Bad Tax Cuts AND Good National Security? This is what things COULD look like for the next two years.

Speculation from Greg Sargent. Then again, I trust his guesses better that most people's (Republicans/Teabaggers) so-called facts:

Is a deal taking shape where Republicans would get a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts in exchange for GOPers allowing a vote on the New START treaty?

Fingers crossed.

Okay Ft. McHenry crowd, how does this sit with you? Personally, I can live with this, especially is the key word is "temporary" when it comes to an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts.

But I would have loved to see the President roll into the room and say: "Look, until I see a year-long extension of Unmemployment benefits, your rich friends ain't seeing a single dime of tax cuts. Even when you take over the House, I'll veto every Tax cut until the Middle Class gets theirs! Pucker up, buttercup!"

Like I said, I would have loved to see that.

Andrew Sullivan would not:

I know many want Obama to become a liberal partisan firebrand to defeat the crazed Tea Party rhetoric. I reiterate my view that this would be a terrible mistake, and a massive over-reading of the mid-terms. Obama has to recapture those in the middle, especially Independents (like yours truly) who really do want to see a grown-up in Washington offer a serious plan for eliminating the long-term debt. If Obama can do that - and fight for it more aggressively and specifically than he did for health insurance reform - a slowly reviving economy, bolstered by more long-term confidence, will win him a landslide (and save the country's economic future too).

I agree with Sullivan that a play for the middle is vitally important to the President's re-elect chances. Then again, he's got an obsession with the debt that the rest of us on the Left don't have. (No Andrew, deficits do matter, but I'd rather we grow our way out of debt, and it take longer than your fast, quick, knife-in-senior's-and-poor-folks approach).

As important as those Independents are, it would be an equal, catastrophic mistake to completely ignore the President's base. We on the left feel like we haven't been listened to nearly enough. We lost out on the public option during the Health Reform fight. We lost out on adequate Stimulus. We didn't get Employee Free Choice Act. We're still waiting for DADT Repeal (though, that's starting to look good). We didn't get a Clean Energy Bill, and we didn't get Immigration Reform or the DREAM ACT.

That's not to say the 111th Congress was worthless. It wasn't. It did A LOT!: HCR, Stimulus (some better than none), Wall Street Reform, Lilly Ledbetter, and now apparently, Food Safety. As much as they got on our nerves, those guys and gals did historic amounts of good.

All I'm saying is that the left cannot be left completely in the cold these next two years. We need something, and it doesn't have to be legislative. Just deliver some pain to the right, and we'll be happy. The President shouldn't underestimate what a good, swift kick to the balls (Republican balls to be sure) can accomplish.

Breaking: A Judge in ole Virginny strikes down a court challenger to Health Care Reform!

I'll take what I can get!:

A federal judge in Virginia on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the landmark healthcare law championed by President Barack Obama, upholding key provisions that require health insurance coverage.

The challenge, one of several attempting to strike down the law, was brought by the conservative Christian Liberty University and individuals who said the law would violate several parts of the U.S. Constitution.

However, U.S. District Judge Norman Moon ruled that the law requiring individuals to buy health insurance coverage as well as requiring employers to buy coverage for their employees was legal under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Moon found that without the coverage requirements in the law, the cost of health insurance would increase because the number of insured individuals would decline, "precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act's regulatory measures."

Further, interstate commerce would be hurt by large employers failing to offer adequate healthcare coverage, thus "the employer coverage provision is a lawful exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power," said Moon, who was appointed by then-Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Julian Assange remains a clown - Part V. An unfortunately ongoing series.

My low opinion of Julian Assange remains.  He's a clown and an asshat.  He gets people killed, but he doesn't care, as long as he gets his fifteen minutes.

Apparently, he told TIME in a SKYPE interview:

"[Hillary Clinton] should resign, if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."

So let me get this straight.

Low-down, snake-oil, underhanded, borderline illegal behavior should get Hillary Clinton fired...

...but low-down, snake-oil, underhanded, borderline illegal behavior should result in Julian Assange being hailed as a hero.

The important choice before Senate Republicans on Don't Ask, Don't Tell...

This may have been covered to death, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates really nailed the Senate Republicans this morning when he discussed the Pentagon's Report on Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

"This can be done, and should be done, without posing a serious risk to military readiness."

"Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year," Gates said. "I believe this is a matter of some urgency because, as we have seen this past year, the federal courts are increasingly becoming involved in this issue."

Greg Sargent:

The Congressional staffer summarized the conclusion this way: "The conclusion of the report is that the authors believe that with the prompt implementation of their recommendations, the risk of repeal for military effectiveness is low. The U.S. military can adjust and accomodate the change."

....

Bottom line: The military has spoken. And the pretexts for opposing repeal are running out.

Bottom line: Do it now, neatly Congress, or have the Courts do it for you, messy.

A rebuke to both to the left and the right when it comes to our preconceived notions...

Great catch from Andrew Sullivan reading from a guy named P.M. Carpenter:

Just as the modern right requires frequent reminders that prior to Europe's liberalism and America's New Dealism life was for many a living hell utterly without safety nets, the modern left needs reminding that not all national security measures are a "military-industrial" scam.

Bondad on why you can expect no problems to get solved on the Deficit and Taxes in the foreseeable future

Back from Turkey Day, and it's back to business:

From the Bondad:

The Republicans on the panel are generally opposed to raising taxes and the Democrats to big changes in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The above emboldened words illustrate the stupidity of Washington. Simply put there is no way to balance the budget without two things happening: taxes going up and some kind of compromise on health care spending. There is just no way for meaningful change to happen without both parties compromising on their key issues. So, expect the problem to continue.

It must truly suck to be Rey Decerega today...

Okay, if you don't already know Rey Decerega is the guy who apparently dropped the "people's elbow" (that's a WWE reference folks) on the President of the United States, ripping open a gash on his lip that required 12 stitches.

Uhhh, damn.  Muh mouf's jes hertin tinkin bout dat.

Let's see Putin pull this off!  (Whale?  Pleeeezze!)

How bad to you think Rey Decerega feels right now? First and foremost these are friendly games. At most, you get a bump in the head, you get jostled around, or you overextert yourself (these are 40+ year old men on the court, after all). You, I and the rest of America know that Mr. Decerega did not mean for that to happen?

Still, despite his intentions, Mr. Decerega can probably expect 24-72 hours of Press-on-my-lawn coverage, at least until the President comes out with that million dollar smile...and adjoining scar. (I'd say ask the First Lady, but chicks are supposed to dig scars, Mr. President!)

We have no idea if the stitches are in the inside of his lip of the outside.  Either way, I hope that the Communications shop doesn't pull a Tiger and hide the President away.

The next phase of this story is inevitably the Press clamoring for a look at the First Scar, and trying to get Mr. Decerega to apologize on tape.

The Fireside chat for November 25, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President expresses gratitude to America’s military men and women and their families, and discusses the steps his administration is taking to help create jobs so that next Thanksgiving, Americans can give thanks for a stronger economy.

Please, dear God, don't let Sarah Palin anywhere near the button.

She might attack the wrong people.

Honest.

CO-HOST: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea? [...]

PALIN: But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies. We’re bound to by treaty –

CO-HOST: South Korean.

PALIN: Eh, Yeah. And we’re also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes.

The audio can be found here.

Unlike Think Progress, I can't quite dismiss this as a simple case of mis-speaking.

I can understand not knowing the name of the Prime Minister of Paraguay, or not being intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the Middle East Peace Process. Those are places where even a Presidential Candidate one can mis-speak with a clear conscience.

But North Korea is a place that Sarah Palin, and folks like her, saber-rattle against...a lot. There are people out there, right now, calling on the President to attack North Korea, right now.  (Never mind what happens to Seoul).  North Korea is a charter member of the Axis of Evil. It's like forgetting the name of Iraq or Iran.

I'm not exactly known (if I'm known at all) for cutting Sarah Palin any kind of slack, but if she's going to constantly demagogue against Terrorists and evil regimes, as if attacking these places, I think we should be able to hold her to a certain standard...and that includes getting the damn names right.

How Rick Perry is going to let party and ideology screw up an honest-to-God sweetheart deal for Texas...

...as only Rick Perry can.

First off, blogging from Houston, Texas, site of the Family's Thanksgiving celebration. It's hot and its humid, but at least I was patted down by a TSA Agent. (Travel Tip #235: Sweatshirts aren't that good an idea for Air Travel anymore).

Anyway, I get to Houston (euuuhhh), and suddenly Rick Perry, the newly re-elected God-Emperor of Texas, is talking about opting out of Medicaid.

Ezra Klein explains why that's a monumentally stoopid idea:

Consider the case of Texas, which with 25 percent uninsured, leads the nation in not providing for its residents. If the state pulls out of Medicaid, as Gov. Rick Perry (R) is suggesting, that would put it at 40 percent uninsured, as Medicaid covers 15 percent of the state. Texas might try some other form of coverage, but it will have lost hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding. You can occasionally do less with more, but when you have a lot less, you generally just do less. Whatever the state tried next would cover fewer people with less-comprehensive insurance, and it's a safe bet that the rate of uninsured would ultimately settle above 30 percent. Some legacy.

Conversely, if Perry does nothing, the federal government is going to come in and pick up most of the cost of a massive coverage expansion. Texas, in fact, will be one of the biggest winners from health-care reform, as its huge pool of uninsured residents means the state will get an uncommonly large amount of subsidies to bring that down to manageable levels. Texas "can expect to see Medicaid enrollment rise by 46 percent while state spending on Medicaid rises by about 3 percent.” Pretty good deal.

But remember a little thing about today's Republican Party, this from Andrew Sullivan (but originally caught by Greg Sargent):

We have in the current GOP a truly disturbing and cynical view of politics: there is nothing but party and ideology and the former is a vehicle solely for power to enact the other. The zero GOP votes for a stimulus package in the middle of the fastest downturn since the 1930s that was one-third tax cuts tells you all you need to know. And the Republican adoption of utopian, John Birch fantasies about rolling back the legacy of Woodrow Wilson makes any sane engagement with this party impossible. It is no longer run by anyone in Congress, but directed by talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin's Twitter account and Manichean ranters like radio host Mike Levin. If any government action is regarded as tyranny, then there is never any way to compromise. The fundamental problem lies with a deranged, ideological and dangerous opposition in a system designed to forge pragmatic compromise.

Knowing that, what do you think Rick Perry is going to do?

The Fireside chat for November 20, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President says ratifying the New START, a pivotal treaty with Russia on nuclear weapons, must happen this year. He explains that failure to ratify the treaty this year would not only mean losing our nuclear inspectors in Russia, but also undermine the international coalition pressuring Iran, put at risk the transit routes used to equip our troops in Afghanistan, and undo decades American leadership and bipartisanship on nuclear security.

By the way. Belgium is about to split into two countries and no U.S. Media (outside of PBS' NewsHour) is covering it!

Uhhh...there's a chance Belgium could split into two countries.

Yeah. No joke.

On Sunday, the public television network in Flanders will broadcast a 45-minute special program during which 12 professors (followed by a panel of local politicians) will outline how Belgium could be divided into two separate Dutch and French speaking countries. They will take on such issues as control of the army, the future of the monarchy, social security payments, a massive national debt and the most contentious issue of all -- control of the capital Brussels, which also serves as the headquarters of the European Union.

For many Belgians, the timing of the broadcast could not be worse. The country has been without a government since June elections led to the victory of a Flemish nationalist party committed to gradual dissolution. And the mix of television broadcasts and Belgian unity have been a sore point since the French network four years aired a spoof of Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" --called "Bye Bye Belgium" --dramatically portraying the end of the nation. As with that famous radio broadcast, many viewers in Belgium thought they were viewing the real thing, until 50 minutes in when the fiction was revealed.

That's right. Read that again...without a functioning Government since June.

Here's my question...why, outside of PBS's NewsHour (where I got the link) isn't anyone covering this in the States?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that your News Media sucks.

Remember this @#$% when the Republicans threaten to cut the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Steven Benen: Obama Derangement Syndrome knows no limits.

From "Russians are Mystified":

Sergei M. Rogov, director of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, told the Post he simply didn't believe Republicans would go through with this, unambiguous threats notwithstanding. "In arms control, Russian and American cooperation is crucial," Rogov said. "I really don't think Republicans want to kill arms control."

The problem, I suspect, is that much of the world assumes Republican officials in the United States place the country's well being above all else. International observers, in other words, believe elected American politicians want to do things that would benefit America. It's a simple matter of self-interest, which tends to motivate practically everyone in international affairs.

In this case, we're talking about a treaty that would keep tabs on Russia's long-range nuclear bases, bolster American credibility around the globe, weaken Iran and North Korea, improve Russian cooperation in Afghanistan, and diminish the political strength of hard-liners in Moscow. For Americans who want to help America, it's a no-brainer.

But Obama Derangement Syndrome doesn't just lead right-wing activists to believe ridiculous things, it's also a sickness that causes powerful Republican officials to put partisanship over patriotism.

Note that Senate Republicans who intend to kill New START can't even explain themselves. They're not holding out for some new concession; they don't have a list of demands; they haven't identified flaws in the measure they find intolerable. Their opposition is simply mindless. The White House needs the treaty to improve our national security, so Republicans are against it to deny the White House a victory.

No wonder Russians are "mystified." Since when do American leaders deliberately act against American interests? The world is watching Washington, assuming that President Obama can't convince Americans to do the right thing. But the problem isn't with the country; it's with a few dozen people in the Senate, whose partisan hatred has clouded their judgment in ways that are literally hard to believe.

White House White Board: The Rebirth of the American Auto Industry (VIDEO)

Josh Marshall (via TPM) thinks these the White Board videos are "simultaneously quaint, bizarre and also kind of cool". I just think they're cool.



Clear-eyed, easy to understand Economics reporting (or anything related to Econ) is hard to find. Let's enjoy these while we have them.

Do you think maybe it's time for MSNBC's Phil Griffin to be fired?

I have zero love for Joe Scarborough. But punishing him for something you didn't think was wrong until Keith Olbermann did it strikes me as painfully ridiculous.

MSNBC has suspended "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough for the same violation that took Keith Olbermann off the air earlier this month.

In a statement, MSNBC President Phil Griffin said he has suspended Scarborough for making political donations to candidates in Florida without seeking prior approval.

Fair is fair...I guess. But I am starting to wonder about Mr. Griffin's motives.  This all seems hyper-heavy-handed.  What makes a political donation made by a "reporter" (note the quotes) for a news organization less onerous by seeking "approval" for it?

Oh yeah, so the lawyers won't get suprised.

With that, I'll be sure to post Jon Stewart's Interview with the guy who wrote the book: "A World Without Lawyers" later today.

New Deal Democrat: The light at the end of the tunnel...may actually be sunshine!

New Deal Democrat, who posts over at the Bondad's blog, talks about how the light at the end of the tunnel...may actually be sunshine!

In 4 of the last 7 months, real retail sales have been up over 6%. Based on 65 years' worth of data, this translates into, at minimum, 2% (or about 2.5 million jobs) year over year job growth, sometime soon. Whether "soon" is more like 6 months or 24 months is impossible to tell, but the trend is unequivocally positive.

You got to see the whole thing, but we could be looking at some good economic news in the coming months. Maybe.

Jonathan Chait: Rich guy Harold Ford says that we should extend Tax Cuts for Rich Guys like him...

With each passing day, I grow happier and happier that Harold Ford is nowhere near Congress.

This is from an Op-Ed he wrote for Forbes:

The most important thing our leader can do is to push the reset button with business and not raise taxes on companies in a time of economic hardship. The U.S. economy and workers benefit from a strong, healthy relationship between government and business. America's most powerful job-creation engine, the private sector, remains under intense pressure from the uncertainty surrounding tax rates and new regulations, among other things.

On companies he said.  That's the most important thing.

What exactly is the difference between him and Bob Corker?


The man's a weasel. Like Elliot Spitzer and Eyan Bayh to come, he's looking to make money by being an "honest broker Democrat" who'll criticize other Democrats. Trust them at your peril.

Jonathan Chait was even more vicious:

I hope this kind of truth-telling doesn't hurt Ford's chances of securing a plush gig at one of the well-heeled institutions dedicated to punishing the rich and powerful. Hopefully some private equity firm can take him under their wing and allow him to continue to speak truth to power.

So what do the polls say about Tax Cuts for the Rich?

The following is from a NBC/WSJ Poll. I got the emphasis from Greg Sargent's blog, so all credit to him:

Congress will soon decide whether to keep in place the existing tax cuts enacted during President Bush's time in office, or allow them to expire. Which one of the following options would be your preference for what they should do?

Eliminate all the tax cuts permanently: 10

Eliminate the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 per year, but keep them for those earning less than that: 39

Keep in place all the tax cuts for everyone for another year to three years: 23

Keep in place the tax cuts for everyone permanently: 23

As it happens, far and away the largest group, 39 percent, favors the Dem proposal of extending only the middle class cuts and letting the high end ones expire.

Now, this is not entirely conclusive. Another way to look at these numbers is to note that 46 percent favor either a temporary or permanent extension of all the cuts. The counter to that, though, is that more -- 49 percent -- favor the options that would eliminate the tax cuts on the wealthy.

But all that parsing aside, the simple fact is that when the public is offered the full range of options currently being considered, the Dem position has significantly more public support than any other one. The "compromise" being discussed is supported by less than a fourth. So why is there even a debate underway among Dems over how proceed?

According to Steny, looks like there's gonna be a Tax Cut fight after all...

Good!

Steny Hoyer, the number two in the House Dem leadership, told Democrats at a caucus meeting this morning that they would get to vote this year on just extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, a senior Dem aide tells me, signaling support for a confrontational move towards the GOP that liberals have been pushing.

Asked if Democrats would definitely get a chance to hold this vote, the senior aide responded: "Definitely."

Hoyer's declaration comes as Democrats have been debating the way forward on the Bush tax cuts, and another aide tells me that "more than half" of the Dem caucus supports this course of action.

But it's not all peaches and cream:

The move indicates that House Dems are growing more resolved to draw a hard line on the Bush tax cuts, forcing Republicans to choose between supporting Obama's tax plan and opposing a tax cut for the middle class. However, the way forward still remains murky. Even if such a measure were to pass in the House, it's unclear whether the Senate will agree to such a vote, and the White House has not endorsed the approach.

What's more, the vote could conceivably go down, or alternatively, Republicans might successfully mount a procedural response, known as a "motion to recommit," that could also force a House vote on the high end cuts. I have not been able to determine how House Dems might respond to such a move.

Well, the President's wrong on this one (third time I've said this?).  This is the way to go.  Middle Class Tax Cuts...or nothing.

Also, passing Middle Class Tax Cuts is a tax-hike, in GOP-Land:

"The last thing our economy needs right now is a massive tax hike on families and small businesses -- and that's what this plan would mean."

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

From last night's Keith. Great stuff:

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

Bondad on the "Washington Lobotomy Factory" and why we LOVE IT when Polticians lie to us.

Apparently, the Bondad isn't too fond of the idea to do a simplification of the Tax Code:

Here's the deal.

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.

Lewis Black, Nate Silver and the shameless utter hypocrisy of the American People (VIDEO)

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.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Back in Black - Nanny State
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

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.

And Nate has some interesting stuff about the polls finding Americans in favor of the scanners:

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.

"All The Devils Are Here..." the unedited Daily Show Interview with the book's authors (VIDEO)

Continuing this blog's effort to highlight responsible, clear-eyed Economic reporting:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Bethany McLean & Joe Nocera Extended Interview<a>
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

A suggestion for John-of-Orange...one and done??

Coming off that ridiculous piece in the Washington Post, Jonathan Bernstein (subbing for Jonathan Cohn) comes up with something similar for the House Republicans, though far funnier: John Boehner and entire Republican Caucus should resign the day after they're sworn in.

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?

Richard Trumka's trying to get the White House, Nancy and Harry to hold a Middle Class Tax Cut vote solo...

According to the headline writers at the Huffington Post, it may even be working. (As of 3:35pm Pacific, the banner headline on their homepage is: DEMS MAY VOTE ON MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS ONLY)

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.

Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow are telling you the same thing America, John McCain is a flake! (VIDEO)

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.

For the record, Jon's funnier.

Then again, he's not trying to be news.



And finally, the Daily Show (which I saw first):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
It Gets Worse PSA
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

I don't want to forget this special moment of Daily Show goodness, discussion the static nature of our contemporary political discourse...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Republicans Miss Bill Clinton
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

And, your moment of Zen...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - John McCain Questions Homosexual Conduct
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

For those who like lines in the sand, @ezraklein draws four lines in the sand

Well, they should be lines in the sand.

This is really good stuff.  He calls them Four possible deals on Bush Tax Cuts:

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?

Erza probably put it better:

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.

Elizabeth Warren delivers the Mario Savio memorial lecture at Berkeley (VIDEO)

Great get from Ezra:



Just to let you know, the lady herself does not appear until the 25:39 mark.

The Fireside chat for November 13, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President explains his push for exporting American goods in Asia, and urges Congress to address earmarks as a signal of fiscal reform.

Rachel Maddow's Unedited Interview with Jon "I have the boubons" Stewart (VIDEO)

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!

Greg Sargent on Compromise...and how Americans...all protestations aside, really don't believe in it.

Greg followed up his overview piece on the Tax Cuts with another really, really, good piece on "Compromise", and how Americans, all their protestations aside, really don't believe in it:

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.

Greg Sargent @ThePlumLineGS has the best overview of the Tax Cuts cave/maybe cave so far...

Now this is solid reporting. Things get messy. Reporter sits down, and bangs out a piece to clear it up:

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 compromise has 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).

Guess who agrees we with me that the Huffington Post committed an act of non-journalism?

Well, Huffington Post interviewee David Axelrod for one:

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.


As always, it's all about the clicks.

The Huffington Post finds a way to break absolutely no news at all...

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.

No such luck.

Here's the Headline:

White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts

And here's the relevant section:

But there is just such a change on taxes.

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.

The Hill: Did the Deficit Commission just call for a second look at the Public Option?

First caught (at least in my mind) by Kos on his Twitter account.

The answer is simple: Yes they have:

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.

Hmmmm....

The Deficit Commission Non-Report: Reactions from the left, and the right

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.

That was Ezra Klein.

This is also Ezra Klein:

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.

I want to highlight this bit (also from Ezra):

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.

California called it Prop. 13.

Then there's Andrew Sullivan:

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.

What did I just say about Pundits being obsessed with the perfection of their own ideas??

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.

And finally, Paul Krugman:

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 Ezra again):

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?

Glenn Greenwald vs. Lawrence O'Donnell (or why Glenn Greenwald's ideas are going to keep costing us elections) (VIDEO)

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.

Now following up their conversation from a couple of days ago,you're going to get 12 minutes why I can't stand the guy.



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.

Turns out, I was wrong.  Mandates are what's needed to keep costs down, otherwise you get into something called an Insurance Death Spiral.  Fortunately, the President changed his mind.  Reading up on the matter, so did I.

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.

...or...maybe the people have heard our Liberal ideas (which I still love) and simply don't like them.  And no matter how hard we sell them our Liberal ideas, they're not going to change their minds.  So instead of throwing up our hands and turning the perfect into the enemy of the good, we compromise, get the best deal we can, and move the needle a little closer to where we think it needs to be.

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.

Lawrence O'Donnell: "We should not allow this country to live in fear of a word [Socialism]" (VIDEO)

Steve Benen reminds us that Nancy Pelosi used to be damn good at this job

There's been a lot of strum and drang, particularly from the New York Times, over whether Nancy Pelosi should, once again, be House Minority Leader. Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly dug into the archives, and found an article from May of 2006, highlighting just how good Nancy was in that role.

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.

"[Health Care Reform] cost [the Democrats] their majority, and it was worth it

Will Saletan, one of my least favorite writers at Slate, really nails something that disaffected Democrats should remember about Health Care Reform:

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.

Even Lawrence O'Donnell covered "What the @#$ has Obama done so far??"

Hey, I spotted it first!

Actually, Andrew Sullivan spotted it first.

Keith's Statement to Countdown Fans...

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.

"A Statement to the Viewers of Countdown"

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.

President Obama's complete 60 Minutes Interview for November 7, 2010 (VIDEO)

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.