The U.S is running a deficit. That means two things.
1.) Taxes have to increase.
2.) Spending has to drop. As I demonstrated last week, the real issue there is medical costs We need to find some way to lower medical spending. I have no idea what that entails,but that is the central issue going forward for the US deficit.
This magical thinking that a reworking of the tax code will solve the problem is utter crap. It's a nice idea, but the tax code is full of special interest giveaways. The only way to make simplification work is to eliminate every single giveaway and not let any return. Politically, in an age of massive lobbying by everybody and their dog, that is simply not going to happen.
So far, all we've gotten is really stupid solutions that effectively say, "we don't want to make hard decisions because we might not get re-elected."
This isn't that hard or complicated. However, it does require grown-up solutions to answers. And that is where we come up short. Washington is full of stupid people.
I love Bondad's writing.
Granted, the man's a Tax Attorney. One could argue that he'd stand to lose business if the Tax Code were simplified, and one would be wrong. (I'm thinking he could find something to do with his skillz).
But he's right about the Politics of this.
What he says makes sense, but collectively "We The People" also bear an awesome responsibility for the mess we're in. Remember Walter Mondale talking about a rising deficit and how he needed to raise taxes in order to fix Reagan's mess? Of course you don't...because he lost to Reagan.
Remember Grey Davis saying that the California Budget hole was large and growing, and how he needed to resort to desperate measures to fix it? This after he'd been re-elected. I bet you don't because he was recalled in favor of Governor Arnold.
And the budget hole got worse.
Why do Politicians lie about these things? Because we beg them to.
I was going to do a whole piece on the American's shameless hypocrisy over the full body scanners. Save me! Save me from those nasty Muslims! Do whatever you have to do...to them. Take away my neighbor's civil liberties, I have nothing to hide.
Wait, you want to do something to me? Whooooaaa, you crossed a line there, fella.
Of course, Lewis Black said it (and performed it) way better.
It reminds me of the old adage: Black people. Why I love black people! Blacks are some of my best friends...
...but no, I wouldn't let my daughter marry one.
Instead here its: Muslims? I ain't afraid of no Muslims...but don't let one sit next to me, okay? And don't let them build a Mosque in my neighborhood...and God help you if you touch my junk!
Still, Nate Silver has a couple interesting points about his own experiences with the Scanners in San Diego (an experience mirrored by Sports Talk Show Host, Jim Rome on his own show this morning, but I don't have audio for that):
My first experience with the full-body scanners, on a flight back to Kennedy Airport from San Diego last month, was also a negative one. I had assumed that, whatever their other faults, the full-body scanners would at least speed up the process of going through the security line; I supposed I imagined something like this scene from the movie Total Recall, in which passengers literally don’t even have to pause to go through security as their bodies are scanned while they walk toward the departure gate.
Instead, the lines were quite slow — possibly because the machines were coming up with a lot of false positives, myself included. As is my usual practice when passing through airport security, I emptied my pants pockets completely — there wasn’t so much as a stick of gum, a penny, or a taxi receipt in there. But the machine nevertheless insisted that that there was something in the back right-hand pocket of my jeans. When the official from the Transportation Security Administration asked me what I had in my pocket, and I told him that there was absolutely nothing, he then performed a pat-down. I was in a chipper enough mood that I wasn’t inclined to make a scene, but I did ask the T.S.A. official whether it was routine for the machines to see things that weren’t there, to which he declined to respond.
This is not necessarily to suggest that my experience was typical — although perhaps there are some particular issues in San Diego, the same airport at which Mr. Tyner experienced his problems, and perhaps there is something of a learning curve as T.S.A. crews learn how to use the new technologies effectively.
The T.S.A. is fond of citing polls which suggest that about 75 or 80 percent of air travelers approve of the new machines. There are a couple of issues having to do with the timing of these surveys, however. Most of them were conducted in January, immediately after the failed attempt last Christmas day by a Nigerian man, who had concealed explosives in his underwear, to blow up a plane travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit — during which time concern about air travel security would naturally have been quite elevated.
In addition, the surveys were conducted at a time when virtually no Americans would have had experiences with the full-body scanners, which had not yet been installed in any American airports at that time. Again, I have no way of knowing whether my experience at San Diego was at all typical. But if so, I would imagine that other people might have their opinions shifted after actually having encountered the machines.
Yeah! That'll get those stinkin' Democrats! They'll never know what hit 'em!!
Congress, without a quorum in the House, would be paralyzed. Ideally, this would coincide with a short extension of appropriations through, say, January 15, so that Democrats would be left running the entire government when it shut down. Blame the Republican heroes? How? They’re not even there! The massive inconveniences would clearly be the fault of Kenyan anticolonial ideology.
For once, conservatives wouldn’t have to worry about their leaders selling them out. How could they, when they weren’t even there?
Still, there's nothing in the article that says it may be working.
The largest union federation in the country has been in talks with both Democrats in Congress and members of the administration to push them to hold a vote that would only extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and not those for the rich.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said on Tuesday that his group has been "working diligently with lawmakers and the White House" about its legislative preference for the expiring tax rates. Though he wouldn't elaborate on the substance of those discussions, Turmka explained that "to date, no one that I'm aware of said that's not a good strategy, that's not good policy, and that's not good for the country."
Listen, fingers crossed. I think this is the right move. I just there was some evidence for Huffpo's clickable optimism.
Of course, both of these clips of video got a fair amount of airplay in the Blogosphere. I just thought it'd be useful to have them in the same place for once.
1) Unemployment insurance: In a few weeks, unemployment benefits will expire for 2 million Americans. An extension of the benefits commands majority support among Democrats, Republicans and independents. But most Hill observers think Congress will fail to act. It would be unconscionable, however, to let unemployment benefits expire even as the tax cuts for the rich are continued. If Republicans aren't willing to come to the table on unemployment benefits, Democrats shouldn't move on tax cuts for the wealthy. And if they're not willing to take that case to the public, what are they good for, exactly?
2) The debt ceiling: In February, Congress will have to vote to lift the debt ceiling. Republicans are already looking toward this moment eagerly. Sen. Jim DeMint, for instance, wants to use it as leverage for "returning to 2008 spending levels" and "repealing Obamacare." Of course, part of the reason the debt ceiling will have to rise is that extending the Bush tax cuts will cost about $4 trillion -- all of it on the deficit. If Republicans want the tax cuts, Democrats should force them to accept the consequences of their vote and stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the debt ceiling. For Democrats to vote to extend Bush's tax cuts and then let Republicans hammer them on raising the debt ceiling borders on self-parody.
3) Comprehensive tax reform: Our tax code is long-overdue for an overhaul. We need to clean out the loopholes, lower the rates and get rid of the tricks and traps (like, for instance, the occasional expiration of unaffordable tax cuts). The Bush tax cuts offer a useful forcing mechanism for that process: Sen. Kent Conrad has proposed pairing a short extension with a mandate for comprehensive tax reform. If the reform doesn't pass, then rates snap back to their 1999 levels, or deductions start taking across-the-board cuts.
4) The expiration of the tax cuts for income over $250,000: This was originally the White House's position, though they don't seem to be fighting for it very hard. Now it's the position of the House Progressive Caucus. They want to split the vote on the tax cuts for the rich from the vote on the tax cuts for income under $250,000. It's widely acknowledged that this makes the passage of the tax cuts for the rich less likely, which is why Republicans are ferociously resisting it. it's unclear exactly what leverage they're wielding in that effort, but whatever it is, it seems to be working.
I personally think my fellow Liberal numbnuts who failed to show up on November 2nd, deserve an awful lot of scorn for what's about to happen to us for the next two years. And I would also remind my fellow Liberals that you have just demonstrated that you're not worth dealing with, because in the end, no matter what the policy is, no matter what's done or passed, it will never be good enough and you will stab your own ideological colleagues in the back.
At the same time, Democrats bear a responsibility to make sure we know there's a difference between us and them. They talked a good and convincing game about responsibility to the middle-class, and votes they want to pass. Howzabout stepping up and passing them?
The Bush tax cuts cannot pass without Democratic support. They expire before the House changes hands. And even if they didn't, Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. They have a much stronger negotiating position than the Republicans: They can decide what passes, and Republicans have never been willing to end the tax cuts for most Americans simply to preserve the tax cuts for the rich. But though they're the party in charge, Democrats aren't acting like it.
Jon was sick, so for about the first ten minutes, he's off his game. But he warms up as time goes on, and he did not throw up once during the interview. Kudos!
CBS News has a new poll out finding that huge majorities of Americans want Obama and Republicans to "compromise," rather than hold out for what they believe in. This echoes what we keep being told about the midterm elections: It proves the American people want the two parties to "work together to get things done."
Let's stipulate at the outset that these types of statements don't have any meaning in the real world. People differ on what constitutes compromise to begin with, viewing it through the prism of what they want.
And remember that thing I wrote about the President always keeping his powder dry for a battle that never seems to happen? Greg puts it more bluntly:
People don't give leaders points for occupying some sort of precious moral high ground that comes with being more compromising than the other side. People give leaders points for delivering what they want, which of course varies wildly from one constituency to another. One party, it seems, understands this far better than the other one does.
Yesterday, Axelrod seemed to concede to HuffPo that Dems would probably not be able to extend the middle class cuts permanently and would have to extend both temporarily, because it's the only way of ensuring that the middle class cuts don't expire. "We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said. "The world of what it takes to get this done."
In subsequently statements, Axelrod and White House comm director Dan Pfeiffer strongly denied that this amounted to giving in, adamantly asserted that the White House position had not changed, and repeated the call for a middle class tax cut extension.
But neither Axelrod's statement nor Pfeiffer's statement reiterated Obama's call for making the middle class cuts permanent, a demand that has been at the core of the White House's brinkmanship with Republicans. This is the crux of the issue right now -- whether the White House will stick with that goal, or not.
The key word is "permanent". The President's position is that since he's giving up the permanance of the Middle Class Tax Cuts, and the Republicans are also giving up permanance of their Tax Cuts for the rich, a compromisehas been achieved.
In the real world, we call this punting.
I'd still veto the whole thing. Why participate in the GOP's fiscal fraudulence?
As much as I love the President, I gotta say, he seems to always want to keep his powder dry for a later fight that never happens because he's still working to keep his powder dry.
Anyway, this Greg Sargent piece meets my standard of good reporting. I learned something I didn't know before. Thus, news is produced. (You can learn something from this, Huffington Post).
There is not one bit of news here. I simply re-stated what POTUS and Robert have been saying. Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.
That last bit was the one part that made me feel better. He drew a bit fat underline under "we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy".
And White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer chimed in:
The story is overwritten. Nothing has changed from what the President said last week. We believe we need to extend the middle class tax cuts, we cannot afford to borrow 700 billion to pay for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we are open to compromise and are looking forward to talking to the Congressional leadership next week to discuss how to move forward. Full Stop, period, end of sentence.
Even the Washington Post's Greg Sargent is skeptical, but like me, he thinks this bad deal is where we're headed.
I'm not sure this amounts to the White House giving in quite yet, but it seems to suggest that's where things are headed. The White House wanted a permanent extension for the middle class cuts and a temporary extension of the high end ones. But Republicans have refused any effort to "decouple" the two categories, insisting on extending both for the same duration, in order to avoid having to push for extending just the tax cuts for the rich later.
This does seem typical of the White House pattern. Leak a story that has bad implications for the White House. Deny, deny, deny the story. Then go ahead with what the original story said anyway.
It's also possible, just possible, that the White House hasn't decided what they're going to do yet. As I've said in the past, when they decide to move, the move with blinding speed. It's getting to that stage that can take a while.
I've never been a big fan of Howard Fineman, but I was at least hoping that his journalistic ethos would rub off on the Click-addicts at the Huffington Post.
Although the president "took the position he felt was the right position" -- favoring a continuation of the cuts only for families earning up to $250,000 -- Axelrod portrayed this "optimal" stance as unrealistic in the lame-duck Congress that begins next week.
For one, time is not on the administration's side. All of the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, will expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts. The Republicans in effect "built in tax increases," Axelrod said. And separating out different categories of tax cuts now -- extending some without extending others -- is politically unrealistic and procedurally difficult, he added.
"We don't want that tax increase to go forward for the middle class," he said, which means the administration will have to accept them all for some as yet unspecified period of time. "But plainly, what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes."
In other words, the White House won't risk being blamed for raising taxes on the middle class even though, arguably, it is the GOP's refusal to separate the categories that has put Obama in this bind. The only condition, at least initially, seems to be that the tax-cuts-for-the wealthy not be extended "permanently."
What does that mean?
Well, not a lot, and a lot closer to nothing at all. This is the same thing we've been hearing about for, literally, months now. Don't wanna extend the Tax cuts for the Rich. Will probably wind up temporarily extending Tax Cuts for the rich in order to get Tax cuts for Middle Class.
Now, I don't like it...but it's not news.
Huffington Post? Call me when you break something.
In their report, Bowles and Simpson urged Congress to set a global target for total federal health expenditures after 2020 and to review costs every two years to keep the growth of healthcare spending in line with the increase of gross domestic product plus 1 percent.
If costs exceed targets, the fiscal commission’s draft proposal would require the president to submit to Congress reforms such as the public option to lower spending.
The chairmen’s proposal calls for consideration of “a robust public option” among other reforms such as an overhaul of the fee-for-service system; an increase in healthcare premiums; a premium support system for Medicare; and strengthened authority for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which under current law will be empowered to restrict Medicare payments beginning in 2015.
This was a pre-leak, a way to control media reactions to the Deficit Commission (of which there have been many) that are not in line with the reactions the Deficit Commission wants us to have, but remember:
It is not the commission's report. And here is the second most important fact to remember: The commission itself does not have any actual power. So what we're looking at is a discussion draft of a proposal to balance the budget authored by two people who don't have a vote in either the House or the Senate.
It's worth taking a moment to consider how we got here: The fiscal commission we have is not the fiscal commission we were supposed to have. The fiscal commission we were supposed to have was the brainchild of Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, the two senior members of the Senate Budget Committee. "The inability of the regular legislative process to meaningfully act on [the deficit] couldn't be clearer," they wrote. Their proposal would have set up a commission dominated by members of Congress and able to fast-track its consensus recommendations through the congressional process -- no delays, no amendments. But that proposal was filibustered in the Senate, mainly by Republicans who worried it would end in tax increases.
Perhaps the oddest feature of the report from the co-chairs of the deficit commission is its cap on the amount of revenues the federal government can raise. It would've been one thing to propose a tax plan bringing revenues up to 21 percent of GDP -- we were at 18.5 percent in 2007 -- but instead, the co-chairs say that revenues shouldn't be allowed to go above 21 percent of GDP.
This actually angers me because this is how California completely screwed itself over the last two years. In our obsession to keep taxes from going up, we hit a genuine crisis we've voted away half the weapons from our arsenal to deal with it.
I've quickly scanned the Simpson-Bowles draft proposal and find it extremely encouraging. It really does hit what the Dish regards as key themes for a new fiscal order: 1986-style tax reform (largely removing deductions and lowering rates); serious defense retrenchment; focusing social security on the truly needy and raising the retirement age; hard cost-controls in Medicare; a real populist attack on government waste.
It reads like the manifesto the Tea Party never published. Every detail needs thinking through and debate. Much of it is way over my head in terms of the specifics of government programs and the ability to cut them. But the core proposal is honest, real, and vital. I recommend you download and read both documents.
If I were the president, I would embrace this and urge passage of these proposals as the key domestic objective of his next two years in office. If I were the GOP, intent not on politics but on restraining spending and the debt, I would make this a joint endeavor. If I were the Tea Party, I would leap at this as a way past the old two parties toward fiscal sanity.
I'm sorry, but Andrew's obsession with cutting our social safety net is one of the areas where I think he's got his head up his ass. He's still in love with Thatcher's England for pity's sake.
I respect Andrew on many issues, but he can really kiss my ass with his idea that this could be Obama's core legacy.
Yeah, its your core issue and have zero chance of being affected by the massive cuts you want.
I'm continually amazed by American's capacity to endure the suffering of someone else.
OK, let’s say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there’s good reason to be — you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.
I'm not sure what I think yet, but I can go along with this (back to Ezraagain):
Some of it I like, some of it I don't like, and some of it I need to think more about.
In the end, isn't that the reaction a Commission on anything is supposed to enact?
This blog has a long-standing loathing of Glenn Greenwald. After all, he's the only person in America who truly understands the Constitution (just ask him).
For me, he's an insufferable prig. He's a know-it-all who disregards anything anyone else says who disagrees with him. Now, this is something we usually castigate Republicans for, but we celebrate it (for some reason) in jerks like Greenwald.
He loves him some him, don't he? Did he stop to take a breath even once? He seemed to follow the Palin strategy of filling the air with words.
And thus we have the one thing that no matter your party affiliation, we can all agree on, Pundits...no matter their ideology are idiots, because their ideology and their ideas are the only things that matter to them.
When I was a supporter of Barack Obama's in 2008, I favored his Health Care plan over Hillary's because Hillary's had a Mandate, and Barack's didn't.
Now, the difference between me and Glenn Greenwald? I just told you I was wrong. Glenn never will.
Glenn Greenwald really doesn't care what the hell happened in 2010. He doesn't care how Congressional Districts work. He doesn't care that Conservative Democrats will win in more Conservative Districts. He doesn't care about this stuff, because for him it's ideology first, last and always. Ideology before Country, ideology before fact.
Over and over again, he tells us that if the masses just heard our superior Liberal ideas, and if Democrats sold them with enough conviction, we'd win every time.
Last I checked, that was called...Democracy. And yes, it can be an ugly-ass process. But Glenn can't be bothered with Democracy or compromise. That's too much like hard work, or...legislating or (gasp) being an actual leader...
Hey, I like actual Government-run Socialized Medicine. But you know, I also know how to count.
At no point does the thought even enter Glenn's head that some of his ideas are just flat out bull@#$%. When confronted with facts like "that idealized Congress you speak of never existed" he just repeats the same point he made two minutes ago.
He's got his ideas. He's stickin' to 'em. Facts be damned.
How is this son of a bitch different from any Teabagger I equally despise?!?
You know, I got an idea. Let's take Glenn's ideas and Lawrence's ideas of what a Political candidate should be, let 'em each run their own campaigns, but do it in the middle of say...Idaho and see who wins the Democratic nomination.
Not the election, just the Democratic nomination.
Doesn't have to be Idaho, it could be in working-class Ohio, hard-scrabble Massachusetts, the Central part of California...otherwise blue states where folks tend to vote red more often than not.
Sure, Glenn could win...in Nancy Pelosi's District...or anywhere in Manhattan or the West Side of Los Angeles, the same way if I play football against a bunch of third-graders, I'd probably whup up on 'em.
But put me in with the NFLers, and see how long I'd last. (Hell, I wouldn't last against a bunch of High Schoolers...)
Likewise, put Glenn in an area where his ideology isn't so popular, and see how well he does.
Glenn is going to keep losing us elections. Fortunately, the only way he can hurt us...is if we listen to him.
In the winter of 2005, Bush unveiled his Social Security privatization plan, the domestic centerpiece of his second term. The president invested a tremendous amount of personal political capital in the effort, featuring it in his 2005 State of the Union address and holding carefully choreographed town meetings to simulate public support for the idea.
Most of the press corps expected the debate to be a painful defeat for Democrats. Not only were moderates predicted to jump ship and join with Republicans to support the president's plan, but Social Security -- one of the foundational blocks of the New Deal social compact -- would be irrevocably changed. But then a funny thing happened. Reid and Pelosi managed to keep the members of their caucuses united in opposition. Day after day they launched coordinated attacks on Bush's "risky" proposal. Without a single Democrat willing to sign on and give a bipartisanship veneer of credibility, the private accounts plan slowly came to be seen by voters for what it was: another piece of GOP flimflam.
As the privatization ship began sinking, Republicans challenged Democrats to develop their own plan, and when none was forthcoming, pundits whacked the minority party for being without ideas. But not putting forth a plan was the plan. It meant that once the bottom fell out on public support for Bush's effort -- which it did by early summer -- Democrats couldn't be pressured to work with Republicans to form a compromise proposal. It was a brilliant tactical maneuver that resulted in a defeat at least as decisive as the Republicans' successful effort to kill Clinton's health-care plan.
Steve has more. Still, as good as that sounds, it also sounds a lot like the same plan the GOP used to perfection to regain power.
Politicians have tried and failed for decades to enact universal health care. This time, they succeeded. In 2008, Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress, and by the thinnest of margins, they rammed a bill through. They weren't going to get another opportunity for a very long time. It cost them their majority, and it was worth it.
And that's not counting financial regulation, economic stimulus, college lending reform, and all the other bills that became law under Pelosi. So spare me the tears and gloating about her so-called failure. If John Boehner is speaker of the House for the next 20 years, he'll be lucky to match her achievements.
Will Republicans revisit health care? Sure. Will they enact some changes to the program? Yes, and Democrats will help them. Every program needs revisions. Republicans will get other things, too: business tax breaks, education reform, more nuclear power, and a crackdown on earmarks. These are issues on which both parties can agree. Which is why, if you're a Democrat, you deal with them after you've lost your majority—not before.
It's funny, in a twisted way, to read all the post-election complaints that Democrats lost because they thought only of themselves. Even the chief operating officer of the party's leading think tank, the Center for American Progress, says Obama failed to convince Americans "that he knows their jobs are as important as his." That's too bad, because Obama, Pelosi, and their congressional allies proved just the opposite. They risked their jobs—and in many cases lost them—to pass the health care bill. The elections were a painful defeat, and you can argue that the bill was misguided. But Democrats didn't lose the most important battle of 2010. They won it.
It's very funny. You go looking for the Keith Olbermann's released statement, and you only can see parts of it in the various articles released here and there.
It actually took an hour or two before the statement was even linked to the Times story.
I wouldn't characterize this as a slamming of NBC, but I wouldn't call the wording gentle. If you're used to Keith's writing style, then it shouldn't come as a surprise to you. He laid out what happened. He didn't pull any punches, but he didn't twist any knives either.
The thorniest part of the missive was his saying that he was assured no suspension was going to happen...and then it happening anyway. I get the feeling that the story isn't over yet, and the next move, whatever it is...is going to be Keith's...and it's going to involve Lawyers.
Keith, for the record, this may be why Jon and Stephen said that the media sucks.
The opening part from the edited version of this interview pissed me off quite a bit. I think Steve Kroft was slinging a significant amount of bull@#$%. Polls consistently showed that jobs and the economy were the number one concern of voters on Tuesday, not the President's "Liberal Governing Philosophy."
It made me think of the line from "The Insider" where Mike Wallace is blasting Eric Kluster of CBS News:
Who told you your incompetent little fingers had the requisite skills to edit me!
It's clear that they don't have the requisite skills to even edit the President.
Watch at least the first couple minutes of this interview, and compare it to the unedited version below. As always, the differences are stark.
My problem with the opening batch of the edited version was that it approached the "Liberalism meme" not as a possible point of view on the election, but as accepted fact. He all but said "Voters rejected your Liberalism out of hand, why can't you accept that fact?"
"Well, gee Steve. Why can you accept that like most reporters, you're a lazy bastard."
Of course, that answer is probably why I'm not the President.
And what's this nonsense?
KROFT: The political landscape has changed. I mean, how do you plan to govern? President Clinton found himself in a very, very similar circumstance. And he reacted by pivoting to the middle, turning to the middle. And was successful at it. Is that what you're gonna do?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I when I . . . .
KROFT: You have to, don't you?
Have to? No, he doesn't "have to". He's probably going to, but since the Voters did not send him that message, he doesn't "have to".
Again, if Unemployment had fallen to 7 or 8%, do you really think the GOP would have had a leg to stand on? Do you think the House would have ever been in danger of flipping?
Here is the whole 70 minute interview. The Transcript is available here.
CBS News' embedding has a history of being unreliable. If the video doesn't work, click here.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the personnel policies of NBC News, but if Politico's account is correct, Olbermann really did seem to break the network's rules. It appears to be a fairly minor infraction, but I suppose the host should have known better. A slap on the wrist, with a stern note about not doing it again, would probably be appropriate.
But an indefinite suspension without pay seems way over the top under the circumstances. We are, after all, talking about three checks -- one each for three candidates. As we talked about earlier, the MSNBC host's donations were made in his personal capacity; he disclosed his contributions; and he never encouraged others to support these campaigns.
As I understand it, the NBC News rule is intended to maintain a professional standard -- media professionals on the NBC News payroll are supposed to appear politically neutral. That's a noble intention. But the last time I checked, Keith Olbermann hosts a show with a point of view. His opinions are not only obvious, they're a key part of his program, which happens to be the highest rated on MSNBC.
As a "Countdown" viewer, I can say with confidence that I'm not surprised he cut a few checks for candidates he liked; I'm more surprised he didn't write more checks for other candidates he liked.
The network policy notes that the restrictions are necessary, because political activities may "jeopardize [employees'] standing as an impartial journalist." But therein lies the point -- those who watch Olbermann are well aware of his politics. Psst -- no one considers him "impartial."
Besides, if we're going to be sticklers for such things, I can't help but notice that Joe Scarborough has also contributed to like-minded candidates -- identified on his disclosure forms as an MSNBC host -- and Pat Buchanan has been writing some campaign checks, too. Neither faced suspension. (For the record, I don't think they should be punished, either.)
And just to reinforce the contrast, let's also remember that News Corp made multiple undisclosed donations to the Republican Governors Association, totaling at least $1.25 million, in addition to a $1 million contribution to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its pro-Republican election-year activities. Fox News has helped GOP candidates raise money on the air; Fox News personalities are featured guests at Republican fundraisers; while other Fox News personalities continue to help generate financial support for Republican candidates now, even after the elections.
And Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay for $7,200 in donations? Granted, NBC News and MSNBC are legitimate news outlets with professional standards News Corp and Fox News lack, but regardless, it's a reminder that today's punishment far exceeds his fairly inconsequential infractions.
Last time I checked, Keith Olbermann doesn't pretend to be an "impartial journalist."
Likewise, neither do Joe Scarborough or Pat Buchanan, both of whom have also given political contributions. It seems possible that none of these three would think they may have violated company policy.
Odder still, an anonymous NBC insider told Gawker that it's common knowledge within the organization that MSNBC's left-leaning personalities aren't necessarily required to follow NBC News rules. That makes sense, since MSNBC is pushing the envelope politically in a way NBC, obviously, isn't.
Again: We don't know yet what happened here. MSNBC's P.R. department is not responding to inquiries about whether Scarborough or Buchanan notified MSNBC brass before making their contributions. But it's certainly fair to ask, if they're axing Olbermann.
The fact that it's not even crystal clear that Olbermann violated NBC policy suggests that this firing could be a pretext for getting rid of him because he has difficult relations with management, or worse, because MSNBC is terrified of critics who claim it's becoming the lefty version of Fox News.
Until we learn more, the network's case against Olbermann is looking increasingly tenuous.
Randi Rhodes said it flat out on air. Comcast is buying out NBC/Universal. Comcast could be looking at doing some cost-cutting, so all of this could be a bit of a negotiation.
MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle.
"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay," MSNBC president Phil Griffin said in a statement.
Politico reported Friday that Olbermann had donated $2,400 each to Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and to Kentucky Senate contender Jack Conway. While NBC News policy does not prohibit employees from donating to political candidates, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.
In a statement earlier Friday, Olbermann defended his donation, saying, "I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level."
Griffin's statement underscores that it was Olbermann's failure to obtain approval, and not the actual political donations, that prompted the suspension.
The move is doubly significant in that it represents a major development in the relationship between Griffin and Olbermann, who once told the New Yorker, "Phil thinks he's my boss."
"Keith doesn't run the show," Griffin told New York Magazine recently. "I do a lot of things he doesn't like. I do a lot of things he does."
I'm sorry, but this looks and smells bad coming off the climate we're coming out of.
Why a full suspension, a punishment usually merited for people who have been accused of crimes, instead of a public rebuke.
Is this MSNBC's way of trying to slap down Keith to prove how neutral they are to the incoming Congress? Not saying that's how it is, but I would bet that the Professional Left is going to have a field day with this, and MSNBC has no one but themselves to blame.
A perfect representation of what a complete waste of time Glenn Greenwald is. He is the face of what Liberalism continues to get its ass kicked electorally. Lawrence ripped him apart, and was far too polite to him in doing so.
UPDATE: November 10, 2010: Finally replaced the video with the MSNBC video, which as you can see is much, much, much clearer:
I'm finally gettin' around. This is from "With Great Power"...
I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated about some exceptional lawmakers losing their jobs for no good reason. I'm frustrated about the role of secret money in the elections. I'm frustrated that there's so much idiocy in the discourse -- people think Obama raised taxes, bailed out Wall Street, and socialized health care, all of which is completely at odds with reality -- and that too many people believe it. I'm frustrated about voters saying they want all kinds of things -- less gridlock, fewer candidates beholden to special interests -- and then deliberately choosing the opposite.
I'm frustrated that, after two years of digging out of a ditch Republicans put us in, the country is ready to take the next productive step forward, and now that's impossible. I'm frustrated that the economy desperately needs additional investments to create jobs, but that's impossible, too. I'm frustrated that Republican leaders seem to be making no real effort to hide the fact that they prioritize destroying the president over literally everything else.
But most of all, I'm frustrated that there are no meaningful consequences for successes and failures. Republicans began last year as an embarrassed and discredited minority, and proceeded to play as destructive a role as humanly possible as Democrats tried to clean up their mess. GOP officials refused to take policymaking seriously; they refused to work in good faith; they refused to offer coherent solutions; they even refused to accept responsibility for their own catastrophic mistakes.
They've proven themselves wholly unprepared to govern, but have been rewarded with power anyway. It's ... frustrating.
This is from another Andrew Sullivan piece (I'm still tired from last night, so I'm not reading as far and wide as I usually do), featuring George Packer talking to the GOP "base":
“I’m a constitutional conservative and I do not ever approve of distribution of wealth, and I am not a socialist, this country is not socialist, we are founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I will riot in the street if I have to. I have never been so ashamed of the way Obama has diminished the Presidency. He calls certain people enemies. He doesn’t dress properly. He talks about certain networks. He is just what he is — a Chicago agitator.”
It was almost a joke around the office. Every time a Rasmussen poll came out, I would automatically shift four points to the Democrats, because...I would explain...that's just how Rasmussen is.
Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.
After spending all day at the Pasadena Democratic Office's, and all day in meetings today, I haven't blogged much on the obvious news of the day. So let me start with the President's Press Conference this morning, post-election:
BTW, there's a somewhat-too-subtle Veto threat Obama issues over Health Care Reform at the 17:00 minute mark.
It would be a mistake to spend the next two years re-fighting the political battles of the last two years. The President is proud of the progress we have made for average Americans - from health care reform, to financial reform and reforms to our education system. While he has always made it clear that he is open to ideas from both sides of the aisle to improve these important new laws, he will not accept attempts to repeal or weaken them.
A couple of angles to keep an eye on here. The first is that the president clearly doesn't seem inclined to budge on this. If Boehner & Co. think Obama will be pushed around on health care, and that with the right leverage, repeal is an option, they're mistaken.
The second is this general framework: re-fighting the battles of the past is a mistake. I get the sense the White House is working on a larger message here -- all Republicans want to do is fight over things that happened in the past, instead of focusing on the future -- which may come up quite a bit in the coming months.
This isn't to say health care tweaks are out of the question, and the president brought up "the 1099 provision" today as "something that we should take a look at." But the underlying message to Republicans intending to push for some wholesale overhaul seemed to be pretty straightforward: don't bother.
October 2001: The conviction of “Portland 7” case was substantially helped after a local police officer encountered the suspects engaged in target practice. The police officer had been sent to the area after a local citizen notified police that he heard gunfire.
September 2002: Members of the “Lackawanna 6” are arrested. FBI first becomes aware of their activities in June 2001 when a local Muslim community member tips off the FBI.
March 2002: FBI become aware of a possible terror plot by Imran Mandhai (and later Shueyb Jokhan) after they are notified by an American Muslim named “Saif Allah” who attended Mandhai and Jokhan’s same mosque provides a tip.
June 2003: FBI receive two tips from community members notifying them “military-style training” was being conducted suspect by Ali Al-Tamimi. The tip set in motion an investigation later leading to the arrest of the so-called “Paintball 11” in Northern Virginia.
August 2004: James Elshafay and Shahwar Matin Siraj are arrested largely based on the controversial use of an informant in the investigation. However, NYPD were first notified of Siraj after a Muslim community member anonymously notifies New York police about consistently troubling rhetoric coming from the suspect.
February 2006: Muslim community members in Ohio provide information helping to arrest and eventually convict 3 suspects planning attacks in Iraq.
July 2009: Mosque leaders in Raleigh, North Carolina, contact law enforcement to notify them of “violent, threatening action … considered to be dangerous” leading to the arrest of Daniel Boyd and 6 other individuals.
November 2009: Five Virginia Muslim youth are arrested in Pakistan, allegedly seeking to join a terror group, after family members told American federal authorities they went missing.
April 2010: Senegalese Muslim Alioune Niass first spots the suspicious vehicle used as a bomb to attack Times Square in New York City. Clues from the vehicle and defused explosive immediately led to the suspect, Faisal Shahzad’s, arrest.
June 2010: Suspects Mohammed Mahmoud Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte are arrested, after the FBI first receives an anonymous report in 2006 from one of the suspects’ family members. News reports indicate one of Alessa’s family members provided the tip.
"For all our troubles, midterm finds this Administration and this country entering a season of hope. We inherited a mess, we didn't run away from it and now we're turning it around ... My biggest regret is that because the accumulated damages piled up so high for so long, putting America's house in order has been a tough and painful task ... We've got to prove that what we said about it is true - it'll work."
Seeing as it was just days away from the midterms, people who do polling seriously and for a living decided it was high time they collect some numbers on the most important election happening this campaign season. And that election, of course, is a U.S. presidential election pitting Comedy Central characters Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert against one another. Major news businesses the Washington Post and ABC News put all their profits together to commission this very significant poll, and surely the respondents were eager to have ten minutes stolen from their lives to consider which of these two individuals they would vote for in this teevee comedian presidential election that will be happening any day. “With one in three still up for grabs (mainly undecided), both Comedy Central funnymen may have a great chance to pick up support at their dueling rallies on the National Mall,” a Washington Post journalist wrote, PROPHETICALLY and IN FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A COMEDIAN IS.
From "Mugged by the Moralizers". This is a quick handy guide, the next time someone lectures you about the deficit, and the role of Government in trying to fix it:
The years leading up to the 2008 crisis were indeed marked by unsustainable borrowing, going far beyond the subprime loans many people still believe, wrongly, were at the heart of the problem. Real estate speculation ran wild in Florida and Nevada, but also in Spain, Ireland and Latvia. And all of it was paid for with borrowed money.
This borrowing made the world as a whole neither richer nor poorer: one person’s debt is another person’s asset. But it made the world vulnerable. When lenders suddenly decided that they had lent too much, that debt levels were excessive, debtors were forced to slash spending. This pushed the world into the deepest recession since the 1930s. And recovery, such as it is, has been weak and uncertain — which is exactly what we should have expected, given the overhang of debt.
The key thing to bear in mind is that for the world as a whole, spending equals income. If one group of people — those with excessive debts — is forced to cut spending to pay down its debts, one of two things must happen: either someone else must spend more, or world income will fall.
Yet those parts of the private sector not burdened by high levels of debt see little reason to increase spending. Corporations are flush with cash — but why expand when so much of the capacity they already have is sitting idle? Consumers who didn’t overborrow can get loans at low rates — but that incentive to spend is more than outweighed by worries about a weak job market. Nobody in the private sector is willing to fill the hole created by the debt overhang.
So what should we be doing? First, governments should be spending while the private sector won’t, so that debtors can pay down their debts without perpetuating a global slump. Second, governments should be promoting widespread debt relief: reducing obligations to levels the debtors can handle is the fastest way to eliminate that debt overhang.
But the moralizers will have none of it. They denounce deficit spending, declaring that you can’t solve debt problems with more debt. They denounce debt relief, calling it a reward for the undeserving.
I also think Stewart's critique of media as some kind of corrupting force, at times, borders on demagoguery. It's funny to humiliate MSNBC, Fox News or CNN. In fact, both networks are desperately fighting to give their slice of America what they hunger for. We may not like it. It may seem insane to us--but it should never be forgotten that Bill O'Reilly is serving an actual audience, one that would surely invent O'Reilly if he didn't exist. Indeed they've invented him before.
It's interesting that Stewart took a stand on Rick Sanchez's firing. He's certainly argued that Williams shouldn't have been fired before on his show. I may have missed it, but I don't recall him being nearly that generous with Sanchez.
Are we detecting a little media sensitivity out there?
UNLEASH THE MEDIA!!!
Actually, Ta-Neishi, pretty much everyone in America (except for you, apparently) heard Jon Stewart say...on several occassions...that he shouldn't have been fired.
The point, it seemed to me, was that politics isn't all there is to life, there is something slightly off about those who think it is, and that political ideology has come to define us culturally and personally far too much. So this wasn't an angry rally for the alienated Democratic left; or even a joyous rally like last fall's March for Equality; or a desperate and frustrated rally like the Tea Partiers. No one was demanding their country back; they were just demanding, well asking, for a little less polarization, and a little more mutual understanding. It was an Obama rally that didn't want to be an Obama rally. And it was only an Obama rally sotto voce because he seems currently the only adult in Washington with any interest in compromising with anyone.
There are, after all, three political groupings in American politics Republicans, Democrats and Independents. But there are also three cultural groupings: ideologues, the pragmatists, and the totally indifferent. This was a rally for the pragmatists, which made it, for my money, the core Obama base.
Remember, Andrew's the Conservative in this equation.
Okay, mucho respect. The man took the time type out an answer. I know he's busy, Game 4's on tonight after all. But he did take the time, so thank you, Keith.
But I didn't get it.. I'm going to put this one on me. Anyone want to help me on this??
the election is Tuesday. One side: Tea Partiers & GOP who say they will NOT compromise. So Libs can only BE compromised
Personally, I see value in both messages. I had one or two reservations about Jon's closing argument (I think you can safely call a lot of Teabaggers racists), but to me, both men were saying, don't reward crazy.
Another problem has been rising complaints from liberals, who helped sweep Obama to victory in the 2008 election, that he has not done enough for their causes, such as ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, closing the Guantanamo military prison and reforming the immigration system.
At a rally in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Obama was heckled by a small group of AIDS activists chanting "Stop global AIDS," the latest of several such protests at his campaign events. The crowd of 9,000 drowned them out with chants of "Obama, Obama."
Forced off script, an exasperated Obama urged the hecklers to redirect their protests at Republicans who he said had no interest in funding international AIDS programs.
Really, Gay Community? Really? Do you really think you'll even see the light of day under a Republican Administration?
Ahead of the elections, the President says no matter what happens both parties must work together to boost the economy, and expresses concern about statements to the contrary from Republican Leaders.
