what we’re proposing. To the contrary, the entire theory of the President’s proposed freeze is to dial up the stuff that will support job growth and innovation while dialing down the stuff that doesn’t. Under our plan, some discretionary spending will go up; some will go down. That’s a big difference from a hatchet.

This particular selection came from Ezra, and he has some rebuttal.

Jared was also on with Rachel Maddow.

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

To be honest, while I respect Rachel's obvious concern about the President repeating FDR's mistake of 1937, it's also obvious she doesn't know squat (or at least has selective memory about) FDR's first hundred days...where, on the basis of a Campaign promise he cut the Federal Budget as he implemented the New Deal, including:

40% cuts to veterans' benefits and cuts in overall military spending. He removed 500,000 veterans and widows from the pension rolls and slashed benefits for the remainder. Protests erupted, led by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Roosevelt held his ground, but when the angry veterans formed a coalition with Senator Huey Long and passed a huge bonus bill over his veto, he was defeated. He succeeded in cutting federal salaries and the military and naval budgets. He reduced spending on research and education.

What FDR did was far, far, far more drastic than what the President was doing. FDR's mistake was trying to re-balance the budget too fast. It didn't work.

I'm not sure this is going to work either, but I see what the President's thinking. I'm just saying that it could.

But isn't it interesting that the President's Spending Freeze is scheduled to happen at the same time Bush's Tax Cuts are supposed to sunset...

Interesting...

Let me write my own fantasy headline...

Conservative Activist Douchebag hoisted by own petard.

Yay.

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

Yes, I'm aping Andrew Sullivan's blog, but sooo wanted to type that.

But the Blogs agree. Get off your damn ass and pass the bill.

I repeat what I said on FB: Having your thumb up yer @#$ is not a political position.

Okay, I understand the whole picture...(as far as the Spending Freeze goes)...

Bondad (while also not thrilled with the idea of the spending freeze) clued me in on the last detail I was missing:

There is the possibility that he is playing to the bond market in an attempt to keep interest rates lower.

Ah.

He also posted pretty much what I'd learned from Noam Scheiber:

“A lot of our caucus won’t like it but I don’t think we have any choice,” said an adviser to Congressional Democratic leaders, who would only speak on condition of anonymity about internal party deliberations. “After Massachusetts and all the polls about independents’ abandoning us for being fiscally irresponsible, we can’t afford to be spending more than Obama.”

Okay, so let's see what we've got. (I feel like I've scribbled this all down on various napkins, and now I have to pull them together...)

So it may have the added benefit of good Politics and possibly good policy...

Maybe...

Obama is proposing this Spending Freeze in order to keep the confidence of the Bond Traders, so that they will help keep Interest Rates low.

You want to keep interest rates low in order to keep the wheels greased for personal spending.

Personal spending means, you and me having a lower interest rate on our damned credit cards will encourage us to buy that Playstation 3, or Canon EOS-7D Camera.

That in turn helps the Best Buy guy with his salary, which will, in turn, allow him to afford a night out on the town to eat at...well, say...Michael's Bar and Grill, which he leaves Heidi and tip, and so on and so on...

Okay, get that. It's not a bad idea in an of itself, but this grand notion, as said before, needs to be tied to a job package so that other people, besides the Best Buy guy can...say go to Michael's spend money and help pay Heidi's salary (and, of course, leave her a big tip).

Yes, dear...I'm making sure to stress that last part.

So, it would really help if the Congress would pass a whopper of a jobs package.

And according to the Washington Post, the Senate is letting us down...again...by not passing a $100-$200 Million dollar jobs package...but aiming at $80.

Thanks U.S. Senate.

You still suck.

Krugman on the Spending Freeze...

Krugman is freaking out, of course. I wish he'd wait until the State of the Union, and see what the details are before melting down...but this is what he does. He's in GET IT DONE mode...again. He writes with a temper, I've said so before.

That being said, both he and Ezra are right about the appalling way the Senate is about to behave...

The Spending Freeze...here's the why...

Nuance is dead in America. The principal goal of this blog, when the President does something that I don't understand or don't necessarily agree with...is to ask why. Why are you doing this? What are the benefits?

I found this in a short piece by Noam Scheiber at the New Republic, and it goes to explain the Administration's thinking:

There is a logic to Orszag’s gambit, which runs roughly as follows: It’s almost certain that Congress will pass, and the president will sign, a jobs bill early next year, probably in the neighborhood of $100 billion to $200 billion. Given that, and given the difficulty of doing anything about the long-term deficit next year, the administration needs some signal to U.S. bondholders that it takes the deficit seriously. Just not so seriously that it undercuts the extra stimulus.

Okay, so the $800 Billion Stimulus...will increase to a more Krugman friendly 1 Trillion (though still short of 1.2 Trillion that was apparently needed), but in a more politically digestible way. (Oh no, we can't do 1 Trillion in one bill, but $800 and $200? That we can do!) All this to gain the confidence of the Bond Traders...

...so the next question is, is this worth it to get...whatever we get from the Bond Traders? I'm not sure. The cuts don't seem large enough to risk another 1937, my main concern. More on this as it comes...

Is that the President talkin' junk at the Lakers? (VIDEO)

I may live in Southern California, but anybody...and I mean anybody talkin' junk at the Lakers is a-okay with me...

The Keynes-Hayek Rap Battle... (VIDEO)

Tooling around on Erza's blog has been useful at times. Who else takes the time to make something like this, and more to the point...who take the time to actually watch it?

Well, me for one...

Finally, A Political Cartoon...for Statistics Majors...

If you can't see it clearly, head to Ezra's site.

Keith keeps his chin up...while he takes it on the chin... (VIDEO)

I missed Countdown on Friday...mostly because of a trip to the Pet Store...but partly because all I recorded by MSNBC's coverage of the Haitian Relief Telefon. So I didn't know Countdown was on the air at all (thanks, DirecTV DVR!). So I nearly missed this...

Be sure to watch to the end of the segment to see Keith's response, which will remind you why you like Keith in the first place...

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

More people doing my job for me...

This one is from an anonymous Hill staffer in response to a TPM story. You have to read the whole thing, but:

From my perspective, I believe that the average kid just out of college answering phones in a members office (or at least the same type of kid who has to write constituent letters to people on health care bill) knows a helluva lot more about the policy details in the health care reform bill than the vast majority of reporters writing the daily political story on health care reform.

Quick point on that. Karen Tumulty has a piece up about the MA election where she talks about the people in MA knowing about the Nebraska medicaid deal, and other legislative deal making. She says that's because that what was being reported at the time of the election and people could find it from various sources. I agree. But that's a choice made by reporters. We KNOW from myriad polls that voters have no idea what actual provisions are in the health care reform bills. And when questioned, most reporters will point to some overall piece from months back about the issue. But reporters LIKE to write about the political deal making, rather than the policy issues, so that's what people know.

Paul Krugman does my job for me...

There's a certain kind of column I like to do. One that explains a policy debate in simple terms, even if it's about complicated things. One that calls bull@#$% on conventional wisdom or a rapidly spreading meme. Paul Krugman does that in spades today...

I'll say it, I'm jealous.

The Fireside chat for January 23, 2010

The President talks about his first year fighting against special interests and barring lobbyists from his Administration, as well as the fight to come in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision.

President Obama's Economics and Speech (with a little Health Reform) from Elyria, Ohio (VIDEO)

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

Update: Jan. 25, 2010: 5:14pm:. I got the new feed from the WhiteHouse.gov YouTube Channel. It includes the Q&A.

Get some... (VIDEO)

The point is well made...

The Myth of Corporate Omniscience...

Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment last night discussed at length the Supreme Court’s supremely bad decision to open the floodgates to Corporate Money into the Political Process. While I think the decision was ridiculous on its face, and harmful to the good of the country, I don’t think it’s the end of the world. Why?

Because the Corporations…of which you are so rightly a feared…are going to @#$% it up.

Not might @#$% it up…they will @#$% it up.

I work for a Corporation. I work what you would call a Mega Corporation, one of the largest in America, if not the World. I won’t tell you which one, but I will give you a hint.

People keep talking about too big to fail…well howzabout too big too function? That’s us in a nutshell.

The idea of International Corporations being all knowing, all seeing and thus omniscient…is just a damn joke. They can barely handle their own business, much less anyone else’s.

That’s not to say they’re not going to try…but they will always waste time and money in the process...always.

Let me repeat an example I made on TPM Blogs yesterday: the decision to save money, by cutting jobs in IT Support, but laying off a bunch of people in America, and outsourcing those jobs...to Poland.

It @#$% you…not.

First, the idea of me having a problem in America…calling some dude in Poland to explain my problem...having him or her barely understand the problem...then having said same dude (or dude-ette) call America again to fix that same problem is...

You can’t write comedy this golden.

And let’s not even get into the issue of the language barrier. While, I'm certain that there is a sizeable chunk of the Polish population with good English skills odds are they’ve already been hired to phone bank somewhere (or God forbid were so good, they were promoted off the phones). You’re running this Polish IT Company, you suddenly need to hire a bunch more people…now you have to cull from the B Team of English Speakers. Your new hires step in and start screwing up Service Requests, slowing things down because the people who made the requests can’t get their work done, and--

--okay, I’ll stop.

The point is that a bunch of people on the ground...who don’t work in offices…who, like me, work in cubicles, knew this was a bad idea from jump. It’s not just the fact that we knew some of the people in Corporate IT, we did…they were friends of ours. It’s not just the fact we use to pick up a phone, and someone you knew would come bounding across the street and fix the damn problem. We knew that sooner or later the BigWigs were going to decide this isn’t going to work, and they’d pull the plug anyway and try to hire everyone back. In the meantime, a lot of lives were changed, a lot of money was wasted, and a bad idea that shouldn’t have been enacted…was enacted anyway because it looked good on the bottom line.

This is what you should be afraid of. Not Corporate Omniscience ruling your life like Big Brother, but Corporate Idiocy making a mess of it like the Marx Brothers.



I bear no illusions. The Court's decision was damn dangerous. They’re going to try to get what they want, when they want, and how they want it. They are going to succeed in a lot of cases…but not all. And even in those cases where they do succeed, the odds are they’re going to screw it up for them as they will the rest of us. All manner of resistance launched against this decision is right and should be enacted.

But just don’t be afraid.

Don’t assume the world’s coming to an end. It’s not.

(I’m still trying to figure out what Keith meant when he kept semi-joking about being yanked off the air at any second. Uhhh, he does realize he works for a Corporation right now, right? I mean, if NBC/Universal wanted him off the air tonight, it could do it.)

And let me suggest another strategy for future use against our Corporate Overlords.

How about pitting them against each another?

Another part of the myth of Corporate Omniscience is that they’re all working in fascistic concert with each other. Bull. There are 13 separate companies (not divisions mind you, actual distinct companies) where I work and we don’t work well with each other, must less anyone else.

Remember, Ford Motor is tacking on $1500 dollars to the price of every vehicle it rolls out for Health Care for its employees. You don’t think Ford Motor doesn’t hate the Health Insurance Industry? Now, Ford Motor spends way too much time taking this anger on its employees, but what if they would be convinced to take it out on United Health Care?

Just something to think about.

Andrew Sullivan: Now, Fight!

Bear in mind that its a Conservative who's writing this.

From this morning's Atlantic online. (And bear in mind Andrew was never a fan of HCR in the first place, and still supported Obama):

Now, Fight:

The seismic events of the last few days ends, in some respects, the phony war of the first year of Obama's presidency. As is the case in truly fracturing democracies, the opposition simply does not and cannot accept the fact that it is out of power. The incoherence of the opposition to Obama - that he is both Jimmy Carter and Adolf Hitler, as Stephen Colbert pointed out last night - reveals the irrationality of the hate. It began immediately on the FNC/RNC right. And the ferocity of the campaign against Obama, the sheer dickishness of the GOP and its acolytes, the total oppositionism to everything he has done and indeed anything he might do... suggests that any hope for some kind of cooperation from this rump is impossible.

But the truth is that these forces have also been so passionate, so extreme, and so energized that in a country reeling from a recession, the narrative - a false, paranoid, nutty narrative - has taken root in the minds of some independents. Obama, under-estimating the extremism of his opponents, has focused on actually addressing the problems we face. And the rest of us, crucially, have sat back and watched and complained and carped when we didn't get everything we want. We can keep on carping if we want to. But it seems to me that continuing that - as HuffPo et al. appear to be doing - is objectively siding with the forces of profound reaction right now.

Don't get me wrong. Criticism is still vital. I'm not going to give up on advocating marriage equality or a carbon tax, rather than cap and trade, or for an independent investigation of Bush era war crimes. I think pushing Obama to a more populist position on banks is well and good. But given the alternative, I am going to step up my support of this president in the face of what he is confronting, even when he is not exactly doing everything I want. In my view, you should too.

Look at what we are facing right now: a take-no-prisoners right, empowered by a massive new wave of corporate money unleashed by the Supreme Court, able to wield a 41 seat minority to oppose anything Obama wants, setting up a cycle of failure for a president whom they can then pillory at the polls, and unrepentant about near-dictatorial powers for the presidency, and the routinization of torture in the American government. These forces cannot be appeased. They simply have to be confronted.

I do not believe in some massive turn left or faux-populism that Obama cannot characterologically embody. I do not think ramming the healthcare reform bill through before Brown is seated is good politics. I still believe that Obama should embrace a major assault on long-term debt and make that a center-piece of his SOTU next week.

But I have come around to thinking that the one huge mistake right now would be to surrender the Senate health reform bill.

The dust should indeed settle. But it is absurd that one special election should upend a clear campaign promise, a year of work, and a necessary start on a critical reform without which we hurtle toward bankruptcy even more quickly.

More to the point, politics is also about morale and will as well as reason and moderation. I believe Obama has been both reasoned and moderate and civil in navigating between the Democratic Congress and the embittered, mutinous GOP. I don't think his tone should change. But I do think that any surrender on health now would be a betrayal of his entire campaign. I don't think the Senate bill is perfect; but it's far far better than nothing. And not passing it means not passing anything and surrendering to forces that are as proto-fascist as any we have seen in recent times.

This is about more than health reform and we have to see it in that context. This is about a cynical nihilist attempt to break this presidency before it has had a chance to do what we elected it to do by a landslide vote. It is an attempt to destroy a majority's morale, to break a president's foreign policy autonomy, to prevent engagement in the Middle East peace process, to stop action on climate change, to restore torture, to increase tensions with the Muslim world, to launch a war on Iran. We cannot delude ourselves that if Obama fails, this is not the alternative. It is.

And we have to re-engage as powerfully as we did in the campaign to fight back against these now emboldened forces of reaction. I think this is true not just for the sake of the country but also for the sake of the GOP. The nihilist obstructionism and rhetoric they have embraced makes constitutional democracy close to impossible. Their total lack of any workable alternatives to dire problems is a form of degeneracy we have to avoid empowering.

So fight, Mr President. And to the House Democrats who won't go along with the only way to salvage health reform: this is the only sure-fire way you will lose in November. If you pass this bill, you may also go down in this climate. But you will have done something you can be proud of. Politics cannot always be about narrow self-interest. If it always is, nothing important can get done.

Do your duty. And grow some. Fight back. Explain why you're right. Tell the liberals they can always come back later to reform the bill. Just get this passed.

Comedy Central's Busy Night (VIDEO)

Well, first Jon made fun of America's inability to handle rational discourse...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Political Shift in D.C.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

...then he ripped on Keith Olbermann for the tone of his Special Comments:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Funny thing, I remember Keith saying that the Network wanted him to do a Special Comment every night. His reply was: "Well, they wouldn't be very special then, would they?"

Guess what he's doing now? A "Comment" every night.

And finally, our old pal Colbert:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Two-Faced
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Mitch McConnell...wants Health Care Reform...to pass?!?!? (He typed, dazed and confused)

Okay...um...huh...what was that again??

This is from Laurence O'Donnell, regularly of MSNBC, formerly of the West Wing, and a regular guest blogger on Huffington Post. (Fine! Fine! I'm not a fan of Huffington Post, but I like Laurence, thus...)

The article is called: Will Scott Brown Ruin Republicans' (Secret) Plan to Pass Obamacare?

Let's remember, even though Laurence has gone Hollywood and all (writing West Wing, acting in Big Love), he was Chief of Staff to the Senate Finance Committee for a bunch of years. So understanding the intricacies of the Senate is definitely in his purview.

So, Laurence's opinion on Senate matters is always valued. At least, it is by me.

Thus, these two paragraphs really got my attention:

In Washington, where everyone is desperate to know what's happening behind closed doors, all you have to do to keep something secret is do it out in the open, preferably on C-Span. Mitch McConnell did exactly that when he entered a unanimous consent agreement with Harry Reid about how to proceed on the health care bill. McConnell knew that agreement was going to make it impossible for Republicans to amend the bill and would put it on a fast track toward passage.

McConnell accepted an agreement brilliantly designed by Reid that required 60 votes to pass an amendment. McConnell did that without anyone noticing anything odd after a year of saturation coverage of the importance of 60 votes in the Senate. Everyone outside the Senate now thinks it takes 60 votes to do anything. Not amendments. Amendments pass by a simple majority, 51 votes. Amendments are usually debated for a couple of minutes or hours or days, then voted on. Once in a while, a 60-vote cloture motion is needed to end debate on an amendment. What McConnell agreed to was an implicit cloture motion in every vote on every amendment, thereby completely surrendering the minority's real power. In all my years in the Senate, I never saw a leader make such a mistake. If it was a mistake.

Reid's motivation was simple. Getting this agreement with McConnell made it so that Reid's version of Senate HCR was going to be the final Senate version of HCR. There would be no surprises from anyone...(including unfortunately a good Prescription Drugs Amendment by the retiring Byron Dorgan...but Sen. Dorgan said on the Randi Rhodes show he can get that passed anyway.)

Oh, this was a pretty important graph as well:

And now the strategy becomes clear: Repeal it! That is the Republican Party battle cry for the 2010 election. Repealing Obamacare is going to be the centerpiece of their campaign to take back the House and Senate. But how can you repeal it if they don't pass it. Hence, Mitch McConnell's enabling.

Umm...

Okay...

Just...gathering myself here...

If the 2010 strategy is to run on a repeal of Health Care Reform, this may go down as one of the dumbest excercises in political history.

Why? Right now, whether I'd like to admit or not (and I really don't) the President is reeling a bit. I don't think he's in any danger of losing re-elect in 2012, but could we see a major, major cut into the Democratic majority in 2010? Most certainly. In fact, history tells us that's exactly what's going to happen...

But if the GOP runs on a total repeal of Health Care. I'm sorry, but that's tone deaf to the point of being insulting to people who are tone deaf.

Last I checked (and this is an area where I disagree with Laurence), the Unions were onboard with the Excise Tax now. They got it delayed enough to where they're still willing to run turnout for Democrats.

While we of the Liberal creed have certainly had our arguments over HCR (Health Care Reform) -- I only do this because I note I have a follower...who's not Dad or Heidi. Yay! -- even if the Senate Version of the bill were to pass as is, no one from the Democratic side is gonna want to repeal the sucker.

Amend the living hell out of it, yes. Hell, even I'm for that. But repeal?

Sen. Mitch McChinless (Stephanie Miller reference) actually thinks that running on a platform in defense and support of Insurance Companies is a winner in 2010.

It may actually keep the Democratic Majorties right where they are.

Unless, that's the plan, to let the Democrats run wild for two more years, and get the people even sicker of them, then they'll--

Okay, my head's hurting. I'll stop.

But still, stoopid, STOOPID idea.

"We Want Our Money Back, and We're Going to Get It" (VIDEO)

My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed. And my determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people -- folks who have not been made whole, and who continue to face real hardship in this recession.

We want our money back, and we're going to get it. And that's why I'm proposing a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to be imposed on major financial firms until the American people are fully compensated for the extraordinary assistance they provided to Wall Street. If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers.

The Fireside chat for January 15, 2010

As the President continues to work on immediate job creation, he discusses his proposal for a new fee on the largest financial institutions to ensure that every cent of taxpayer assistance gets paid back. Saying that, “we’re not going to let Wall Street take the money and run,” he goes on to discuss the ongoing push to make sure banks can never put our economy at risk again.

In case you somehow missed it... (VIDEO)

I have long thought of Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson as garden-variety racists, given their past histories and statements. It's always nice to be provided with fresh proof.



So, a bunch of slaves rise up and kick the hell out of Napoleon's 80,000 Man Army, and run (God forbid) their own country for themselves. It couldn't have possibly been the fact that they (the French) had imported a bunch of West Africans, enslaved them, then massacred them at the drop of a hat. Oh no, the only way we could be beaten by a bunch of slaves was that the Devil gave them help.

And when Haiti is driven into poverty, it's not the fact that the White Nations of the world who previously benefited from having Haiti as a colony were sabotaging them in any way. Oh no, that's the Devil, too.

And now onto Rush Limbaugh:

I want you to remember it took [Obama] three days -- three days -- to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom bomber. Three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn't want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti.

...

Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel, we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands -- humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their -- shall we say -- credibility with the black community, in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community, in this country. It's made-to-order for 'em. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there. Could not wait to get out there.

...

Oh, this is what he lives for. He lives for serving those in misery. Now don't misunderstand here, folks. See, this is -- I wonder -- I don't have the whole press conference, but I wonder: Did he apologize for America before acknowledging we are the only people on Earth that can possibly help them out down there in any significant way?

I'm sorry, but...light and dark skinned communities?? Last I checked...and I'm only black and everything so it's not like I'd know or anything like that, but I'm decently sure that there isn't one.

Hell, wasn't it people like Rush that instituted the one drop rule in the first place?

Fox is apparently barely covering the disaster in Haiti.

Fortunately, one member of the Fox Team Team still has a soul.

The people of Haiti have been used and abused by their governments over the years. They have dealt with unthinkable tragedy day in and day out. And we’re in the middle of a crisis the Western Hemisphere has not seen in my lifetime, and 700 miles east of Miami, hundreds of thousands of desperate human beings need our help, our support, our money, and our love. And they don’t need...that.

We shouldn't have to live in a world where this is necessary, or to thank Shep Smith for basic human decency...still, thank you nonetheless.

UPDATE 2:30pm Pacific: The White House, needless to say, wasn't amused by Robertson's remarks.



No word on what they think of Limbaugh. Maybe it's self-evident.

Lay it on 'em, Mr. President. (VIDEO)

That being said, the latest poll has Coakley up by 8. But still...

OUCH!!!

From the Daily Kos. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)...laying the smackdown on Harold Ford.

“If he thinks that its an appealing argument to position yourself as being somebody who will stand up to Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, well I don’t think we need another Joe Lieberman,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who has long eyed a mayoral run.

Given that Ford’s candidacy was all but hatched on the Manhattan set of “Morning Joe,” and among the borough’s elite, New York Democrats wonder how Ford could run as a man of the people.

“Maybe when his helicopter lands in Queens next I can ask him,” cracked Weiner, alluding to Ford’s off-key revelation in a New York Times story Wednesday that he has only seen New York City’s five boroughs from a helicopter.

Does Harold not understand that nobody likes this idea??

Why Halperin remains scum and a hack... (VIDEO)

Fast forward to about 6:04 in the video to see what I mean.

Chris asks a simple question. "Did Harry Reid know he was going to be quoted when you interviewed him?"



Watch their answers. To paraphrase Andrew this morning, if you thought politicians could twist, turn and spin their way out of answers, they've got nothing on these guys.

A Second Look...

Looking at the extended cut of the John Yoo interview, Jon Stewart did way better than I originally thought, particularly in parts 2 and 3.

There was no hammer moment, like with Cramer, but he did put it to him. Yoo had some intelligent things to say (though I still think they're still wrong).

That being said, it would have helped if Jon Stewart had started off with the basic question: "Do you think Torture or any of the methods you describe are a reliable means of collecting Intelligence?"

You probably would have answered: "It's not up to me. I'm not a strategtist. I was asked a legal question by the Bush White House, and I provided a legal answer."

Even though that question, to me and a lot of Legal scholars, had been answered by the drafting of the Geneva Conventions.

What the @#$% was that?!?!? (VIDEO)

Watching the interview with John Yoo, I was looking forward to a Jon Stewart skewering. But it wasn't meant to be...

There's a part of me that believes, John Yoo was doing this @#$% on purpose. Clearly, it was making Jon's head hurt. Hell, it was making my head hurt. Maybe Yoo was dropped as a kid or something. I'm really starting to figure that these arguments make sense only to him, and the Bush Administration just say "Hell, go with it!"

Part 1:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show: Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Part 3:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis