The President points to outrageous premium hikes from health insurance companies, especially those already making massive profits, as further proof of the need for reform. Looking ahead to the coming bipartisan meeting on reform, the President urges members of Congress to come to the table in good faith to address the issue.
Or as Paul Krugman put it, game on.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The Public Option isn't alive, but it sure isn't dead either (VIDEO)...
Ezra was on Keith last night, basically saying that the Public Option isn't as alive as a lot of my fellow Liberals would hope, because of various Hill Aides fearing that its inclusion will seem too partisan, at a time when the Democrats seem to be bending over backwards to seem bipartisan.
Laurence O'Donnell agreed.
I respectfully disagree.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Laurence O'Donnell agreed.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I respectfully disagree.
The Public Option isn't as alive as people think.
Nor, is it as dead as people think (hope) either.
I remember, right as the Senate Bill was being debate Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) coming on MSNBC, and saying that its passage means that Health Care goes from being a every 20 year debate, to an every year debate.
I think this analysis still holds. Once the House passes the Senate Bill (Plan B - which I think they're going to do at the end of the month), the fixes they want will be passed through Reconciliation.
In fact, their fixes and a whole bunch of others will be passed through Reconciliation.
Why couldn't one of those fixes be the Public Option?
Odds are, it will...but the question is when. And that's another area where I disagree with Erza and Laurence. I don't think this is the White House trying to pawn it off on Harry Reid, and vice versa. Part of this is them keeping the issue alive for the February 25th Conference, so that the Senate Bill isn't the most leftward idea in the room. But a lot of this wanting the Public Option fight later. Pass Health Care Reform for signing. Pass a Jobs Bill. Have the fights for Progressive stuff in time for Campaign Season.
I'm one of those people who believe that Politicians always tell the truth when they speak, a very parsed and precise (lawyerly) truth.
When Harry says he'll fight for the Public Option through Senate procedures, I believe him. Of course, he doesn't say he'll succeed or that he has the votes. When the White House says they'll fight for it if the Senate Leadership is for it, that's true also. Of course, they didn't say when they'll fight for it. That's the trick.
I think that before President Obama's first term is up, the Public Option will be passed into law...somehow. I guess the question I have for my fellow Liberals is, does it have to be now in order to be valued by our side. What if it's 2011 or 2012? This President believes in timing. I think he wants to have certain fights at certain times. I think he likes to go public with certain fights at certain times. I think the Public Option fight is scheduled, it's just not when you think its gonna happen...
Friday, February 19, 2010
The other side of the Mitt Romney confrontation... (VIDEO)
In case you missed this, Mitt Romney got into it with a passenger on an airplane earlier this week. It was a story for about a half-second.
Well, it turns out that (maybe) the guy Romney had a confrontation with was a member of the Rap Group LMFAO.
This video starts off staged, but quickly turns into a YouTube confesser, that lays out at least his side of the story, which did get squashed in all this:
Well, it turns out that (maybe) the guy Romney had a confrontation with was a member of the Rap Group LMFAO.
This video starts off staged, but quickly turns into a YouTube confesser, that lays out at least his side of the story, which did get squashed in all this:
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Leave it to the tone deaf white guys...
I've been enjoying Jonathan Chait's material recently, particularly on the Health Care Debate, where he's been enlightening and insightful.
But that doesn't mean he's insightful 100% of the time on all things.
Take this photo of the President talking to his (all white in this case) advisers while his feet are up on the Resolute Desk. It's gotten all the necessary umbrage from the Wingnut bloggers, about the President's "attitude"
Wonkette blasted right back, showing a photo of George Bush doing the same thing to the same desk (of course with different, but similarly colored, advisers), and said: "But don’t worry, it’s still okay if the white guy does it."
Jonathan Chait then decried accusations of racism.
Jonathan, I got some news for you.
You can call something racism, if it's actually racism.
I'm not at all surprised Jonathan Chait didn't pick up on this because...let's face it...he's a white guy who's never had to deal with racism at all, much less the subtle knife in the back kind that...frankly, I deal with every damn day of my life.
Even Keith Olbermann pointed this out a couple of weeks ago, and mad props to him for doing so. In speaking about Black men in particular, when they, in this case the wingnuts, say "arrogant" or decry "attitude" they are really decrying the fact that this Black man does not know his proper place. And black people know what they're really trying to say, all without saying it.
Chait's ears are not tuned. Mine are. My Dad's are. Every black man or woman you know has their ears tuned to @#$% this.
When you say "arrogant", or "uppity", we know you mean "n----r".
We've been listening to white folks for three-hundred years. For us, it's been a matter of survival. We know what you mean, when you say it. We have to.
But that doesn't mean he's insightful 100% of the time on all things.
Take this photo of the President talking to his (all white in this case) advisers while his feet are up on the Resolute Desk. It's gotten all the necessary umbrage from the Wingnut bloggers, about the President's "attitude"
Wonkette blasted right back, showing a photo of George Bush doing the same thing to the same desk (of course with different, but similarly colored, advisers), and said: "But don’t worry, it’s still okay if the white guy does it."
Jonathan Chait then decried accusations of racism.
It's a good slam. But why must it be accompanied by an accusation of racism? Oh, sure, it's entirely possible that many of the people forwarding this email have created a double standard based on racism. But isn't it more likely that they've created a double standard based on partisanship? It's not as if racial animus is the only explanation for wildly hypocritical right-wing attacks on a Democratic president. I could certainly imagine the same outraged emails being circulated if Bill Clinton were president.
Jonathan, I got some news for you.
You can call something racism, if it's actually racism.
I'm not at all surprised Jonathan Chait didn't pick up on this because...let's face it...he's a white guy who's never had to deal with racism at all, much less the subtle knife in the back kind that...frankly, I deal with every damn day of my life.
Even Keith Olbermann pointed this out a couple of weeks ago, and mad props to him for doing so. In speaking about Black men in particular, when they, in this case the wingnuts, say "arrogant" or decry "attitude" they are really decrying the fact that this Black man does not know his proper place. And black people know what they're really trying to say, all without saying it.
Chait's ears are not tuned. Mine are. My Dad's are. Every black man or woman you know has their ears tuned to @#$% this.
When you say "arrogant", or "uppity", we know you mean "n----r".
We've been listening to white folks for three-hundred years. For us, it's been a matter of survival. We know what you mean, when you say it. We have to.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
John O. Brennan... (VIDEO)
Granted, I started listening to this speech because it took place at my Alma Mater, NYU. But, while Mr. Brennan isn't the most dynamic speaker in the world, the subject of his speech really wasn't really about National Security. I mean, it was about National Security, but it really started about Islamic-Americans, and in one particularly interesting passage...believe it or not, how racism against Islamic-Americans harms the National Security. (It bears mentioning that the speech was co-sponsored by the Islamic Center at New York University).
The reason I bring this up is that Glenn Greenwald, one of my least favorite Liberals (even though I am a Liberal) tried his level best to make sure this guy didn't get a job in the Administration.
Unfortunately, Andrew Sullivan, one of my favorite Conservatives (despite the fact that I'm a Liberal), jumped on this bandwagon.
Safe to assume neither of them watched this speech. Granted, it wasn't a rhetorical gem, and it certainly wasn't delivered with the President's polish, but give the rhetoric spewing out of Greenwald, and by extension Sullivan, it certainly was eye opening.
And then Mr. Brennan took questions from the audience:
The reason I bring this up is that Glenn Greenwald, one of my least favorite Liberals (even though I am a Liberal) tried his level best to make sure this guy didn't get a job in the Administration.
Unfortunately, Andrew Sullivan, one of my favorite Conservatives (despite the fact that I'm a Liberal), jumped on this bandwagon.
Safe to assume neither of them watched this speech. Granted, it wasn't a rhetorical gem, and it certainly wasn't delivered with the President's polish, but give the rhetoric spewing out of Greenwald, and by extension Sullivan, it certainly was eye opening.
And then Mr. Brennan took questions from the audience:
The Recovery Act – Year One (VIDEO)
President Obama and Vice President Biden mark the one year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (The Stimulus), legislation that is working to cushion the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and lay a new foundation for economic growth.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
"...on its bad ones, [Politico] reminds me of the people who were attacking FDR around 1934"
Thomas Ricks rips Politico (after ripping Cheney):
I like Politico but I think Vandenhei, Harris and Allen have built [Cheney] into more than he really is. He ain’t no savant. He has a lot of amateurish mistakes to answer for, most notably his unfounded but official embrace of torture. At this point, Cheney strikes me as a cranky, bald version of abdicated Gov. Palin.
Politico has a lot of good days. But on its bad ones, it reminds me of the people who were attacking FDR around 1934. I would say that Cheney reminds me of Charles Curtis, but I think that is unfair to Hoover’s vice president, and to Native Americans generally.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Fireside chat for February 13, 2010 (VIDEO)
The President, having just signed the "Pay As You Go" law, discusses the importance of this fundamental rule to getting budget deficits in check. Ensuring that new spending and tax cuts are offset was a important factor in creating the budget surplus of the late 1990’s.
Friday, February 12, 2010
This is why I stopped reading Huffington Post, Part 347
It was crap like this:
Michael Brenner: Obama vs. Obama
We have in Obama a president who is what we used to call a moderate Republican before the species became extinct. That means suspicions of government programs, a strong belief that we should always give private interests the benefit of the doubt, an assumption that the rich deserve their riches, and an insensitivity to the plight of salaried Americans. Abroad, Obama is ready to deploy military might in dubious causes defined by the country's hawkish defense establishment. Far-fetched? Let's take a clear eyed look at what President Obama actually has done and said.
"Marcia, Marcia, Marcia..." (VIDEO)
Jonathan Chait really hammered the House today. I'm really not happy about it, because I genuinely like the House. I prefer it infinitely over the Senate.
And the same time, I'm really happy about it, because the House's dysfunction in the Health Care Reform mess is really their doing:
The House remains just where it was at the beginning of the new year; at the moment Scott Brown was elected. They remain one vote away from passing Health Care Reform, and they're too bitched off at the Senate to do it.
The House really needs to get its act together. They're starting to sound like Janet Brady. (Just replace the words "Marcia" with "Senate", and you'll get the idea.
And the same time, I'm really happy about it, because the House's dysfunction in the Health Care Reform mess is really their doing:
Unfortunately, [The House membrship] seem not to understand who to be upset with. The White House has devoted more attention to the Senate's needs because the Senate has imposed a 60 vote supermajority requirement upon itself and the House hasn't. The administration agreed to make cuts to the stimulus package because that's what Senate Republicans demanded, or else they would filibuster the measure. The administration lavished attention on moderate Democrats and a handful of Senate Republicans because that's what needed to pass health care reform. The House could just let 40 some moderate members vote no. The Senate can't do that.
This displaced resentment seems to result from the House's failure to understand the basic structure of the American government, and where the corresponding legislative bottlenecks lie. Can't the administration find a couple political scientists to explain this stuff at a House retreat?
The House remains just where it was at the beginning of the new year; at the moment Scott Brown was elected. They remain one vote away from passing Health Care Reform, and they're too bitched off at the Senate to do it.
The House really needs to get its act together. They're starting to sound like Janet Brady. (Just replace the words "Marcia" with "Senate", and you'll get the idea.
Ezra...what the hell are you talking about??!?
Ezra has a post, where he basically says the Administration gave away the store in getting 29 of its 150 Appointments through the Senate with the threat of Recess Appointments.
I honest to God, don't know what the hell Ezra is talking about because in the President's released statements from last night, he said:
At this point in his presidency, George W. Bush had made 10 recess appointments. Over the course of his presidency, he would make almost 200. Bill Clinton made about 150. In describing recess appointments as "a rare but not unprecedented step," Obama made it harder to actually make any, because he's defined the procedure -- which, unlike the hold, is a defined constitutional power of the president rather than a courtesy observed in the Senate -- as an extraordinary last-resort. He also promised, later in the statement, that he wouldn't make any appointments this recess.
I honest to God, don't know what the hell Ezra is talking about because in the President's released statements from last night, he said:
While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Science! (VIDEO)
A series of educational videos for your benefit:
And...
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Unusually Large Snowstorm | ||||
| ||||
And...
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| We're Off to See the Blizzard | ||||
| ||||
The enemy isn't the Opposition, it's not the Senate...it's Max freakin' Baucus.
Max Baucus (almost) does it again. Reaching out to his best-buddy Chuck Grassley almost derailed Health Care Reform, and it almost diluted the Jobs Bill to near worthlessness. But this time, his screw up looks to have been caught by Harry Reid, and should be fixed this time.
Honestly. We need jobs! I know, Max Baucus says, let's cut the Estate Tax and the Gift Tax.
But we need Republican votes, don't we?
No, Max. That's not necessarily the plan.
Baucus is making a good argument for another change that needs to happen in the Senate: the elimination of the Seniority rules.
Honestly. We need jobs! I know, Max Baucus says, let's cut the Estate Tax and the Gift Tax.
But we need Republican votes, don't we?
No, Max. That's not necessarily the plan.
Baucus is making a good argument for another change that needs to happen in the Senate: the elimination of the Seniority rules.
Nailed it.
Ezra on the new "Blame Rahmbo" meme sweeping the nation:
It's a bit weird to see so much blame accruing to Rahm Emanuel for the administration's woes. Emanuel wasn't part of the campaign team. He was brought in to help govern. In that capacity, his primary job was shepherding the administration's agenda through the legislative process. Ugly as that process was, Emanuel -- and more to the point, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- did a fairly masterful job at it. In the Senate, Democrats got all 60 of their members to sign onto the same large, controversial bill. That's a legislative achievement unheralded in modern times. Bill Clinton didn't manage it on any bills of this size and scope, and neither did George W. Bush.
Then the game changed, and unexpectedly. Ted Kennedy's death wasn't unpredictable, but the loss of his seat was certainly a surprise. It wasn't, however, a surprise that's easy to track back to Emanuel.
If the administration has failed at anything, it's been holding public support for its bills. But that's not really Emanuel's job. That's where David Axelrod and the rest of the political team come into play. But it's not obvious that much can be done on this front. The best thing that could've happened to health-care reform was that Congress stuck to the timetable that Emanuel and the White House originally set. Once they decided not to do that -- and no Jedi mind tricks from the White House chief of staff were going to dissuade them -- the ugly and endless process was certain to erode support for the bill.
In Performance At The White House (VIDEO)
There still isn't a single video containing the whole of the concert, which I still want to post (I'm a fan of the Blind Boys of Alabama, who provided the theme for the first season of "The Wire"), and Lord knows this isn't everything of concert, but you do the best with what you have.
BTW, TPM totally did this first. But I'm doing this again because TPM put the tiny, tiny video up. If tiny video is more your speed, click on the link above, they have the same footage...
Bob Dylan "The Times, They are a Changin":
The Howard University Choir "Lord, I Don' Done":
Natalie Cole "I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel to be Free":
Yolanda Adams "A Change is Gonna Come":
Joan Baez - "We Shall Overcome":
Jennifer Hudson and Smokey Robinson "People Get Ready":
BTW, TPM totally did this first. But I'm doing this again because TPM put the tiny, tiny video up. If tiny video is more your speed, click on the link above, they have the same footage...
Bob Dylan "The Times, They are a Changin":
The Howard University Choir "Lord, I Don' Done":
Natalie Cole "I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel to be Free":
Yolanda Adams "A Change is Gonna Come":
Joan Baez - "We Shall Overcome":
Jennifer Hudson and Smokey Robinson "People Get Ready":
"Neil de Grasse Tyson has betrayed us, yet again..." (VIDEO)
No, it's got nothing to do with the usual business of this blog, but just seeing the anchors just rip into Dr. Tyson (tongue firmly planted in cheek, mind you) was just hysterical.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
"Trashed the Stimulus. Voted No, and then..." (VIDEO)
Rachel highlighting Republican Hypocrisy on the Stimulus.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Obama...sings?? (VIDEO)
This is the AP's cut-up/mash-up of the concert (which I'm still searching for embedded video for...or are they going to make me buy it?)...notice the guest crooner who joins the stage at the end of the video.
Andrew Leonard also backs me up...
...with something I said earlier in the day. Andrew was talking about how Simon Johnson and Paul Krugman were the first to go apeshit at the President's remarks this morning, but:
It might be worth noting that both Johnson and Krugman dismissed Obama's words that day [when he called Big Bank Bonuses obscene] as politically motivated. Obama is in a tight spot. When he addresses the nation directly and explicitly acknowledges "public anger" he is dismissed, and accused of not meaning what he says. But when sound bites of an interview are selectively reported, they are taken immediately at face value and interpreted as negatively as possible.
It's a modern American political tragedy. We've got a guy in the White House capable of more nuance than anyone in recent memory, and a political culture that can't deal with any nuance at all.
Greg Sargent backs me up...
Greg Sargent actually...you know...read what the President said, as did Andrew Leonard at Salon. If Greg had a problem with anything, it was messaging. Then again, Greg always has a problem with Obama's messaging.
For my money, no one's mentioning the stuff in bold.
For my money, no one's mentioning the stuff in bold.
QUESTION: Let’s talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.
QUESTION: Seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach.
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay.
The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs’ success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)