| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| To Kill a Mockingturd - Pakistani Intelligence | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| To Kill a Mockingturd - Pervez Musharraf Lies About Osama bin Laden | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
"What more proof do you need? Abject cruelty to children??" (VIDEO)
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The New Graphic...
Well, finally a new banner graphic for ye old blog. Last time I did it around the time of the last State of the Union. But as much as I liked the "Win The Future" speech, it didn't catch me like his defense of the Social Safety net did. Hence, the quote is from that speech. If there had been room, I would have put in a quote I found by FDR: "We've always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."
Same thing really.
I also came dangerously close to using a quote of the President's from October 7, 2008 promising to kill Bin Laden, and paralleling that with his statement about the death of Bin Laden. But having those quotes along with that image would have been really, really inappropriate.
Same thing really.
I also came dangerously close to using a quote of the President's from October 7, 2008 promising to kill Bin Laden, and paralleling that with his statement about the death of Bin Laden. But having those quotes along with that image would have been really, really inappropriate.
Monday, May 2, 2011
John Brennan's Security Briefing...at least a good chunk of it (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
UBL's Compound...ABC News Video
There will of course, be more, much more, on this as the day progresses, but first, the lay of the land, courtesy ABC News:
Saturday, April 30, 2011
"Yes, Michelle...this is how it starts..." The President's WH Correspondent's Dinner (VIDEO)
UPDATE: May 2, 2010: And now, Seth Meyers!
The Fireside Chat for April 30th, 2011 (VIDEO)
At a time of high gas prices and massive oil industry profits, the President renews his call to end the $4 billion-per-year subsidies for oil and gas companies and invest in clean energy.
Dave thinks its racist... (VIDEO)
Number three on the list from the Home Office in...well, wherever. "Top Ten signs Donald Trump isn't going to be on Letterman anytime soon."
Friday, April 29, 2011
President Obama's Commencement Address at Miami Dade College (VIDEO)
President Obama delivers the commencement address to graduating students at Miami Dade College in Miami, FL.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Make sure you listen to Michael Smerconish's point about new voter Registrations in the Philly Suburbs (VIDEO)
Mainline Republican voters are abandoning the party.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The argument that the Debt Limit Vote is Unconstitutional...and not in the way the Teabaggers think!
From Taegan Goddard, but first posited by Garrett Epps:
The 14th Amendment directs that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
In short: "This provision makes clear that both the monies our nation owes to bondholders, and the sums promised in legislation to those receiving pensions set by law from the federal government, must be paid regardless of the political whims of the current congressional majority. All obligations that the nation has undertaken by drawing on its credit must at all times be rendered current."
I'm still a Keynesian...now and forever... (VIDEO)
I posted the original back in January of 2010, and this past February...
...and now comes, the sequel:
...and now comes, the sequel:
"Putting to rest the crazy fringe idea that this will end the controversy..." (VIDEO)
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| America Needs to See Obama's Report Cards | ||||
| ||||
Now that you mention it, Rachel mentioned it as well... (VIDEO)
Rachel decided to focus in on (gasp!) actual news, and talked ethics and fundraising to kick the show off. But when she decided to focus in on the Birther nonsense, she did so in a very emotional way:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
By the way, Chris Matthews had a Busy night, too (VIDEO)
First his bit with Eugene Robinson and uber-villager Howard Fineman:
And then his dissection of the winners and losers with David Corn and Josh Marshall:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And then his dissection of the winners and losers with David Corn and Josh Marshall:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Lawrence's Busy Night...Part 3 (Racists from Moldova Edition)
It was almost unfair, but...
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Lawrence's Busy Night...Part 2 (David Remnick Interview)
"We need to call this by it's proper name: Race Baiting."
Lawrence's Busy Night...Part 1
This was mentioned a lot over the last 24 hours, and bears repeating. Lawrence absolutely destroyed last night. I still think he's got bits of Trump and NBC/Universal Entertainment Exec in his teeth.
But keep in mind, last I heard, Lawrence has a Pilot in development at HBO. Now, I don't think he's going anywhere, but at the same time, he's not afraid to get fired by NBC/Universal either. Thus we get brave television.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
But keep in mind, last I heard, Lawrence has a Pilot in development at HBO. Now, I don't think he's going anywhere, but at the same time, he's not afraid to get fired by NBC/Universal either. Thus we get brave television.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Bob Schieffer calls it Racism (VIDEO)
Good for him. Never knew he had it in him.
Then again, a lot of us have been on this page since...2008.
Then again, a lot of us have been on this page since...2008.
"That these folks are truly irrational in Washington..." (VIDEO)
Lawrence with Andrew Ross Sorkin. And yes, they're talking about Teabaggers.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
A key way to look at the Birther Question going forward...
Call it a racism test (courtesy Jonathan Chait):
Greg Sargent agrees, and thinks that so far, the Republican Rights is failing:
The interesting question to me is whether Republican leaders start responding to questions about Obama's birth as a question of settled fact rather than a murky controversy upon which the only evidence to go on is Obama's claims.
Greg Sargent agrees, and thinks that so far, the Republican Rights is failing:
Now that President Obama has released his long-form birth certificate, here’s the question: Will leading conservatives and Republicans step up, place the blame for birtherism where it belongs, and call on the birthers among them to stop the nonsense once and for all?
There are birther bills being introduced in state legislatures across the country. Will leading conservatives and Republicans unequivocally denounce these efforts?
Some Republicans are already falling short of this basic test of decency. In a statement this morning, RNC chairman Reince Priebus declared that birtherism is a ”distraction,” but he also hinted — without saying so openly — that Obama has been subtly egging on the controversy on when he should be more focused on the economy. Priebus, recall, recently had a private conversation with Donald Trump in which he conspicuously did not ask him to can the birther talk.
Newt Gingrich actually blamed Obama this morning for the delay in the release, and hinted that we should still harbor doubts about Obama’s citizenship. “Why did it take so long?” Gingrich asked. “The whole thing is strange.”
How to argue with a Birther (not that you're going to win)...courtesy the President (VIDEO)
I got to be honest, I don't think he should have done this. I don't think elevating Donald "Racist" Trump is a good idea.
Erza disagrees:
There’s only one explanation that makes sense to me in light of this morning’s events: The Obama administration wants Donald Trump to be the GOP’s nominee in 2012, and this is their effort to strengthen him in the primary. Of course, that explanation violates my axiom that almost nothing in Washington is really a complicated plan and almost everything is a rushed decision made by tired people with insufficient information.
My favorite part of the President's off-the-cuff remarks, highlighted in the video above?
Now, this issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now. I think it started during the campaign. And I have to say that over the last two and a half years I have watched with bemusement, I have been puzzled at the degree to which this thing just kept on going.
We've had every official in Hawaii, Democrat and Republican, every news outlet that has investigated this confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii August 4th, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital. We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see. People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate.
And yet this thing just keeps on going.
Now, normally, I would not comment on something like this, because, obviously, there's a lot of stuff swirling in the press at any given day and I've got other things to do.
But two weeks ago, when the Republican House had put forward a budget that will have huge consequences potentially to the country, and when I gave a speech about my budget and how I felt that we needed to invest in education and infrastructure and making sure that we had a strong safety net for our seniors even as we were closing the deficit, during that entire week, the dominant news story wasn't about these huge, monumental choices that we're going to have to make as a nation, it was about my birth certificate. And that was true on most of the news outlets that were represented here.
And so I just want to make a larger point here. We've got some enormous challenges out there. There are a lot of folks out there who are still looking for work. Everybody is still suffering under high gas prices. We're going to have to make a series of very difficult decisions about how we invest in our future, but also get a hold of our deficit and our debt -- how do we do that in a balanced way.
And this is going to generate huge and serious debates, important debates. And there are going to be some fierce disagreements. And that's good; that's how democracy is supposed to work.
And I'm confident that the American people and America's political leaders can come together in a bipartisan way and solve these problems. We always have.
But we're not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We're not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other.
We're not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.
Or put another way:
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
How to argue with a Birther (not that you're going to win)...courtesy CNN (VIDEO)
I'm sure you remember George Stephanopoulos's interview with Donald Trump last week, where he asked Trump about the alledged investigations that Trump has going on in Hawaii about the President's Birth Certificate.
Trump did not respond well (wait till about 1:30 in).
That's probably because Jon Stewart more accurately displayed what's really going on with Trump's money right now (wait till about 50 seconds into the video):
Anyway, an actual credible news organization, CNN, decided to launch their own, definitive investigation into the matter. Not Fox, not MSNBC, supposedly neutral CNN.
Well, here it is.
Note that they dragged out a committed Republican, someone who worked for the former Republican Governor of Hawaii, to say flat-out...he was born in Hawaii.
They also have a printed story on their website by Gary Truchman. His conclusion can be found in the first sentence of the story:
A couple of salient facts to remember the next time to come into contact with one of these racists. (I was going to correct myself and call them birthers, but...you know...what's the point? Let's just call 'em what they are, and be done with it.)
Here are the hard facts as presented in Mr. Truchman's piece:
Translation: The future President stood out in a crowd, even in Hawaii.
Trump did not respond well (wait till about 1:30 in).
That's probably because Jon Stewart more accurately displayed what's really going on with Trump's money right now (wait till about 50 seconds into the video):
Anyway, an actual credible news organization, CNN, decided to launch their own, definitive investigation into the matter. Not Fox, not MSNBC, supposedly neutral CNN.
Well, here it is.
Note that they dragged out a committed Republican, someone who worked for the former Republican Governor of Hawaii, to say flat-out...he was born in Hawaii.
They also have a printed story on their website by Gary Truchman. His conclusion can be found in the first sentence of the story:
A new CNN investigation reveals what most analysts have been saying since the "birther" controversy erupted during the 2008 presidential campaign: Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Period.
A couple of salient facts to remember the next time to come into contact with one of these racists. (I was going to correct myself and call them birthers, but...you know...what's the point? Let's just call 'em what they are, and be done with it.)
Here are the hard facts as presented in Mr. Truchman's piece:
Dr. Chiyome Fukino, a former director of the Hawaii Department of Health and a Republican, told CNN in her most extensive comments to date that she has "no doubt" Obama was born in the state.
Obama's 2008 campaign produced a certification of live birth, a document legally accepted as confirmation of a birth and routinely used for official purposes. Fukino went one step further, taking advantage of a state law that allows certain public officials to examine a person's actual birth certificate if there is a "direct and tangible interest."
The president's certificate, she said, is stored in a vault in the building that houses the Department of Health. Ironically, unlike the certificate of live birth, it is no longer accepted for official usage.
Obama's certificate is "absolutely authentic," she said. "He was absolutely born here in the state of Hawaii."
...
To see what happens when someone born in Hawaii requests a birth certificate, CNN asked a current resident of the state -- Stig Waidelich -- if he could get a copy of the document.
Waidelich was born hours after Obama in August 1961. Like Obama, Waidelich's birth was announced at the time in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin newspaper.
Waidelich, like Obama in 2008, was given a certification of live birth in response to his request.
Could Obama's 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin be a fake? Some conspiracy theorists say yes. Longtime Honolulu newspaper reporter Dan Nakaso says no.
"It's not possible," Nakaso said. "Under the system that existed back then, there was no avenue for people to submit information that way. ... The information came directly from the state Department of Health."
Indeed, as CNN confirmed, all birth announcements at the time came directly from hospital birth records.
...
Could Obama, a self-proclaimed Christian, be preventing the distribution of copies of the original birth certificate because it identifies him as a Muslim?
Fukino says no. The original certificate includes no mention of the president's religion. And indeed, other original certificates from that time don't mention faith.
Obama could file a Freedom of Information Act request to view his original birth certificate and make copies. But at this point, the White House maintains, nothing will satisfy the doubters.
...
Rick Smethurst, a 2008 John McCain voter who now lives in Obama's childhood home in Hawaii, counts himself among the doubters. He said he wants to find someone who saw Obama immediately after the president was born.
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie said he did. Abercrombie, a Democrat, was friendly with Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, and remembers celebrating the birth.
"Of course, we had no idea at the time that the future president of the United States was that little boy, that little baby," Abercrombie recalled. But "we are very, very happy ... that took place."
Professor Alice Dewey of the University of Hawaii was a faculty adviser to Dunham and also knew the future president when he was a child. She called the controversy "funny." She said there is "no way" Obama wasn't born in the state.
Dewey remembered a conversation in which Dunham compared the birth of Obama with that of his sister, Maya, who was born overseas.
"She said, 'When I had Maya, it was a lot of more difficult because Indonesia doesn't believe in painkillers while you're giving birth. ... Of course, in the United States, giving birth to Barry (Obama's childhood nickname) was quite different and much more comfortable,' " Dewey recalled.
Waidelich's mother, Monika, said she believes she saw Obama in Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center next to her son in 1961.
"In those days, there were hardly any other black babies," she said.
The hospital wouldn't show patient records from 1961, but the state's African-American population was less than 1% at the time.
Translation: The future President stood out in a crowd, even in Hawaii.
The Senator from Massey Energy (i.e., West Virginia)...is an idiot.
I seem to remember saying (warning) y'all about what a bad Senator Joe Manchin (??-WV) might be. I think I called him another Ben Nelson (??-NB), that he was a complete and total whore for Massey Energy, and that he was holding 2.1 Million Americans hostage to serve his political ambitions.
Now this:
You wait. This scumbag will be campaigning for the Republican Nominee come 2012.
Now this:
Today, Machin will formally endorse a Republican proposal for strict new spending caps, saying it would be "irresponsible" not to. He joins the Senate GOP, independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), and Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), which suggests the measure, generally known as the CAP Act, now has the support of a Senate majority, or at least close to it. There's even some talk it will be included as part of a "compromise" on the debt ceiling.Not that Lieberman and McCaskill are helping. McCaskill is about to become the former Senator from Missouri, and Lieberman is well...Lieberman.
To date, the proposal hasn't gotten much attention, but it's important to understand how dangerous this is. Ezra Klein, who's arguably even more cautious in his rhetoric than I am, recently described the spending cap idea as "completely insane."
Spending caps are bad policy, and the McCaskill-Corker spending cap -- which holds spending to 21.5 percent of GDP, or three percentage points lower than it is right now -- is a badly designed spending cap. But beyond all that, it's laughable to posit it as a compromise: It's arguably the most radically conservative reform that could be made to the federal budget. More extreme, by far, than Paul Ryan's plan.
Start with the shell game at the core of this discussion: We're worried about the debt ceiling but talking about a spending cap. This works just fine if you hew to the conservative conceit that "we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem." But that applause line is just an effort to deny the contribution tax cuts have made to the deficit and keep tax increases from being part of a solution. If you think we have a debt problem -- and that's what being upset about raising the debt ceiling implies -- then do something about the debt. The "trigger" proposal the White House included in is budget, for instance, is tied to the debt, not to spending or taxes.
Of course, to the Republicans, that's a feature, not a bug. The virtue of a spending cap is that by focusing on only one contributor to debt, it admits only one solution to it: spending cuts. Savage ones. The Corker-McCaskill proposal is so aggressive that there are years when even Paul Ryan's budget, with all its fantastical assumptions and hard caps, wouldn't qualify. "You put McCaskill-Corker into law," says Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "and progressive policy is dead for the next quarter-century."
You wait. This scumbag will be campaigning for the Republican Nominee come 2012.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Obama 2012 Strategy Briefing (VIDEO)
In case you missed Jim Messina's Campaign Email this morning:
I think David was a little smoother in his presentation, but the data's all the same. This was a good presentation, and now I know what we need to do.
What's interesting to me is, for a guy who is constantly accused of decrying the Grassroots, he spent an awful lot of time talking up the Grassroots.
What does that mean to me? That a lot of his decrying the Grassroots was manufactured by a media hypestorm. That he probably shares a lot of fustration that I have with those of my shared ideological bent (i.e., that some Liberals understand how things work and don't work in Washington, and others -- Firedoglake anyone? -- live in perpetual fantasyland.)
I think David was a little smoother in his presentation, but the data's all the same. This was a good presentation, and now I know what we need to do.
What's interesting to me is, for a guy who is constantly accused of decrying the Grassroots, he spent an awful lot of time talking up the Grassroots.
What does that mean to me? That a lot of his decrying the Grassroots was manufactured by a media hypestorm. That he probably shares a lot of fustration that I have with those of my shared ideological bent (i.e., that some Liberals understand how things work and don't work in Washington, and others -- Firedoglake anyone? -- live in perpetual fantasyland.)
Saturday, April 23, 2011
The Fireside Chat for April 23th, 2011 (VIDEO)
The President lays out his plans to address rising gas prices over the short and the long term, from a new task force to root out fraud and manipulation in the oil markets to investments in a clean energy economy.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The President's Town Hall at Annandale, VA. (VIDEO)
Fingers crossed I'll be attending something like this Tomorrow:
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
What happened with Standard and Poor's yesterday... (VIDEO)
Via Ezra:
Matt Yglesias, as Andrew pointed out first, yawns:
But fellow Lib, Kevin Drum sez:
Krugman crushed the media:
Here's a little of what Ezra referred to as "short-sightedness" from Melissa Harris Perry:
Dr. Harris-Perry is a PhD in Political Science from (grrrrr) Duke, so though she teaches African-American studies at Princeton, she can speak a little authoritatively on subjects like Political Strategy and Communication, and even the President's handling of the Budget. At the same time, I would have preferred an actual Economist on the panel talking about the S&P, and the closest thing we had last night on the The Last Word...was Lawrence himself.
Standard & Poor’s didn’t downgrade America’s AAA credit today. What they did is subtler: They attached a “negative outlook” to our AAA credit. That means they upgraded the chance of a future downgrade. So if you ask the S&P’s Magic 8 Ball whether America will be triple-A in five years and then give it a shake, it now says “don’t count on it” rather than “you can rely on it” (all answers taken from this list of actual Magic 8 Ball replies).
I’ve seen some observers react to the S&P’s decision by saying that the rating agency blew the subprime crisis and thus there’s no reason we need to listen to it now. But that seems shortsighted. S&P’s concerns are perfectly reasonable. The company believes “there is a material risk that U.S. policy makers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium-and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013. If you don’t agree with that, you’re not paying enough attention. At this point, the rating agency only puts the chances of a downgrade at one in three — which strikes me as, if anything, a little low.
Matt Yglesias, as Andrew pointed out first, yawns:
You should almost certainly ignore this: “Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service has lowered its long-term outlook for the United States’ sovereign debt to ‘Negative’ from ‘Stable’ due to risks from the country’s growing deficit.”
The thing about the United States of America is that we’re not an obscure country. Nor is our sovereign debt an obscure financial instrument. No major investor is going to be outsourcing his research on the desirability of American bonds to the S&P ratings service.
But fellow Lib, Kevin Drum sez:
I agree with [what Matt Ygelsias said] completely, and I've made a similar comment in the past. And yet.....
And yet, there's something to think about here. One of the reasons I take our medium and long-term deficit fairly seriously, even though current financial indicators suggest the market is unconcerned, is that financial indicators can turn around in a flash. There are limits to how far a big country like the United States can get from fundamentals, but we're still susceptible to the kinds of mob emotion that power both bubbles and bank runs. And the thing is, there's never any telling what might spark such a turnaround. One day everything is fine. Then Bill Gross announces that he's no longer thrilled about holding treasuries. The next day S&P makes some negative noises. A day after that the Chinese government cuts back on treasury purchases. Then an auction of 10-year bonds is slightly soft, and suddenly everyone panics.
This most likely won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon, given the underlying fundamentals of the American and global economies. Still, it could happen in the near future, and there's no telling what might set it off. So in that sense, this kind of announcement from S&P actually is meaningful. Maybe not today. But a similar announcement someday might be. It's true that major investors don't outsource their opinion on U.S. treasuries to S&aP, but even major investors can get nervous if enough people start telling them they're being idiots. Sometimes perceptions are as important as reality.
Krugman crushed the media:
I think the financial press is being even denser than usual on this one. If S&P warns that US bonds might not be safe, and the price of those bonds rises, you really have to wonder how anyone can write with a straight face that this warning caused other market movements. And it’s much worse to have this implausible theory reported as a settled fact.
Here's a little of what Ezra referred to as "short-sightedness" from Melissa Harris Perry:
Dr. Harris-Perry is a PhD in Political Science from (grrrrr) Duke, so though she teaches African-American studies at Princeton, she can speak a little authoritatively on subjects like Political Strategy and Communication, and even the President's handling of the Budget. At the same time, I would have preferred an actual Economist on the panel talking about the S&P, and the closest thing we had last night on the The Last Word...was Lawrence himself.
"It's about to get h-h-hot in here..." (VIDEO)
I'm sure you've seen this ad already today, but it's too fun not to post:
Only a local Texas TV Reporter can make President Obama this mad... (VIDEO)
As an RTVF Major, I can tell the cheats and the dodges used in any piece of film. For example, if say...you were a douchebag interviewer from a local TV Station from Texas, who got a seven minute sit down with the President of the freakin' United States, and said reporter were to spend most of the interview paraphrasing what the President said...then you edited the hell out of the interview to a ridiculous degree.
Swear to god, there's more voice-over from the Reporter than back and forth with the Commander in Chief.
You can see it through the course of the interview, the President getting madder and madder. (He tell is that his smile fades away, and his answers get very short and clipped.)
Just watch, at the end there the President quietly asks that next time, he be allowed to finish his answers. And of course, the douchebag makes sure he leaves it in.
It's true the President ummms and aahhs a lot. That's because he doesn't like to speak without thinking through his answer first. Unfortunately, the President will eat up a lot of your allotted time doing that. So I'll admit some editing is necessary, but the degree to which this guy took the scissors to the tape bordered on unprofessional.
Swear to god, there's more voice-over from the Reporter than back and forth with the Commander in Chief.
You can see it through the course of the interview, the President getting madder and madder. (He tell is that his smile fades away, and his answers get very short and clipped.)
Just watch, at the end there the President quietly asks that next time, he be allowed to finish his answers. And of course, the douchebag makes sure he leaves it in.
It's true the President ummms and aahhs a lot. That's because he doesn't like to speak without thinking through his answer first. Unfortunately, the President will eat up a lot of your allotted time doing that. So I'll admit some editing is necessary, but the degree to which this guy took the scissors to the tape bordered on unprofessional.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The Fireside Chat for April 16th, 2011 (VIDEO)
The President discusses his plan for our fiscal future, a comprehensive and balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years.
Friday, April 15, 2011
No offense, Jon, but... (VIDEO)
This wasn't a bad segment...
...but, just so you know, Jon:
I'm sorry, but this kinda sounds like he's raising taxes to me.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Slashdance - Democratic Deficit Reduction Plan | ||||
| ||||
...but, just so you know, Jon:
In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can’t afford it. And I refuse to renew them again.
I'm sorry, but this kinda sounds like he's raising taxes to me.
President Obama's Open Mic Moment (AUDIO)
I never know what's up with CBS Feeds. I apologize if it looks weird. However if you click on the far left (hee-hee!) of the image, about in the middle (where it says WS VIDEO) it still plays.
Somehow, I doubt this was as accidental as Huffington AOL is suggesting.
Somehow, I doubt this was as accidental as Huffington AOL is suggesting.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Oh...and Rick Ungar took a shot at the Professional Left, too...
In case you couldn't tell already, I loved this article by Rick Ungar.
Remember, this man not only writes for Forbes Magazine (not exactly a Liberal bastion), lives in SoCal (okay, that is a Liberal Bastion...outside of Orange County and parts of Northridge), but used to run Marvel Entertainment:
By the way, Living Liberally...THANKS FOR SHOWING UP IN NOVEMBER, you really @#$^ing helped.
Remember, this man not only writes for Forbes Magazine (not exactly a Liberal bastion), lives in SoCal (okay, that is a Liberal Bastion...outside of Orange County and parts of Northridge), but used to run Marvel Entertainment:
It is not the conservative attacks that concern me. I’m far more focused on the progressives who are already expressing their disappointment over Obama’s failure to re-introduce the public option as a way of cutting health care costs or believe the President was just too darn rational in his proposals – thus leaving what they believe to be too little negotiating room for the battles to come.
This from an article entitled “Obama’s Speech Another Meaningless Line In the Sand” by Justin Krebs, co-founder and director of Living Liberally, a progressive non-profit.
We liberals are finally learning what conservatives have said all along: Ignore the President’s pretty speeches and judge him by his actions.
Of course, liberals and conservatives are judging from two very different directions. While criticism from the Right sees him as a socialist-leaning bleeding-heart, we on the Left wish he were what the Tea Party accuses him of. Instead, we see a President that continues to adopt conservative frames, extend Republican wars (and start one of his own), and buy into the advice of a coterie of Wall Street executives. The proud progressive we wanted to elect never put single-payer healthcare on the table, hasn’t fought for meaningful mortgage reform and didn’t draw a line in the sand when it came to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
Well, he did draw a line in the sand… but seems to think of it as his starting line for compromise, which is how the Bush-era give-away to our wealthiest citizens continued while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.
What progressives like Mr. Krebs consistently forget is that Obama has another virtue in addition to character – he knows how to add.
The President can manage to work out that, if he is to get anything done, he has to get a vote through the House of Representatives where the vote totals are stacked against him.
So, you ask, why didn’t he get his way when the Democrats controlled both houses in Congress?
Because the President can also add to 60- the number of votes he needs to accomplish anything in the Senate where the filibuster results in minority rule. All it takes is 41 ‘nays’ and the best-laid progressive plans go down the drain.
If you recall, there was a point in time when the President had 58 Democratic votes plus 2 independents in the Senate, giving him the appearance of being ‘filibuster-proof.”
However, he also had a few Blue Dog Democrats who knew that a vote with Obama was a nail in the coffin containing their own political futures. Which do you imagine was always destined to win out? Obama’s progressive plans or a Senator’s career?
The president has only one way to get something done– go directly to the people in the hope that they will have the good sense to support his rational approach and ask them to push their elected representatives to do the same. I think we can all agree that “rational” is not something the President can expect in Congress without outside pressure from the voters.
Yesterday, Barack Obama took his arguments directly to the people. Now, let’s see if the Congressional Republicans and progressives alike care to listen to the result.
By the way, Living Liberally...THANKS FOR SHOWING UP IN NOVEMBER, you really @#$^ing helped.
Not only did the President rip into Paul Ryan...he did it to his face...
From Rick Ungar:
What did it for me in Obama’s plan to get the nation’s finances in order was that the President took his stand against the GOP effort to take away the soul of this nation while staring directly into the eyes of Rep. Paul Ryan- the architect of the document that would remake this country in the mold of third world nations where there are rich people and poor people with nobody in the middle.
Unlike the taunts, personal insults and barbs that Ryan and his companions lob at the president on a daily basis from the safety of a television studio, Obama took the route that requires character.
He did it to Ryan’s face.
The President invited the Wisconsin congressman, and a few of his congressional confederates, to attend the speech, placed them right up front and proceeded to call these people out for the hegemony they would visit on millions of Americans to benefit their wealthy political patrons with a trillion more in tax cuts.
Character.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
"The Country We Believe In..." (VIDEO)
The complete text can be found here.
Jonathan Cohn:
1. That was a clear, unambiguous, morally grounded defense of the welfare state--as strong and stirring as I've seen from this president.
2. Obama made the case for more revenue, which is the biggest political challenge Democrats face when they talk about deficit reduction. And he sounded more determined than before to block extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That's promising.
3. My two biggest misgivings are on policy: Obama called for more taxes on the wealthy, not the middle class, and wants an imbalanced approach that favors spending reductions over revenue increases. This was my fear about hewing to the guidelines set by the Bowles-Simpson Commission, particularly if this merely the opening bid of a negotiation.
4. The new health care reforms sound very good upon initial inspection--and, particularly when added to cost controls already in the Affordable Care Act, this is far more serious than what Paul Ryan and the Republicans have in mind. And if Obama is more serious about controlling health care costs, then he's more serious about reducing deficits overall.
5. Did I mention how much I liked the rhetoric? At the level of broad principle, this was the speech I wanted to hear.
Jonathan Chait:
In his budget speech today, Obama attempted to square the circle in two ways. First, he nodded at the Bowles-Simpson approach without endorsing it explicitly or in detail. This turns it into an approach whose basic contours he can ultimately support, but not a negotiating position. And second, he beat Ryan and the Republicans to a bloody pulp.
Greg Sargent:
For some time now, a bunch of us have been wondering when — or whether — Obama would step up and make a strong case for an expansive vision of Democratic governance. With Republicans iniatiating what may be the most consequential argument over the proper role of government in decades — a debate over the legacy of the great liberal achievements of the 20th Century — we’ve all been wondering whether Obama would respond with a level of ambition and seriousness of purpose that he’s shown when taking on other big arguments.
By this standard — in rhetorical terms — it’s fair to say Obama delivered. Sure, the speech had flaws, trafficking a bit in the usual positioning between two allegedly equivalent extremes. And speeches are the easy part: Obama’s words jarred against recent actions, and what Obama actually does in the months to come will be what either ratifies today’s promises or renders them meaningless. But Obama did offer perhaps the most ambitious defense he may have ever attempted of American liberalism and of what it means to be a Democrat.
Even Andrew Sullivan:
I'm not sure how major an impact this midday speech will have - simply because it will be highly limited in its audience. But it was classic Obama - a center left approach to a center-right conviction: that the debt is unsustainable; that we all have to make sacrifices; that defense-cutting, reducing the cost of healthcare; and tax reform are integral to this possibility.
And it looks as if he will indeed use the debt ceiling moment to push some version of this through. I didn't get the sense from this speech that he was only planning to do this in his second term. And surely, after the cold shock of the Ryan plan, his less draconian vision for the vulnerable will be popular in the middle. The least persuasive part of the GOP proposal is its refusal to ask anything from the top one percent in this crisis. Obama saw this, and went for it.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Steve Benen to Liberals. Chill the @#$% out until tomorrow...
Steve says it best:
To be sure, if Obama takes the stage tomorrow and embraces Simpson/Bowles as his own, I'll be severely unhappy. I wasn't a fan of the fiscal commission -- which, by the way, never had enough support to actually endorse the Simpson/Bowles plan -- and think this would be a horrible place for Democrats to start talks on long-term debt reduction.
But here's the thing: I rather doubt the Simpson/Bowles plan will be Obama's plan. It seems far more likely to me that the president will present a very different vision, and make it seem as if it's the Simpson/Bowles plan.
Indeed, just this morning, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who has solid progressive credentials, spoke at the Center for American Progress, and slammed Paul Ryan's House GOP plan. Van Hollen added, however, that Simpson/Bowles offers a "basic approach ... which is to look at both sides of the deficit equation, that is revenue and spending" that can serve as "an important starting point."
That intensified the freak-out -- Look! Van Hollen is endorsing Simpson/Bowles, too! -- but it shouldn't have. All the Maryland Democrat was talking about was the "basic approach" of Simpson/Bowles, because it included a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Van Hollen is endorsing looking at both sides of the ledger, which is the standard Democratic line.
Ezra added this afternoon that his White House sources are saying the president's won't "primarily be an endorsement of Simpson-Bowles," and "this will make more sense tomorrow."
To make a short story long, I'm suggesting we put the apoplexy on hold for 24 hours.
Donald Trump. Addicted to the most addictive substance in the known universe...
From the Murdoch Street Journal. Celebrate good times:
What if Lawrence is wrong? What if Trump started off as a joke candidacy, a way to boost ratings for The Apprentice? And all of the sudden, he looked at the polling showing him shooting up the ranks, and said to himself: "Wait, I think they [the Base of the GOP] want me to do this. What if I can do it?"
Of course, do we need to mention the fact that Liberals won't be flocking to Mr. Trump's banner anytime soon. And Mr. Trump is quite capable of putting on a show of excess and ridiculousness that would put Sarah Palin to shame. If Romney is the nominee, and Trump runs as an indepenent...and you say complete and utter Electoral Blowout for the President?
Donald Trump will “probably” run as an independent candidate for U.S. President in 2012 if he does not receive the Republican party’s nomination, he told the Wall Street Journal in a video interview on Monday.Lawrence has been saying for a while that Trump isn't running because all he wants to do is promote his TeeVee show. But, I have long believed that the single most addictive substance in the known Universe isn't Cocaine, it isn't Crack or Weed...it's Klieg Lights (these are the spotlights used in Film and TV Production), in other words its fame.
“I hate what’s happening to the country,” said Mr. Trump, a real estate tycoon and host of the NBC show “Celebrity Apprentice.” He will not formally make a decision until June, however, when this season of his television show is over. “I can’t run during the airing of that show,” Mr. Trump said, “I’m not allowed to.” But he said he would make an announcement “by June” and his candidacy looks increasingly likely.
Mr. Trump’s candidacy would complicate matters for the GOP as it looks to front someone who can unite the fractious party and mount a serious challenge to President Obama’s reelection bid. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll recently found Mr. Trump tied for second place with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee among likely voters in a GOP primary. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who moved a step closer to formally declaring his own candidacy Monday, is still the frontrunner, though not by a wide margin.
“I think the Republicans are very concerned that I [may] run as an independent,” Mr. Trump said. His support is highest among the conservative wing of the party, not least because he is among the so-called “birthers” who doubt that President Obama in fact was born in the U.S. “It’s a very important issue,” Mr. Trump said of demanding that President Obama show his birth certificate, which has separately been reviewed by the media and deemed legitimate. “I’m not ashamed of having raised that issue.”
“I am very conservative,” said Mr. Trump. “The concern is if I don’t win [the GOP primary] will I run as an independent, and I think the answer is probably yes.” Mr. Trump said he thought he “could possibly win as an independent,” adding, “I’m not doing it for any other reason. I like winning.”
What if Lawrence is wrong? What if Trump started off as a joke candidacy, a way to boost ratings for The Apprentice? And all of the sudden, he looked at the polling showing him shooting up the ranks, and said to himself: "Wait, I think they [the Base of the GOP] want me to do this. What if I can do it?"
Of course, do we need to mention the fact that Liberals won't be flocking to Mr. Trump's banner anytime soon. And Mr. Trump is quite capable of putting on a show of excess and ridiculousness that would put Sarah Palin to shame. If Romney is the nominee, and Trump runs as an indepenent...and you say complete and utter Electoral Blowout for the President?
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Cos' just about sums up my attitude on Donald Trump...and kicks the crap out of him in the process (VIDEO)
Trump's response (for what its worth) is as follows:
The other day on The Today Show, right after I was interviewed by Meredith Vieira, a terrific person and reporter, I happened to watch Bill Cosby who was on at the end of the show. While I have never been a fan of Cosby’s, I had always assumed he liked or respected me because every time I met him—the last time at the David Letterman show where I preceded him as a guest—he was always so nice, saying “let’s get together”—asking me out to dinner, and being polite to the point of offering to buy me a suit because he has a “great tailor.”
In any event, as I watched the show, the subject of Donald Trump came up. I was surprised to hear him blabber, somewhat incoherently “you run or shut up.” The hatred was pouring out of his eyes when he said this. As I am sure he must know I cannot run until this season of Celebrity Apprentice ends. I know that he has taken a lot of heat over the years in that he seems to be talking down to the people he’s talking to and purportedly trying to help. Actually, based on the way he acted, things are not looking too good for Cosby.
I wish he would be more honest, and if he doesn’t want me to run because he’s obviously an Obama fan, he should state the reasons and not come into my “green room” in front of numerous witnesses and treat me like his best friend, only to denigrate me when I’m not around.
Yeah, maybe the reason Cosby is ripping the @#$% out of you is you're using racism to promote your craptastic TeeVee show, and as a black man, he resents it.
Hell, as a black man, I resent it. You're a race-baiter Trump. Deal with it.
Also, I got to ask, why is it whenever Trump says or writes something, he complements the person in such a way as to suggest that the person's only value come from Trump's pronouncement of it?
How the President did the best he could with a bad hand...and how Congress are really like dogs.
At the end of the day, it was probably the best deal we could have come up with, given the circumstances. Liberal Bloggers castigating the deal: Jonathan Chait, Ezra, E.J. Dionne all think this was a shitty deal. They also conveniently leave out the fact that we didn’t show up in November, and thus it was an inevitability that the Conservatives were going to get some things they wanted.
At the end of the day, the poor women of D.C. got screwed. But the thing is, they’re always getting screwed. Once you've lived in the area, you know that's the case. As long as D.C. Statehood isn’t on the table, some shitkicker from Kentucky is going to be able to do his will on the majority black, soon-to-be-majority Latino/Hispanic city of Washington.
Like with Libya, I want to hear what Liberal Bloggers wanted the President to do instead. Oh yes, I forgot, shutdown.
Granted, the Republicans would have taken the brunt of the blame, and that always gives me joy. Then again... I wasn’t that afraid of a shutdown, because I could afford to be.
I don’t know about you, but the only shutdown I’ve been through has been at a distance. I’ve never had a job, been told not to report to that job, only to spend my hours and days wondering if I’m going to get back pay for the work I’m not doing.
At the same time, I would remind Liberal Bloggers hailing the deal, and the President as just the smartest guy ever in making such a “brilliant” deal, you are way overstating the case in the other direction. Budget cuts take Goverment Spending out of the Economy, just as we can least afford to have it happen. Fingers crossed, we survive despite these cuts, never because of them.
Face it, we gave President a bad hand. He may have played the best he could, but it was still a shit sandwich, and he’s only taking a bite because too many of y’all (Democrats, Liberals, Progressives) didn’t show up in November.
The funny thing is these Republicans fervently believe (and here comes yet another in a long line of fallacies of Conservative thinking) that eliminating the funds for a program, eliminates the need for the program. “There, we’ve eliminated Federal funding for Abortions. No one will ever have an Abortion ever again. Problem solved.”
Yeah, it doesn’t quite work like that. What’s going to happen to the poor women of D.C. is that they’re going to cross the border into Maryland, and overstress that system and those State and Federal funds. But hey, Boehner gets to go back and tell his constituents he screwed (or in his mind, saved) poor black women in D.C.
The good news seems to be that Americans are happy with the deal, in that they are generally happy when Congress gets something (i.e., anything) done. They are generally disposed to approve when Congress does its job, not in a “Hooray, we love this deal” kind of a way, more of the way a Dog Owner approves of his pet doing his business in the yard instead of the house. “Nice, Congress. Gooood Congress…”
And we only have two more of these fights to go this year alone. Can’t wait.
Ehhhh, I'm not as enthusiastic as Mr. Scott is.
My personal hope is that the President goes the Rock Obama and basically dares the GOP to torpedo the Debt Ceiling Limit.
But the President may feel a personal responsibility to the Greater Economy to not let that happen. At the same time, the GOP, thinking only of their electoral prospects for 2012, may be anxious to risk a total Economic Collapse. After all, what do they care is the shit hits the fan while Obama’s in charge.
Right now, the next Liberal Freak out is going to be over the President’s Plan to control the deficit on Wednesday. Already I’m seeing folk pull their hair out over what he might say, and how its already wrong.
The best overall take came from Conservative Andrew Sullivan. (Since he’s responded favorably to Paul Ryan’s plan, I can no longer take him seriously…thus I will be emphasizing his essential conservatism at every possible chance):
At the end of the day, the poor women of D.C. got screwed. But the thing is, they’re always getting screwed. Once you've lived in the area, you know that's the case. As long as D.C. Statehood isn’t on the table, some shitkicker from Kentucky is going to be able to do his will on the majority black, soon-to-be-majority Latino/Hispanic city of Washington.
Like with Libya, I want to hear what Liberal Bloggers wanted the President to do instead. Oh yes, I forgot, shutdown.
Granted, the Republicans would have taken the brunt of the blame, and that always gives me joy. Then again... I wasn’t that afraid of a shutdown, because I could afford to be.
I don’t know about you, but the only shutdown I’ve been through has been at a distance. I’ve never had a job, been told not to report to that job, only to spend my hours and days wondering if I’m going to get back pay for the work I’m not doing.
At the same time, I would remind Liberal Bloggers hailing the deal, and the President as just the smartest guy ever in making such a “brilliant” deal, you are way overstating the case in the other direction. Budget cuts take Goverment Spending out of the Economy, just as we can least afford to have it happen. Fingers crossed, we survive despite these cuts, never because of them.
Face it, we gave President a bad hand. He may have played the best he could, but it was still a shit sandwich, and he’s only taking a bite because too many of y’all (Democrats, Liberals, Progressives) didn’t show up in November.
The funny thing is these Republicans fervently believe (and here comes yet another in a long line of fallacies of Conservative thinking) that eliminating the funds for a program, eliminates the need for the program. “There, we’ve eliminated Federal funding for Abortions. No one will ever have an Abortion ever again. Problem solved.”
Yeah, it doesn’t quite work like that. What’s going to happen to the poor women of D.C. is that they’re going to cross the border into Maryland, and overstress that system and those State and Federal funds. But hey, Boehner gets to go back and tell his constituents he screwed (or in his mind, saved) poor black women in D.C.
The good news seems to be that Americans are happy with the deal, in that they are generally happy when Congress gets something (i.e., anything) done. They are generally disposed to approve when Congress does its job, not in a “Hooray, we love this deal” kind of a way, more of the way a Dog Owner approves of his pet doing his business in the yard instead of the house. “Nice, Congress. Gooood Congress…”
And we only have two more of these fights to go this year alone. Can’t wait.
Ehhhh, I'm not as enthusiastic as Mr. Scott is.
My personal hope is that the President goes the Rock Obama and basically dares the GOP to torpedo the Debt Ceiling Limit.
But the President may feel a personal responsibility to the Greater Economy to not let that happen. At the same time, the GOP, thinking only of their electoral prospects for 2012, may be anxious to risk a total Economic Collapse. After all, what do they care is the shit hits the fan while Obama’s in charge.
Right now, the next Liberal Freak out is going to be over the President’s Plan to control the deficit on Wednesday. Already I’m seeing folk pull their hair out over what he might say, and how its already wrong.
The best overall take came from Conservative Andrew Sullivan. (Since he’s responded favorably to Paul Ryan’s plan, I can no longer take him seriously…thus I will be emphasizing his essential conservatism at every possible chance):
So Obama starts off this critical part of his first term by appearing to be above the fray and yet committed to compromise. Via Biden, he calls the GOP's bluff, draws a line in spending cuts for 2011, and exposes the draconian spending reductions that the GOP's no tax increase pledge requires. He comes back with a bid to tax millionaires, offers spending cuts that would be far more sophisticated and targeted away from investment than the GOP, and pledges to put his own proposals forward as early as this week.
Of course, for a blogger like me, you face a choice. Simply trust the guy and spin for him, or voice skepticism, outrage and disappointment and get played along with the GOP. But, of course, I don't mind getting played. Because I want this president to succeed - and such success requires root-and-branch spending and tax reform.
He seems to be getting there - in that highly unsatisfying but politically shrewd way of his. So now we will have the Ryan plan and the Obama plan. Guess which one independent voters will like more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)