The Fireside chat for July 10, 2010 (VIDEO)

President Obama announces that the Department of Veterans Affairs, led by Secretary Shinseki, will begin making it easier for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to receive the benefits and treatment they need.

Ego run amok. Part 2.

The Attorney General for West Virginia gives the go ahead for Governor Joe Manchin's ego trip--err, I mean Special Election.

How does the deficit affect LeBron's decision?

Wow. A non-politics post.

We had a 5.4 Earthquake here in SoCal, and I asked "How does the Earthquake affect LeBron's decision"

Speaking of ego run amok...

Listen, I’ve been on record (in the non-blogsphere world) saying over and over again that LeBron is staying in Cleveland. Even though it’s starting to look very much like I was wrong on this one, I’m going to stick with my prediction to the bitter end. Why? Because I cannot believe that this multi-millionaire Athlete, who can live anywhere in the world, and chooses to live in Akron, Ohio (because clearly he loves it), is going to give that up...and take less money in the process.

If Art Modell had to leave Cleveland for his own safety, do you really think that Bitter Cleveland fan is going to let LeBron off the hook? At least Modell was a New York native. Prince James doesn’t have that excuse. Cleveland fans have been through tough times, and are even tougher people, and they’ll hold onto a grudge until hell won’t have it no more.

But since I’m not from Cleveland, I just root for the team, I’d like to think I have a little perspective on LeBron James. I like the guy, but I don't love him like Ohio fan does. I think he is vastly overrated. I think he's a smart kid, but not a very bright one (and there is a difference). I think he truly believes that if he bolts to Miami, he’ll be forgiven by the people of Ohio.

Never in a million years.

Only a individual with his titanic ego would buy himself an hour of national (basic cable) television time, to tell the people of Ohio to @#$% off, and somehow expect them to be grateful for it. (I heard Stephen A. Ego---errr, I mean Stephen A. Smith on the Jim Rome show this morning saying that LeBron has nothing to apologize for. I think he’s living in the same bubble as LeBron and his crew).

There will be no gratitude, no thanks and no fond memories from the fans of the Cleveland Cavaliers. All they can do is pick themselves up, dust themselves off, draft well, let Byron Scott coach ‘em up, and win despite that preening @#$%.

No other act in this world will turn me into a Laker fan faster than LeBron bolting for Miami. But hey, that’s where we are.

UPDATE: 11:20am Pacific: Bill Simmons has a lot more. Read it, I'm sold.

I can't wait to watch for the same reasons I couldn't turn away from O.J.'s Bronco chase or the Artest melee: it's Car Wreck Television. If LeBron picks anyone other than the Cavaliers, it will be the cruelest television moment since David Chase ended "The Sopranos" by making everyone think they lost power. Cleveland fans will never forgive LeBron, nor should they. He knows better than anyone what kind of sports anguish they have suffered over the years. Losing LeBron on a contrived one-hour show would be worse than Byner's fumble, Jose Mesa, the Game 5 meltdown against Boston, The Drive, The Shot and everything else. At least those stomach-punch moments weren't preordained, unless you believe God hates Cleveland (entirely possible, by the way). This stomach-punch moment? Calculated. By a local kid they loved, defended and revered.

It would be unforgivable. Repeat: unforgivable. I don't have a dog in this race -- as a Celtics fan, I wanted to see him go anywhere but Chicago -- but LeBron doing this show after what happened in the 2010 playoffs actually turned me against him. No small feat. I was one of his biggest defenders. Not anymore.

Ego run amok...

Because only one job really matters to him, the West Virginia Governor is holding 2.1 Unemployed Americans hostage.

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

"If you’re going to push the rules as far as they can go..."

A good dig from Jonathan Cohn:

The holds are in keeping with the rules of the Senate, as currently written; Republicans are technically within their rights to use them. But having poisoned the nomination process, are they really surprised--and can they really blame--the Democrats for responding in kind? “If you’re going to push the rules as far as they can go,” my colleague Jonathan Chait notes, “you can hardly complain when the other party does the same thing.”

Even Steven/Stephen... (VIDEO)

As a veteran Daily Show viewer, I can't tell you how much I missed this...

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Steve Carell
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Regarding This Double Dip Talk .....

The Bonddad tries to put some much needed perspective on this talk of a double-dip recession. (Thank you, Robert Reich!)

In short? Out of the woods yet? No. Doing better? Yes. Unemployment? Still too high. Housing? Too much supply. China? Could be a problem. E.U.? Another problem, but could be fixable. Washington? The Austerity police have their heads so far up their--

--I'll leave that to Krugman. He's got more Nobels than I do.

Soldiers are Soldiers everywhere... (VIDEO)

...and yes, those are members of the Israeli Defense Force, on duty, in the West Bank, gettin' down to (according to Andrew Sullivan and the Telegraph) Kesha's (American, and a terrible rapper) hit song Tik-Tok.

The Fireside chat for July 3, 2010 (VIDEO)

As part of the explosion of Recovery Act projects this summer and as a move towards a clean energy future, the President announces nearly $2 billion in conditional commitments to key solar companies.

The President's Speech on Immigration for July 1, 2010 (VIDEO)

The key graph:

In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.

Just a few years ago, when I was a senator, we forged a bipartisan coalition in favor of comprehensive reform. Under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who had been a longtime champion of immigration reform, and Senator John McCain, we worked across the aisle to help pass a bipartisan bill through the Senate. But that effort eventually came apart. And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support.

Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.

And you don’t have to take my word for this. You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing.

These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound. And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.

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

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

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




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

Jon Stewart interviews the Axe (VIDEO)

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

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

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

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

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

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


Part 1:

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

Part 2:

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

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

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

The Fireside chat for June 26, 2010 (VIDEO)

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

The President replaces Stanley McChrystal (VIDEO)

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

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

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

When in doubt, go to the Bonddad...

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

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

Here's his latest:

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

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

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

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

Housing starts remain at a depressed level.

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

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

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

Bank lending has continued to contract in recent months

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



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

Your base + everyone else...

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

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

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

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

The Fireside chat for June 19, 2010 (VIDEO)

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

Not necessarily a campaign preview (VIDEO)

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

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

Unserious People III

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

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

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

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

Unserious people II. (Liberal Edition)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Us.

We've been electing them.

We've been electing these Congress-critters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not me. Not in my backyard. No.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I ask...are you high?

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

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

Rachel certainly did.