The Fireside chat for August 21, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President calls out Republicans for blocking campaign finance reforms that would address the Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates of corporate money into elections.

Howard Dean, defiantly wrong.

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

I'm glad former Governor Howard Dean went on Keith last night. Too many people hide from the cameras when a controversy breaks out, so kudos to him for getting out there.

Still, his position on Park51 remains ridiculous, indefensible, and frankly a little racist.

I hate to be brutal about it, but the in the scheme of things, the pain, the tragedy, the suffering of the 9/11 families, does not matter.  I'm not dismissing their pain, I'm saying that their pain cannot be allowed to trump our Constitution.

More to the point, to maintain a position that says that a Muslim Community Center is disrespectful, you have to believe that Muslims genetically predisposed to being terrorists. Now, Howard Dean says (over and over again) that he doesn't believe that, but then why justify this belief by giving into it?

This is the same damn argument that was dropped on Civil Rights Protesters.  Progress is coming, but you have to be patient.  This is, in effect, Howard Dean's argument to America's Islamic Citizens.  But as Thurgood Marshall said (at the time), "the Emancipation Proclamation was signed 90 years ago, I think Black Americans have been plenty paitent."

Either the First Amendment is going to apply to all of us, or it applies to none of us.

UPDATE: Saturday Aug. 21: Somehow the guy who once wrote a Screenplay about Thurgood Marshall thought the 90 years quote ws said by Martin Luther King. My utter bad.

What "doing his job" can sometimes mean...

Great, great piece by Jonathan Bernstein:

What makes the presidency so hard is that it's not about deciding right vs. wrong. It's almost always about choices about priorities--which of the many possible "right" things should move up to the top tier, which are clearly not worth the effort, and which are somewhere in the middle. This requires gauging all sorts of things...are cranky Dem Senators really upset about Warren, or just putting up a show for the benefit of home-state interests. How much does Warren's obvious symbolic importance to some liberals translate to liberal activists in general, and how will that play out if Obama was to choose a substantively similar but symbolically less fraught nominee? How do Washingtonians feel about the president's resolve, and will his reputation for being tough be helped if he stands up to balky Senators? What if he stands up to liberals? How much do the banks actually care about Warren's symbolic importance? How likely is this choice to take up valuable Senate floor time compared to alternative nominees, and which nominations or legislation might that jeopardize? What options does he have on those other items that might clear more space for a Warren floor fight (if one is likely), and how important would those compromises be?

Then realize that there's a similar set of questions for each of the things that Barack Obama wants to do, and for all the things he doesn't really care about but for which others are urging him to act. Remember that while on the one hand he has far more tools than any other individual to use in order to persuade others to go along with what he wants, he's using those tools across dozens, maybe hundreds, of issues, while many of those he deals with may only care--and care intensively--about one or two or maybe a handful of issues. And note that everyone is watching what the president decides, and how he decides, and who he listens to and what strategies he uses, so that they can maximize their ability to get what they want from him when it's their turn to play. None of which should be taken as apologizing for the president... he asked for the job! He certainly should be held to account. It's just important, in my opinion, to understand what it means for a president to make a decision before we start attacking him for one.

Black Republicans

From the Daily Beast:

Timothy Johnson, who as chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation works to get African-American Republican officials elected and grow the ranks of black members of the party, says that Sarah Palin needs to clarify her defense of Dr. Laura Schlessinger. He also says Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele needs to speak out against Palin.

Like that'll happen. Mr. Johnson (absolutely, positively ZERO relation) also said:

If she chooses to run for President in 2012, she is going to have to answer to black Republicans.

Again, yeah right.

If a majority of African-Americans were convinced that your organization wasn't going to cave at the first opportunity in the face of the former Half Governor, there might be more than three Black Republicans in the country.

You want to prove something to me? Tell Palin and tell America that Black Republicans have a zero tolerance policy towards racism. Tell Palin that if she runs, even Black Republicans won't support her. But we both know that's not going to happen, thus we come to the inescapable conclusion that Black Republicans tolerate racism.

This from the supposed Party of Lincoln.

The Racist Sisterhood...Part 2

Shocking headline of the day from the Daily Beast, following up on the Dr. Laura racist crapfest:

Black Republican: Sarah Palin Doesn't Speak For Us

Loved Josh's crackback:

Wow, pro-'N-Word' advocacy not helping with black voters. Always hard to figure how these things will play.

Hypocrisy? Priceless.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), you know, the guy who thought withdrawing from Iraq was a mistake, thinks that George Bush hasn't been getting enough credit for the ending of the Combat mission in Iraq.

Disappointed.

The amount of coverage (outside MSNBC that is) of the ending of our Combat Mission in Iraq has been scant. Right now, Newsweek's lead story is about Wyclef Jean's Presidential bid in Haiti. CNN is doing tainted eggs and Dr. Laura. Fox News is doing "Nuclear Iran -- Is it Too Late??" Nothing on Salon, Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times. Oh, the Washington Post has a lead story...sorry, had a lead story for a while there (now it's back to the Park51 bull@#$%). Talking Points Memo, via AFP, rates a mention.

The international press t rates only a little better. Nothing on the Times of London. It's the third story on the Guardian of London at least. The BBC has it at number two, with a side story about Iraq finding it hard to care.

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

What gets on my nerves more than anything is that this was a clear promise made by the President during the campaign, it was one of the reasons (though not the reason) people voted for him. And now that he's made good on that promise, he's not going to get any credit for it.

Listen, let's not B.S. here. This is a great day. I know a lot of my fellow progressives are still up in arms over Afghanistan (and I'm not sure they should be), but getting out of this mess is a net positive.

Now if we can only find a way to avoid an armed Islamic Reformation, that'd be even better.

The Racist Sisterhood...

As I was under the weather yesterday, I did not get a chance to comment (celebrate) the ending of Dr. Laura's radio crapfest.  So let me state my position clearly for the record: Hooray!

But equally interesting is former Half-Governor Sarah Palin's tweeting in support of Dr. Laura.  There's more here in the Washington Post.

Keith tweeted a very good question in response. Does this mean that the former Half-Governor agrees with Dr. Laura's conduct??

Howard Dean's lowest moment.

Oh, Jesus (ironically enough).

I've gotta believe there has to be a compromise here. This isn't about the right of Muslims to have a worship center, or Jews or Christians or anybody else to have a place to worship, or any place around Ground Zero. This is something we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith. And we have to understand that it is a real affront to people who've lost their lives -- including Muslims. That site doesn't belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans and all faiths. So I think a good, reasonable compromise could be worked out, without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.

Yeah, I gotta go with Keith on this one. What has happened to his man since he left the DNC?  First the Bill-Killer crap, now this.

Josh Marshall went on with some points of his own:

I mean, what's so humorous about Dean's sweating the pain of Muslim 9/11 victim families who are going to be offended about a Muslim community center being built is that I really don't get a clear sense that Dean has any idea what's even being discussed. Does he know it's not at Ground Zero? It's almost like he piled on some 'Muslims are Americans too' and 9/11, 9/11 and the rest and just let his mouth run for a minutes.

Late Please Make It Stop It's Too Painful Update: Sam Stein at Huffpo rung up Dean to see if he wanted to revise and extend his remarks and Sam basically ended up giving the good doctor another chance to demonstrate that he apparently doesn't know anything about what's going on. Dean says the Cordoba House proponents are being inflexible. And maybe they are. But he also makes clear that he takes "the congregation at its word that it is a moderate congregation trying to heal the wounds of 9/11." Only there's no congregation. It's a investment group (Soho Properties) and a Muslim non-profit (the Cordoba Initiative) trying put this together. Ahh, never mind. But he does point out that "best way to heal the wounds is not to have a court battle, but to sit down and try to work things out." Good point, only there's no Court battle. It's done. They got the approval. Maybe someone will get Mayor Bloomberg ginned up about Muslim plot to make us all eat Halal food. But there's no court battle.

Doing your homework. What a concept ...

Almost.

After cracking on Keith’s Special Comment on Obama a couple of days ago, I felt it only appropriate that he should be given his due praise for his recent work where he almost nailed it in his Worst Person in the world segment when he ripped on Dr. Laura for her recent racist rant on the radio.

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

Almost.

Somehow it has gotten into the American consciousness that only saying “N----r” and burning a cross on the lawn counts as racism. As someone who lives with the prospect of my life ending at a routine traffic stop, being followed around in stores, on watching as a perfectly legitimate application for an Apartment is rejected, I know better. These are examples of everyday, common racism that still happen. What Dr. Laura did was extraordinary and public, but hardly unique.

So this is a long way of saying that Keith really nailed the moment when he said that the N-bomb wasn’t the most offensive part of the segment. He was telling his audience that there was more racism there, and he was right.

But the part that offended me wasn’t the bit Keith highlighted, where she assailed black people for hyper-sentivity (which was offensive, don't get me more), it was Dr. Laura’s insufferable demand that the caller prove to her (the white woman) that what happened was racist.

You got to listen to the whole segment (which Randi Rhodes played last week), which I cannot stomach to bring you here.

Again, African-Americans are perfectly capable to determining for themselves what is and isn’t racist. No offense white folks, we really don’t need your help on it. We do need your help in the discussion that follows. But in the end, we will determine what offends us, not you.

But we're starting to get a good look at what passes for racial discourse nowadays, and it's starting to tick me off. There are (at least) two parties in any debate. In a racial one, such as this, there is a African-American and a White Person. Both have a role to play in the discussion to come, but for some reason on the TV, only one is allowed to speak.

I still am stung by the idea that when Rand Paul revealed his true colors, there weren't many black people called onto the air to offer their opinion outside Rep. James Clyburn. That ticked me off.

Now, we're seeing the same thing happen when the Park 51/Cordoba Mosque B.S. As people scream, hem and haw, has there been any Muslim...well...anybody brought to the air to defend the place. Or is this just another discussion happening exclusively among white people?

The Fireside chat for August 14, 2010 (VIDEO)

On the 75th anniversary of Social Security, President Obama promises to protect it from Republican leaders in Congress who have made privatization a key part of their agenda. He makes clear that, especially in light of the financial crisis, gambling Social Security on Wall Street makes no sense.

"This is America..." (VIDEO)

From the President's prepared remarks:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -– from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -– they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -– and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

So that's who we’re fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms -– it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us –- and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

Greg Sargent:

A few quick thoughts about Obama's forceful speech yesterday expressing strong support for Cordoba House, which will go down as one of the finest moments of his presidency.

Obama didn't just stand up for the legal right of the group to build the Islamic center. He voiced powerful support for their moral right to do so as well, casting it as central to American identity. This is a critical point, and it goes to the the essence of why his speech was so commendable.

Many opponents of the project have been employing a clever little dodge. They say they don't question the group's legal right to build it under the Constitution. Rather, they say, they're merely criticizing the group's decision to do so, on the grounds that it's insensitive to 9/11 families and will undercut the project's goal of reconciliation. The group has the right to build the center, runs this argument, but they are wrong to exercise it. In response, Obama could have merely cast this dispute as a Constitutional issue, talked about how important it is to hew to that hallowed document, and moved on.

But Obama went much further than that. He asserted that we must "welcome" and "respect" those of other faiths, suggesting that the group behind the center deserves the same, and said flat out that anything less is un-American.

Michael Crowley:

One good way to measure Obama's performance as president, I think, is by the degree to which he meets this famous pledge:

The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is to tell you exactly what you want to hear. But if we want to finally solve the challenges we're facing right now, we need to tell the American people what they need to hear.

Obama certainly hasn't always met that standard. But in declaring his support for allowing the so-called Ground Zero mosque to be opened in New York City, Obama has done something very much in defiance of public opinion and very much in line, it seems, with what is in his heart.

Nate Silver:

Essentially, public opinion on this issue is divided into thirds. About a third of the country thinks that not only do the developers have a right to build the mosque, but that it's a perfectly appropriate thing to do. Another third think that while the development is in poor taste, the developers nevertheless have a right to build it. And the final third think that not only is the development inappropriate, but the developers have no right to build it -- perhaps they think that the government should intervene to stop it in some fashion.

Obama's remarks, while asserting that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," and that the "principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are," simply reflected the view that the developers had a First Amendment right to proceed with the project -- a view that at least 60 percent of Americans share. True, Obama could have hedged a little bit more, by saying something along the lines of "they have every right to build it, but I hope they will consider another location". On the other hand, it is not as though he said "this is a wonderful thing, and I'm going to make sure to take Sasha and Malia there once it's built." Instead, he acknowledged the sensitivity over the Ground Zero site, calling it "hallowed ground", but couched the controversy in terms of the First Amendment.

So it is not really so clear whether Obama has staked out an unpopular position or not. While it is almost certainly riskier than his remaining mum on the issue, the assertion that the developers have a Constitutional right to proceed with the project is not particularly controversial. Palin and Gingirch will scream and shout, but they may be doing little more than preach to the converted.

And back to Greg again:

Republicans are reportedly gleeful that Obama entered this dispute. Maybe they're right to be gleeful: Obama's entry will only further stoke passions and ensure that the battle continues, perhaps to his political detriment. But in another sense, this couldn't have come at a better time for Obama. His core supporters, frustrated, were badly in need of a display of presidential spine. They got one.

Ultimately, though, Obama's speech transcends the politics of the moment, and will go down as a defining and perhaps even a breakthrough performance. Obama recognized that this dispute is a seminal one that goes to the core of our running argument about pluralism and minority rights and to the core of who we are. He understood that the gravity of the moment required an equally large and momentous response. And he delivered.

Raining on today's good news.

Following up on the The South (and only the South) shall rise again, Jonathan Chait actually does rain on the parade.

I'm still waiting to hear what Nate has to say.

TPM: Alvin Greene Indicted.

Thanks, South Carolina!

More Elizabeth Warren.

Ezra Klein, following up on the possibility of appointing Elizabeth Warren to head Consumer Protection Agency. ( You should be familiar with it.  It's not like we haven't been covering it).

Elizabeth Warren fans and Elizabeth Warren foes will both want to read Brady Dennis's profile of the consumer-protection advocate. To make the political point, it seems to me that the importance of Warren's nomination is being dramatically overblown. And that seems great for the administration.

I'd prefer to see Warren appointed, but it's hard to be incredibly confident about something as unpredictable as agency leadership. Think of it this way: You're a credit-card industry trade group and you're given two choices to lead the consumer protection agency: The first is an aggressive, charismatic and media-savvy regulator who seems likely to clash with the administration and thus is likely to lose some important bureaucratic battles. The other is a less charismatic and media-savvy regulator who is still substantively aggressive, skeptical of your business, but who has great internal administration relationships and seems likely to win a lot of internal battles on behalf of the agency. Who would you pick? The answer isn't obvious to me.

But the elevation of the Warren appointment into a major priority for liberals gives the administration something easy they can hand to their base. It's not like the public option, which seemed capable of sinking the health-care bill. Financial regulation has already passed. If Warren runs into Republican opposition in the Senate, then all the better: All eyes will focus on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and since the administration believes it hasn't gotten enough credit for financial regulation and also believes the CFPB is the most popular part of the bill, that's a gift for them -- particularly so close to the election.

It's of course possible that Republicans will filibuster her nomination and Democrats won't be able to break their hold. But so what? In that case, Warren will either be recess appointed or replaced. Which is why, at this point, it seems pretty likely that Warren will be appointed. If she's not, I think it'll be substantive fears -- there are those who think she's much too skeptical of financial products and her presence will chill lenders at a time when we want them to start pushing money out again -- not political concerns, that derail her. But given that the administration can't actually say "we believe Warren will protect consumers too much," it'll be hard for them to act on that concern.

One last point: It's worth taking a moment and marveling at how much one well-crafted policy proposal published in a little-read journal can lead to.

I still think she's the best candidate, but there are others out there. It's not a disaster if she's not appointed. But Ezra may be right, the fight may be worth it.

The South (and only the South) shall rise again?

Reading Jonathan Cohn this morning, he highlights this graph (courtesy Steven Benen):

In the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Democrats enjoy the narrowest of leads over Republicans on the generic ballot, 44% to 43%. That's a slight improvement over June, when Republicans led by two, but the parties have effectively been tied on this question since last fall, trading small leads month to month.

What those top-line results don't show, however, is that there are some interesting regional differences. Taegan Goddard flagged this tidbit from the MSNBC report: "The GOP has a HUGE generic-ballot edge in the South (52%-31%), but it doesn't lead anywhere else. In the Northeast, Dems have a 55%-30% edge; in the Midwest, they lead 49%-38%; and in the West, it's 44%-43%."

I made another homemade chart to help drive the point home. (The lucrative world of blog-chart making awaits, right?)

Now, I'm not sure why the Republicans' 21-point lead in the South is all-caps "huge," but Dems' 25-point lead in the Northeast isn't, but nevertheless, it is a reminder that the playing field is not altogether level. The GOP's strength has been in the South for several years, and that clearly hasn't changed.

Of course, this is only a guide, pointing to regional differences -- it doesn't mean Democratic candidates outside the South have nothing to worry about. As First Read noted, "Many of the congressional districts Republicans are targeting outside of the South resemble some of those Southern districts they're hoping to win back in November -- where you have whiter and older voters. Think Stephanie Herseth's seat in South Dakota; Tim Walz' seat in Minnesota; Leonard Boswell's seat in Iowa; and Ike Skelton's in Missouri."

Still, we've been talking for years about the Republican Party becoming increasingly regionalized, and these trends are continuing.

Curious to see what Nate has to say about this.

What really happened with Elizabeth Warren today

Everyone's was all (ha-ha) a-Twitter over the Elizabeth Warren sighting at the White House. But before you start jumping for joy over this development:

Warren's Congressional Oversight Panel released a new report today saying – unsurprisingly – that foreign firms benefited more from the $700 billion US bank bailout than US firms benefited from foreign rescue efforts.

The watchdog cited that the US bailout basically flooded money into as many banks as possible – including international ones – but other nations specifically targeted their rescue efforts towards their own domestic firms that had no US operations.

“As a result, it appears likely that America’s financial rescue had a much greater impact internationally than other nations’ programs had on the United States,” the panel said. “This outcome was likely inevitable given the structure of the TARP, but if the US government had gathered more information about which countries’ institutions would most benefit from some of its actions, it might have been able to ask those countries to share the pain of rescue.”

The most egregious case? AIG, naturally, where tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars went to Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale, among others. The US bore the entire $70 billion risk of the insurance giant’s capital injection program, far exceeding the size of France’s entire $35 billion overall stability program and nearly half the size of Germany’s $133 billion efforts.

Going forward, the panel said, an international plan should be developed to “handle the collapse of major, globally significant financial institutions.”

And now, before you get too depressed, the same Jake Tapper report also said:

Elizabeth Warren this afternoon met at the White House with David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, where the possibility of her heading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was discussed, but not decided on, a White House official confirms.

President Obama did not meet with Warren today.

“The President believes that Elizabeth Warren is a champion for middle class families and consumers and she, among others, is a strong contender for this position,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said in a statement. “The President has not yet made a decision and no announcement is imminent.”

This week White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton echoed those sentiments during a press gaggle en route to Texas, saying that he has no update on timing beyond that an announcement wouldn’t be made this week. And Burton also downplayed the notion that Elizabeth Warren would be hard to confirm on the Hill, should she be the nominee.

“A lot of folks have opinions about Elizabeth Warren and other candidates,” Burton said Monday. “It’s the White House’s view that Elizabeth Warren would be confirmable.”

In effect, I reversed the priorities given in the Jake Tapper piece. (Kinda makes you think twice about the importance of the story. It did for me.)

What I think has honestly happened was that the Warren Commission was meeting anyway, so David and Valerie took a moment to feel her out on becoming head of the Consumer Protection Agency.

The time to get excited is when she meets with the President. That hasn't happened yet.

Again, I think she's the best choice. I would prefer it be her, though I have no idea of her capacities as an Administrator (a suitable No. 2 can be hired for that). With Christina Romer leaving the Council of Economic Advisers, there's a serious girl shortage on the Obama Econ team, and Prof. Warren would fill in that role nicely (or at the Fed).

Either way, Warren not getting this job is not the end of the freaking world. (Plus, she may want to go back to Harvard. Anyone consider that??)

It's all about the clicks...

I'm sorry, but here's further proof that all Huffington Post is interested in is getting you to click on a story so they can report that figure to their advertisers.

On the front page of the Huffington Post is this story:

Dennis Kucinich 2012?

Click to the Politics Page, you get this:

WATCH: Dennis Kucinich Won't Challenge Obama In 2012

Same website. Same news source. Same story.

Obama Tax Cuts vs. Bush Tax Cuts (VIDEO)

First, Beardy McIdiot:

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

Everyone I normally read (Erza, Greg) seems to be talking about this chart from the Washington Post's Graphics department, so I decided to follow along:

Just bear in mind that that biiiiiggg grey dot is more important than the Deficit (or your grandchildren), just ask retired Syracuse Mascot, John Boehner.

Time Magazine: "Petraeus Wants More Time"

To quote, Joe Klein: "Well, of course he does."

I'm still betting on what Jonathan Alter said.