The President's Town Hall in Racine, Wisconsin of June 30, 2010 (VIDEO)

This wasn’t a bad town hall. Not a must see by any means, outside of the hard elbow the President threw at on John Boehner, which he’s still smarting about given his public comments today.

The Town Hall portion was a bit of a let down, in that everyone was just so glad to see him that no one asked any tough questions. The one kid seemed to have one, but it bordered on incomprehensible. “I saw an interview where you said that you wanted the civilians to be just as strong and well-funded as our military. What are your plans to go about constructing such a thing?” Huh?!?




Sometimes I get the feeling that, the President is just waiting for a Republican plant to get into one of these Town Halls and throw him some heat. Every time someone asks him something close to tough, the crowd boos, and the President has to shush them down. “No. No. That’s okay,” he’ll say. As if to say he’s got this. I’m sure he’s ready with an answer, but the question never comes.

Jon Stewart interviews the Axe (VIDEO)

I feel...mixed about this interview, but am leaning toward a solid B for both Jon and David Axelrod.

A lot of the questions asked came off at times plain-ass ig'nant. (Was Congress even mentioned in the interview? Apparently, the President can enact our Progressive/Liberal Agenda through Executive fiat. I did not know that.)

Still, Stewart got to ask a bunch of questions that I know he's wanted to ask for a long time, ones that had clearly been bugging him. He got in some good hard shots.

At the same time, Axelrod answered them...but answered them quickly in the middle of long lists of Administration Accomplishments. One telling exchange between Axe and Jon was over Bagram Air Base. Jon wanted to know why it had been excluded from habeas corpus proceedings, and Axe said: 1) that the Courts will decide (intimating that the President has and will follow the Courts decisions), and 2) intimating that when your ass is in charge of National Security, you're perspective does change a little.

Favorite question? What's worse? Dealing with intractable Conservatives or Pie-in-the-sky, Nothing's ever good enough Liberals? (My words, not Jon's).

And yes, Jon. There are people in between that.


Part 1:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
David Axelrod Unedited Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
David Axelrod Unedited Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Part 3: (This is the part that wasn't aired, and contains the good stuff.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
David Axelrod Unedited Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The Fireside chat for June 26, 2010 (VIDEO)

With Congress having finalized a strong Wall Street reform bill to avert another crisis and end bailouts, the President urges Congress to finish the job and send the bill to his desk.

The President replaces Stanley McChrystal (VIDEO)

While, I've found some of the rhetoric overheated (really, Joe Klein...his whole Presidency?) I don't think the President had much of a choice. The article was at the very least a borderline Article 88 violation of the UCMJ, which says:

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

I picked that up from Thomas Ricks, who of course has had a couple of really good pieces on the McChrystal Matter.

When in doubt, go to the Bonddad...

I first heard the Bonddad (aka Hale Stewart, a Tax Lawyer from Texas) on Johnny Wendell's KTLK Radio Program, and it was their conservations that prompted my recent interest in Economics.

Whenever I read his blog, I am always reassured. Even when things look like or are actually going to hell, I understand why (a biggie in my book). He's got enough knowledge (and writing skills) to tell me what's happening, explain it clearly, and tell me what I should look for, and why I should or shouldn't be worried.

Here's his latest:

Household spending is increasing but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit.

We've seen PCEs and retail increase for the better part of a year. But these increases are coming off of very low levels caused by the recession. In addition, there is little reason to think we'll see robust increases in this number given the unemployment and income situation.

Business spending on equipment and software has risen significantly; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls.

About half of the investment equation is solid. Businesses are increasing in capital areas that increase productivity. Commercial real estate is still in poor shape and businesses are still reluctant to hire.

Housing starts remain at a depressed level.

And they will for the foreseeable future. As NDD and I highlighted a few days ago, housing is still suffering from a massive inventory overhang.

Financial conditions have become less supportive of economic growth on balance, largely reflecting developments abroad.

Europe is a problem. I think we figured that out. The real question is what is the depth of the problem. Should the EU's policy response continue to develop positively, I think we'll be OK. The main problems is they are trying to coordinate a $1 trillion dollar plan by building a consensus in the EU community -- an obviously difficult task.

Bank lending has continued to contract in recent months

Yes it has. But that is normal. Consider this chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve:



First, the chart is in logarithmic scale. While the depth of the latest contraction is sharper, it is normal for credit to contract at the beginning of the expansion. In other words, the latest contraction is hardly a new or historical development.

Your base + everyone else...

I'm not in the habit of quoting Conservative Pundits on this site. (Yeah, yeah, I know Andrew Sullivan's a conservative...but he supports Obama. By this point, he's practically a Democrat. Granted, a Charlie Crist Democrat -- and I mean that seriously).

David Frum, who's a Tea Party hater of the first order, put this little nugget up:

It's difficult for a political party to think strategically after a political defeat as severe as 2008's. But the Tea Party elevated the inability to think strategically into a fundamental conservative principle. Its militants denounce those Republicans who have resisted the movement as ideological traitors: "Republicans in name only" or even (charmingly) as "Vichy Republicans". In fact, the unthinking rejectionism of the Tea Party has strengthened Obama's political position. Now it threatens to deplete Republican strength in Congress, losing races that could have been won.

David Cameron's Conservatism responds to local British conditions. It's not an export product. But there is at least one big lesson that Americans could learn from him when the Tea Party finally ends: yes, a party must champion the values of the voters it already has. But it must also speak to the voters it still needs to win.

The Fireside chat for June 19, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President calls on Republicans in Congress to put scoring political points aside, and instead to focus on solving the problems facing the nation. At the time of this address, the Republican leadership is blocking progress on a bill to boost the economy, retain jobs for teachers and cops, and help people buy their first home; another bill which would hold oil companies accountable for any disasters they cause by removing the current $75 million liability cap; and 136 highly qualified men and women who have been nominated to government positions.

Not necessarily a campaign preview (VIDEO)

One of the things Democrats are doing very well in the run-up to the mid-terms is running local races. "All politics is local" after all. And while Democrats are doing that, Republicans are running a national campaign against the President, against the Speaker and against Harry Reid.

So, despite the fact that I think this is a good commercial, I don't know how much we're going to be seeing it in the future with other Democratic candidates.

Unserious People III

I was so busy writing Unserious People II, that I nearly missed Andrew Sullivan:

What are the odds that Obama's huge success yesterday in getting BP to pledge a cool $20 billion to recompense the "small people" in the Gulf will get the same attention as his allegedly dismal speech on Tuesday night? If you take Memeorandum as an indicator, it really is no contest. The speech is still being dissected by language experts, but the $20 billion that is the front page news in the NYT today? Barely anywhere on the blogs.

This is just a glimpse into the distortion inherent in our current political and media culture. It's way easier to comment on a speech - his hands were moving too much! - than to note the truly substantive victory, apparently personally nailed down by Obama, in the White House yesterday. If leftwing populism in America were anything like as potent as right-wing populism - Matt Bai has a superb analysis of this in the NYT today - there would be cheering in the streets. But there's nada, but more leftist utopianism and outrage on MSNBC. And since there's no end to this spill without relief wells, this is about as much as Obama can do, short of monitoring clean-up efforts, or rather ongoing management of the ecological nightmare of an unstopped and unstoppable wound in the ocean floor.

I sure understand why people feel powerless and angry about the vast forces that control our lives and over which we seem to have only fitful control - big government and big business. But it seems to me vital to keep our heads and remain focused on what substantively can be done to address real problems, and judge Obama on those terms. When you do, you realize that the left's "disgruntleist" faction needs to take a chill pill.

Unserious people II. (Liberal Edition)

Usually, this ire is saved for that other party across the aisle (I'm starting to loathe saying "our friends" at this point). But now, since I'm seeing some of the same bul@#$% come from my fellow Liberals, I think it bears mentioning.

I'm starting to think that the biggest problem with America may be the American People.

I don't think the American People are serious about solving our problems.

First off, Rachel's speech was a joke, and I don't mean "ha-ha" joke. I mean "I-wonder-why-she's-allowed-a-TeeVee-show" joke.

Spoken like someone who's never had to pass a single bit of legislation in her life.

But alas, when Jonathan Chait ripped her, he said it much better than I:

In reality, you can't pass any of the climate bill by reconciliation. Democrats didn't write reconciliation instructions permitting them to do so, and very little of its could be passed through reconciliation, which only allows budgetary decisions. Maddow's response is to pass the rest by executive order. But you can't change those laws through executive order, either. That's not how our system of government works, nor is it how our system should work.

If Maddow's speech had to hew to the reality of Senate rules and the Constitution, she'd be left where Obama is: ineffectually pleading to get whatever she can get out of a Senate that has nowhere near enough votes to pass even a stripped-down cap and trade bill. It may be nice to imagine that all political difficulties could be swept away by a president who just spoke with enough force and determination. It's a recurrent liberal fantasy —Michael Moore imagined such a speech a few months ago, Michael Douglas delivers such a speech in "The American President." I would love to eliminate the filibuster and create more accountable parties. But even if that happens, there will be a legislative branch that has a strong say in what passes or doesn't pass. And that's good! We wouldn't want to live in a world where a president can remake vast swaths of policy merely be decreeing it.

Jon Stewart ran along the same lines last night, when he blasted the last eight President's for promising to get us off Oil, and then not getting us off oil.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
An Energy-Independent Future
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Jon, I love ya. It was a great bit. But do you know what those last eight Presidents had in common?

Us.

We've been electing them.

We've been electing these Congress-critters.

We've asked them to make tough choices...

...and when they've had to make tough choices, we've punished them for it. (Health Care Reform, anybody?)

We may be the one's we've been waiting for, but we're the one's who've been falling for this crap again and again and again.

No amount of money can sell a truly terrible idea, but a truly terrible idea can sell to a public that's only half paying attention. And that's where we are today.

It took a hundred years to get a Health Care Bill through both Houses of Congress and onto the President's desk for signature. Every time it was attempted (again, this is a bill to benefit the American People) those same American People (helped along by the AMA, Pharma and AHIP) rose up and cried "SOCIALIST!"

So how long is it gonna take for Energy? We know we have a problem. We know we want to get off oil, but we also want someone else to take the pain.

Not me. Not in my backyard. No.

We don't even have a population that understands that there's a problem yet, so how do we expect our elected representatives (Note: they represent their people, remember?) to generate any political will to do anything about it?

If you want to attack a problem seriously, you first have to accept the idea that not everyone is going to accept your ideas. Period. That's the thing about a Representative Democracy, everyone's got a say...and they're not always going to align with what's on your mind. It's as difficult for me to accept as it is for you. But you know what? That's okay. You muddle through the best you can. You do what you can. You do not, Keith and-or Rachel, let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The ship of state turns slowly...but it does turn. The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice...but it does bend.

Translation: You think your job is done just because you pulled a lever in 2008? Are you high?

The Civil Rights Era, the New Deal...the two proudest accomplishments (up till now) on the Liberal Resume were not overnight success stories. They were long, hard slogs, full of blood (spilled), sweat and more than a few shares of tears. They were not popular when they were done. Too many Liberals thought they didn't go far enough. And on top of all that, somehow my fellow Liberals have jedi-mind tricked themselves into believing that the respective Presidents who got these bills passed magically snapped their fingers to make them happen.

Again, I ask...are you high?

Don't answer that. I'm afraid I already know the answer.

Look, fellow Liberals. We're on the right path. We're doing what we said we wanted to do when Obama got elected. Either we're going to follow through, or we're not. Right now, to me, it looks like you're punking out.

Rachel certainly did.

Post BP-Meeting (VIDEO)

This has been a damn busy today. Of course, that's what's going to happen when this story lands in one of the two tracks.

Here is the President announcing the $20 Billion dollar Escrow fund.



Key graphs:

This $20 billion will provide substantial assurance that the claims people and businesses have will be honored. It’s also important to emphasize this is not a cap. The people of the Gulf have my commitment that BP will meet its obligations to them. BP has publicly pledged to make good on the claims that it owes to the people in the Gulf, and so the agreement we reached sets up a financial and legal framework to do it.

Another important element is that this $20 billion fund will not be controlled by either BP or by the government. It will be put in a escrow account, administered by an impartial, independent third party. So if you or your business has suffered an economic loss as a result of this spill, you’ll be eligible to file a claim for part of this $20 billion. This fund does not supersede either individuals’ rights or states’ rights to present claims in court. BP will also continue to be liable for the environmental disaster it has caused, and we’re going to continue to work to make sure that they address it.

Additionally, BP voluntarily agreed to establish a $100 million fund to compensate unemployed oil rig workers affected by the closure of the deepwater rigs.

TPM: How the Escrow Fund Will Work...

Good piece by TPM's Ben Frumin, summarizing a Times story how this Escrow fund is going to work with BP:

BP likely won't be in any rush to deposit $20 billion in the escrow account anytime soon: The deal's "preliminary terms would give BP several years to deposit the full amount into the fund so it could better manage cash flow, maintain its financial viability and not scare off investors."

The White House also released details this afternoon on how the claims will work. Feinberg will serve as "independent claims administrator," and a panel of three judges will hear any appeals of his decisions on claims of individuals and businesses harmed by the spill. Government agencies will still make claims directly to BP.

BP will put $5 billion a year into the account in each of the next four years, beginning in 2010. In the meantime, it will set aside $20 billion in U.S. assets to assure its commitments.

And the damages may not stop at $20 billion: "This account is neither a floor nor a ceiling on liability," the White House announced.

And it sounds like claimants will still be able to sue BP, even if they do get payouts from this account: "Dissatisfied claimants maintain all current rights under law, including the right to go to court or to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund."

BP will also contribute $100 million to a foundation supporting unemployed oil right workers.

The fact that dissatisfied claimants get to maintain all their current rights under law is huge.

But remember what happened to the University of Southern California recently. When the NCAA dropped its hammer on the school, the Basketball program wasn't punished nearly as hard as the Football program because that program had imposed a post-season moratorium on itself, even though they were guilty as the same infraction as the football program.

Likewise, BP, in setting up this Escrow Account may not immunize itself against the tidal wave of lawsuits coming its way, but it may well blunt their impact.

Even Joe Scarborough is on board? (VIDEO)

Actually, I'm shocked. But he's been...supportive?

Now I'm nervous.

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

Yay?

From MSNBC: BP suspending dividends.

There have been better, but... (VIDEO)

No. It wasn’t his best speech, but it sure as hell it wasn’t a disaster either.

If I was disappointed about anything, it is that Douglas Brinkley’s Gulf Recovery Act didn’t make a full-throated appearance, but it was hinted at.

Beyond compensating the people of the Gulf in the short term, it’s also clear we need a long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region. The oil spill represents just the latest blow to a place that’s already suffered multiple economic disasters and decades of environmental degradation that has led to disappearing wetlands and habitats. And the region still hasn’t recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That’s why we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.

I make that commitment tonight. Earlier, I asked Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, who is also a former governor of Mississippi and a son of the Gulf Coast, to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists and other Gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.

Let me reiterate, the Gulf Oil Volcano breaks down into two tracks. One is environmental, the other is Investigatory. The environmental track is about the cutoff of the Oil Volcano rapidly poisoning the Gulf, and the eventual clean-up of its effects. The Investigatory track is about finding out what happened, who did it, and administering justice to those involved.

To paraphrase Lewis Black, if a news story about the Gulf Oil Spill doesn’t fall onto one of those two tracks, no one’s catching it, it ain't news.

The Gulf Fishermen, and the "lost way of life" mentioned in the speech, fall into both categories. The Fishermen and rescue workers suffer at the hands of the environmental track, they get justice in the Investigatory track.

To be even more direct, if it doesn't fall into one of those two tracks, it's just bleating about BP. Granted, BP deserves to get beaten about the head, but all the Firebagger bleating in the world isn't going to stop that volcano from spewing.



But for the first time in a long while, we did get some news (and not just the fact that this was the President's first Oval Office Address).

One, we got ourselves a new Director for MMS. How he’ll work out, I don’t know, but I like the fact he’s a former Inspector General for the Justice Department under Bubba.

When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency. But it’s now clear that the problem there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow. And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency -- Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General. And his charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry’s watchdog -- not its partner.

Two, and I don’t know how this got underreported in the aftermath of the speech, but Obama said the Government was going to compel BP to pay the freight for the cleanup, and apparently that’s official as of this morning.

Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.

Three, he said there was going to be a way to capture 90% of the oil coming out of the volcano until the relief wells are dug in.

Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That’s why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that’s expected to stop the leak completely.

Commentary about the speech skewed pretty negative, but there were a few comments from favorites (and one surprise) that caught my attention:

Ezra Klein:

His language was a close echo of the language he used in the health-care fight. "There are costs associated with this transition," he said, using a formulation many will remember from health care. "And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy." Similarly familiar was his reminder that "I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels," and his promise that "the one approach I will not accept is inaction."

The optimistic take, at least for environmentalists, is that this is the language and approach Obama uses when he really means to legislate. The pessimistic take is that Obama shied away from clearly describing the problem, did not endorse specific legislation, did not set benchmarks, and chose poll-tested language rather than a sharper case that might persuade skeptics.

Andrew Sullivan:

So far: two steps backward for every one forward. But it's worth remembering that almost every step backward on innovating post-carbon energy comes from the GOP. Obama and the Dems would have passed a serious climate bill by now if it weren't for total Republican obstructionism (with the fitful exception of Butters). Obama is not the real obstacle here: the American people are, however manipulated by short-term political maneuvering by Republicans. And he does not have the political capital at this point in time to twist their arms. He has already pushed so many as far as they can go - on the issues of the economy and health insurance.

I'm hoping one day he will be able to push again. Maybe with a more Republican Congress from next year on, he has more of a chance. Because they will be forced to say what they're for, rather than always pivoting from day to day based on what they're against.

...and super surprise guest-star Paul Begala:

As one who has been critical of the president's response to the disaster so far, I was enormously impressed with this speech. Obama communicated his personal commitment, and the commitment of the entire country, to the people of the Gulf region. He called for a new energy economy - one that creates more jobs and costs fewer lives. Perhaps most important, he made accountability a presidential priority. BP must be punished; the people of the Gulf must be made whole; the American coastline must be reclaimed.

He closed on an emotionally resonant note for all of us who grew up fishing in the Gulf: the blessing of the fleet. In so doing he told us that he gets it. He understands this is not about barrels of oil and billions of dollars. This is about a way of life. This is about a life-giving region. And this is about the eleven lives that were lost.

There is a villain in this story, and it's not Barack Obama. It is BP and its corporate cohorts. This is why the Katrina analogy is so unfair. The guy who was president when New Orleans drowned -- I can't recall his name offhand -- froze our government in icy indifference. His own people did not know that American citizens were stranded at the New Orleans convention center without food or water. They did nothing as Americans were drowning and families were clinging to life on their rooftops. Can any fair-minded person realistically compare that to President Obama's earnest, engaged--and until tonight somewhat emotionally aloof--response to BP? No way.

The President's speech in Pensacola, FL (VIDEO)

An enthusiastic response, especially from the Marines, especially when mentioning Afghanistan.

Why I like America (Photo)

This is not to say that a similar sign wouldn't be found somewhere else in the world (it would, by the way). But the fact that it's here, the fact that someone thought it was important enough to do, thought it was important enough to sacrifice for, to help someone else out especially during these tough economic times, warms the heart.


By the way, in case you're wondering, Andrew Sullivan had it first, and the store is in Portland, Oregon.

The Fireside chat for June 11, 2010 (VIDEO)

With doctors facing deep cuts in their reimbursements from Medicare unless Congress acts to correct long-standing problems, the President calls on Senate Republicans to stop blocking the remedy and pledges to work toward a permanent solution.

The Gulf Recovery Act? (VIDEO)

Douglas Brinkley (Dad's colleague at Rice) has it on good authority that it's going to happen.



We're going to have to re-direct the Mississippi River.

Ass-hattery... (VIDEO)

Dear Gay Folks,

Listen, I get the upset over the fact that DADT hasn’t been repealed. No, really, I do.

But when you go blaming the President, exclusively might I add, for the lack of DADT repeal, you betray the fact that you seem to have forgotten about a little thing known as the U.S. Congress.

Just because its dominated by Democrats, that doesn’t mean they can’t be just as asinine as any Republican.


Regards,

Me.

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

BP Spills Coffee (VIDEO)

The metaphor doesn't entirely work, but its heart is in the right place:

The Fireside chat for June 4, 2010 (VIDEO)

Speaking from Grand Isle, Louisiana, the President discusses the hardships local residents and small business owners are facing as a result of the BP oil spill. He pledges to make sure those responsible do not shortchange them.

Okay, so maybe Mitt Romney won't be the GOP Nominee in 2012...Part 2

Why? Because Sarah Palin just endorsed Terry Branstad.

And who, might you ask, is Terry Branstad, and why could it have major consequences for 2012? Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic has the answer.

Charlie Rose's Interview with Vice President Biden

Charlie Rose sat down with Vice President Biden on a range of topics: The Gulf Oil Spill, Jobs, Economy, the Gaza Blockade, etc.

And of course, given PBS's backward view of technology, the video is unavailable for embedding, and can be viewed here.

"Moving Forward on a New Foundation" (VIDEO)

The video of the President's speech today at Carnegie Mellon University.

Upcoming: The President's speech at Carneige-Mellon...

Listening to it live. It's a bit of a barnburner. It's not going to re-write the Obama record books, but there was a bit of a fire in his gut. (Satisfied, Keith??)

Greg Sargent put it very well. At a time when there's a meme building about Government ineffectiveness in light of the BP Oil Disaster, Obama seems to be doubling-down on the idea that Government can be a force for good. Good for him.

And he takes a good whack at the GOP to boot:

A good deal of the other party's opposition to our agenda has also been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about government. It's a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges...

As November approaches, leaders in the other party will campaign furiously on the same economic argument they've been making for decades. Fortunately, we don't have to look back too many years to see how it turns out. For much of the last ten years, we tried it their way. They gave tax cuts that weren't paid for to millionaires who didn't need them. They gutted regulations, and put industry insiders in charge of industry oversight...This the same crowd who took the record $237 billion surplus that President Clinton left them and turned it into a record $1.3 trillion deficit.

So we already know where their ideas led us. And now we have a choice as a nation. We can return to the failed economic policies of the past, or we can keep building a stronger future. We can go backward, or we can keep moving forward. I don't know about you, but I want to move forward.

I'll get the video when it comes.

Giving Government money away: Wrong. Stealing Government money??

...apparently okay!

Former Florida GOP chair Jim Greer is charged with six felony counts of fraud, theft, and money laundering in connection with a company he allegedly created to take a cut of the state party's fundraising revenues, Florida authorities announced this morning.

Who is Jim Greer? Well, we've talked about him before on this very site. Where he said (cough-cough), and I quote:

As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.

And...

While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.

The Fireside chat for May 29, 2010 (VIDEO)

Ahead of Memorial Day, the President asks all Americans to join him in remembering and honoring those who have died in service to the country.

TopKill doesn't seem to be working. Why? (VIDEO)

There actually is an answer, as Keith Olbermann's guest, Rick Steiner illustrates...

...and by illustrates, I mean, actually draws on a sheet of posterboard for the interview. C'mon Keith, couldn't you and your staff helped him with some fancy graphics?

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

More on the speech...

The key part of the speech, and seeming a make-up for the reservations some had over yesterday's Press Conference.

As I said yesterday, and as I repeated in the meeting that we just left, I ultimately take responsibility for solving this crisis. I’m the President and the buck stops with me. So I give the people of this community and the entire Gulf my word that we’re going to hold ourselves accountable to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this catastrophe, to defend our natural resources, to repair the damage, and to keep this region on its feet. Justice will be done for those whose lives have been upended by this disaster, for the families of those whose lives have been lost -- that is a solemn pledge that I am making.

I think I can speak for anybody here, and for anybody who has been involved in the response and the cleanup effort, and for most Americans, when I say that I would gladly do whatever it takes to end this disaster today. But I want to also repeat something that I said to the group as a whole while we were meeting. This is a manmade catastrophe that’s still evolving and we face a long-term recovery and restoration effort.

America has never experienced an event like this before. And that means that as we respond to it, not every judgment we make is going to be right the first time out. Sometimes, there are going to be disagreements between experts, or between federal and state and local officials, or among state officials, or between states, about what the most effective measures will be.

Sometimes, there are going to be risks and unintended consequences associated with a particular mitigation strategy that we consider. In other words, there are going to be a lot of judgment calls involved here. There are not going to be silver bullets or a lot of perfect answers for some of the challenges that we face.

Understandably, the feelings of frustration and anger, the sense that any response is inadequate -- we expect that frustration and anger to continue until we actually solve this problem. But in the meantime, we’ve got to make sure that everybody is working in concert, that everybody is moving in the same direction. And I want everybody to know that everybody here -- at every level -- is working night and day to end this crisis. We’re considering every single idea out there, especially from folks who know these communities best.

Admiral Allen announced yesterday, for example, that, after a bunch of back-and-forth between state and federal experts, he is prepared to authorize moving forward with a portion of the idea for a barrier island that may stop some of the oil from coming ashore. We had an extensive conversation about this and -- to see whether additional steps can be taken on this barrier island idea.

And what I told the parish president, what I told the Governor, is that if there is an idea that can be shown to work, then we should move forward on it, and they deserve quick answers. But I also reminded everybody that we’ve got to make sure that whatever we do is actually going to work, particularly because we’re going to have not unlimited resources, at least not right now. For example, there’s a limited amount of boom. We’re going to try to get more boom manufactured. But that may take some time, and that means we’re going to have to make some decisions about how to deploy it effectively.

The bottom line is this: Every decision we make is based on a single criterion -– what’s going to best protect and make whole the people and the ecosystems of the Gulf.

And I want to thank everybody in this region who’s rolled up their sleeves and pitched in to help -– from the National Guard putting their experience to the task, to the local officials and every citizen who loves this area and calls it home, every American who’s traveled to the region to lend a hand. If any American is looking for ways to volunteer and help, then we’ve put links to that information on our website, as well -- that's whitehouse.gov.

And, all these governors -- Bobby Jindal, as well as Charlie Crist and Bob Riley, they want -- and I know Haley Barbour is not here but I think he agrees with this, as well -- one of the powerful ways that you can help the Gulf right now is to visit the communities and the beaches off of the coast. Except for three beaches here in Louisiana, all of the Gulf’s beaches at this moment are open, they are safe and they are clean. And so that's always a good way to help, is to come down and provide support to the communities along the coasts.

To the people of the Gulf Coast: I know that you’ve weathered your fair share of trials and tragedy. I know there have been times where you’ve wondered if you were being asked to face them alone. I am here to tell you that you’re not alone. You will not be abandoned. You will not be left behind. The cameras at some point may leave; the media may get tired of the story; but we will not. We are on your side and we will see this through. We’re going to keep at this every day until the leak has stopped, until this coastline is clean, and your communities are made whole again. That’s my promise to you. And that is a promise on behalf of a nation. It is one that we will keep.

And I will make one last point -- and I said this to every leader who is here: If something is not going right down here, then they need to talk to Thad Allen. And if they’re not getting satisfaction from Thad Allen, then they can talk to me. There’s nobody here who can’t get in touch with me directly if there is an idea, a suggestion, or a logjam that needs to be dealt with.

So we’re in this together. And it’s going to be a difficult time, and obviously the folks down here are going to be feeling the brunt of it, but we’re going to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to get this solved as quickly as possible.

And I want to again think everybody here for the extraordinary work that they’re putting in. You shouldn’t underestimate how hard these folks are working, day in, day out, on behalf of their constituencies.

So thank you very much. Thank you, everybody.

What do you want to bet that the President's statement to "come down and provide support to the communities along the coasts" gets compared to Bush's go shopping comment made after 9/11?

Memo to Randi...

Since I've been bringing her up this week, there's this:

What’s more, we’ve stationed doctors and scientists across the five Gulf States to look out for people’s health and then to monitor any ill effects felt by cleanup workers and local residents. And we’ve begun setting up a system to track these efforts -- excuse me, to track these effects -- and ensure folks get the care that they need. And we’ve told BP that we expect them to pay for that, too.

President Obama at the U.S. Coast Guard Station in Grande Isle, Louisiana (VIDEO)

The video from MSNBC is terrible. Not because of internet issues, but because of lighting. Yes, that big glob in your screen is the President of the United States. The audio is perfect, but the video...

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

The text of the remarks can be found here. The good stuff begins at about 8:24 on the video.

The President's Press Conference of May 27, 2010 (VIDEO)

This was a good press conference. I thought the questions were tough and fair. I'd give the President a B- or C+ for his presentation. (I'm sorry, I know the man is saying trust us, we're doing everything in our power, acknowledging that there are and will be screw ups...but as long as the oil is coming onshore, you're always going to wonder...which the President acknowledged too.)

Let me take a moment to crack on Randi Rhodes, who spent a good chunk of his air time today complaining that the President didn't address the issue of mobile health clinics for workers who are getting sick. Apparently, a Congressman wrote him him a letter detailing the request. Still he didn't speak of it.

Let me get this straight Randi, you're complaining that the President didn't answer a question he wasn't asked.

Okay.

The only wastes of time in the whole preceding was Helen Thomas' question about Afghanistan toward the middle, and Major Garrett's (Fox Noise) sub-question about Joe Sestak toward the end. Since I just got finished reading a passage in The Promise about the President's war with Fox Noise, I had to wonder if shutting them out wasn't the best policy.

But Helen Thomas demanding to know, with a note of rage in her voice, why we were in Afghanistan, to me, bordered on pathetic. (Part of it was the nature of her question, most of it was time and place.)



P.S. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote on his blog that he hoped that the Press Corps would ask him about pushing on the Energy Bill currently stalled in the Senate because Lindsay Graham is throwing a hissy-fit.

I wrote Greg and bet him five bucks that the question would be asked...

Turns out...I think I owe Greg Sargent five bucks. Because while the President answered the questions, several times in fact, about the Energy Bill...no one in the Press Corps asked the question to begin with.

President Obama's interview with Marv Alpert (VIDEO)

Worry not. I'm still trolling for the complete Oil Spill Press Conference Video. (I can't believe it was this early...at least for those of us on the Left Coast.)

In the meantime, Obama on the NBA, Lebron and the ability to take a hard foul with the Secret Service around...




By the way, he didn't completely advocate for LeBron going to the Bulls, as some have suggested. It was Marv who was advocating the President to advocate for Chicago. He said if LeBron finds a coach he respects, and a stable situation in Cleveland (I'm hoping that the Cavs get Byron Scott), he should stay in Cleveland.

Lines of attack...

The overwhelming feeling I’m getting listening to the radio, specifically Randi Rhodes, is that she wants the Government to do something. Whatever the hell that means. I find this terribly ironic because just before the Rand Paul thing exploded, she had a African-American caller (not me) on the air, saying that we [Black folk] couldn’t get with the Teabaggers because of the the racism. So, figuring that at least part of the Teabagger anger was legitimate and that Government is broken Randi answered back, “what’s your plan”.

I’m afraid I’m left with the same question for the Gulf Oil Spill. What’s your plan? And an answer of “just do something” isn’t constructive, helpful, or intelligent at this point.

In the matter of the Gulf Oil Spill, there are two lines of attack, for now. One is stopping the oil volcano. Two is gathering information (and making it public) about how we got in this mess. Once the oil volcano is stopped, we can get on with a third track, which is clean-up. Once the information is gathered, we can start a fourth track, which is lawsuits and/or Criminal/Congressional investigations.

When we say we want Obama to do something, I want to know how does it fit into the two-to-four tracks I’ve outlined? The Navy may be well equipped to get down to the source of the leak, but do they have the equipment or expertise to fix it? (I don't know, I'm asking). People keep saying they do (Randi) but it seems like they're pulling that out of their asses. Remember, fixing isn’t just a matter of plugging the leak, it’s making sure that all that pressure doesn’t escape elsewhere and make the problem ten times worse.

I think the EPA should force BP from using their toxic dispersant. I think the Energy Department should put a stop to all the new Oil Drilling that seems to be going ahead anyway. I don't think its helpful that Secretary Chu is getting all his information from the damn New York Times, and not his own department. I think Scientists who are affiliated with the Government on their own organizations (as long as they’re not associated with BP) should be allowed free access to the site and come up with an independent estimate of the amount of oil spilled and damage done. While I think James Carville’s rant this morning at its heart came from the right place, I’m not 100% sure that the President being down there will help. In fact, Presidents can often get in the way of recovery efforts.

But past that, I’m left with questions. What about the Exxon Valdez law that is currently guiding Governmental efforts? The Media has been terrible at explaining what’s in it. I don’t know what the Government can and can’t do in this matter, and it doesn’t help that too many of my fellow Liberals are stuck in the belief that the Executive is just as unitary as it ever was under Bush, or worse that it should be.

If the Government were to take over the cleanup effort, would that absolve BP of all claims up to $75 Million (I've asked before). How does the $4000 a barrel fine work?Do we have to prove fraud in order to enact it? The Justice Department said that Congress can impose a retroactive liability cap. What else can the Justice Department do?

Another thing that’s really, really, really annoying me. A biiiiiiig meme for my fellow lefties during the Health Care Debate was that the White House wasn't doing enough (again, whatever that was) during the whole thing. Well, that’s been proven to be bullshit. So when I hear or read people asking what the President is doing, my bet is plenty. We just can’t see it. The bubble is bad, but it’s not that bad.

The difference between Obama and Dubya is that we trust Obama to do the right thing, for the right reasons. We hopefully can acknowledge a screw up (which I think this is), but we have to know he's not liking this, and not just for political reasons.

Bad Boys, whatchu gonna do? (VIDEO)

Pushback, and Vaporizaton... (VIDEO)

It's not great surprise that folks are starting to complain about the Gulf Oil Spill caused by British Peteroleum's, Transoceans and Haliburton's recklessness. It's been a month. Eleven people are dead, and nothing much seems to have been done to fix the calamity that might wind up destroying the Gulf of Mexico.

The fact that those same voices are starting to complain about the President's lack of action is a little surprising, but at the same time justified. Backing that idea is the notion that a competent administration should rush in and kick BP the hell out of there, and there are signs that may actually happen if BP doesn't get its act together. The fact that the President hasn't done this already is generating ire from even his most devoted followers (or should I say Hillary's).

Can't say I blame them. At the same time, I can't say I blame the President either, even though my preference is that he get off his duff and kick BP out of the Gulf, and present them with a bill for services rendered.

But is that even possible?

One problem is might be the language that exists from the Oil Cleanup Bill that was signed into law after Exxon Valdez.

Would kicking BP out, after they've gone public with the notion that they'll clean it all up on their dime, absolve them of all responsibility?

Would the Obama administration be limited in that bill for services rendered I described, in that it could only be $75 Million dollars? (the current cap on exposure to BP -- short of fraud, which I think you can prove. At least I hope Robert Kennedy does.)

Can you imagine having the President rush to the rescue of a toxic spill cleanup, to actually get it done in a timely manner, only to have his Republican opponents, who'll say anything at this point, mutter that the cleanup should have been the responsibility of the Private Industry that caused it, and that any Government intervention is nothing more than a bailout for Big Oil?

At the same time, I hate to say this...I'm a little glad it's happening this way.

No, I don't want to see oily birds, dead fishes, and Gulf Fishermen with their lives ruined, but I want to see the ineptness of Corporate America exposed. And make no mistake, what you're watching is Corporate incompetence writ large.

We are now recieving hard, visual (and if you're close enough to the Gulf, olfactory) evidence of the total and complete epicfail of the idea that Business can solve everything, and do it better than the Government. That notion is dead. It's been dead since Lehman Brothers collapse, but you're seeing it live and in action.

Last week, 60 Minutes did an interview with a survivor of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and it's the best, and most detailed account of what happened before and after. (Did I hear right that the eleven men who died, weren't so much as burned alive, but vaporized?)

It's a double segment, so it's a little long, but it's worth it, trust me.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

And Part Two:


Watch CBS News Videos Online