The Fireside chat for October 23, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President hones in on the passage of Wall Street Reform over the ferocious lobbying of Wall Street banks as a pivotal moment in the last two years, and condemns Republicans in Congress for vowing to repeal it.



Count this among the many, many consequences for sitting on your hands and not voting this November.

According to Newsweek, we may just be fired up, and ready to go...

From Newsweek:

Despite doom-saying about Democrats’ chances in the midterms, the latest NEWSWEEK poll shows that they remain in a close race with Republicans 12 days before Election Day, while the president’s approval ratings have climbed sharply. The poll finds that 48 percent of registered voters would be more likely to vote for Democrats, compared to 42 percent who lean Republican (those numbers are similar to those in the last NEWSWEEK poll, which found Democrats favored 48 percent to 43 percent). President Obama’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September, while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK poll since February 2010. However, his approval rating, which is notably higher than many recent polls of the president’s popularity, may be evidence of a closing “enthusiasm gap” more than a sea change in voter attitudes, and may not substantially affect Democrats’ fortunes come Election Day. In 1994, NEWSWEEK polls showed a similar steep climb in President Clinton’s approval between late September and late October, but Democrats still suffered a rout in the midterms.

The United Kingdom goes full Anti-Keynes. And the British people freak out in 5-4-3-2...

Paul Krugman:

In the spring of 2010, fiscal austerity became fashionable. I use the term advisedly: the sudden consensus among Very Serious People that everyone must balance budgets now now now wasn’t based on any kind of careful analysis. It was more like a fad, something everyone professed to believe because that was what the in-crowd was saying.

And it’s a fad that has been fading lately, as evidence has accumulated that the lessons of the past remain relevant, that trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. Most notably, the confidence fairy has been exposed as a myth. There have been widespread claims that deficit-cutting actually reduces unemployment because it reassures consumers and businesses; but multiple studies of historical record, including one by the International Monetary Fund, have shown that this claim has no basis in reality.

No widespread fad ever passes, however, without leaving some fashion victims in its wake. In this case, the victims are the people of Britain, who have the misfortune to be ruled by a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.

Remember, I never argue with the Nobel Prize winner's numbers.

Unless of course, you're Andrew Sullivan, who's celebrating this as the rebirth of a geninue Thatcher-esque Conservatism:

Remember: Thatcher preceded Reagan. And Toryism can be radical if the circumstances are dire enough. So much for all that talk of Cameron's wetness. And remember also that this is a Coalition government, in which the Liberal Democrats have also placed their bets on fiscal retrenchment - and the Labour opposition is in great disarray.

Erza Klein:

Like Paul Krugman, I think Britain's decision to pair a sharp economic contraction that's outside its control with a sharp contraction in the part of the economy that's in its control (the public sector) will be a disaster. But it'll at least be an interesting experiment.

For one thing, it's a good test of whether austerity economics works amid a weak economy and low interest rates. Seems unlikely, and I think a lot of British people will suffer while the government tries to figure it out, but we'll know soon enough. But it'll also be interesting to see whether the fact that the government has a decisive plan creates some of the "confidence" that people are always saying we need.

What's gonna happen? We go back to Krugman for an overview:

Both the new British budget announced on Wednesday and the rhetoric that accompanied the announcement might have come straight from the desk of Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary who told President Herbert Hoover to fight the Depression by liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages. Or if you prefer more British precedents, it echoes the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried to restore confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis.

The British government’s plan is bold, say the pundits — and so it is. But it boldly goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would cut government employment by 490,000 workers — the equivalent of almost three million layoffs in the United States — at a time when the private sector is in no position to provide alternative employment. It would slash spending at a time when private demand isn’t at all ready to take up the slack.

Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there is no alternative.

Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.

David Cameron is no Tea-Bagger, by any stretch. He would be considered a liberal by that set. At the same time, he's doing a watered down version of what the Tea Party says it wants, and what its been Jedi-mind tricked into believing will spur the economy.

Still more information from Think Progress on just who's trying to buy our elections (VIDEO)

Lee Fang has some more stuff up about the unlimited flood of Corporate Money flooding into this Election:

The numbers below reflect a bare minimum, and in many cases these corporations have paid ten times the amount of their regular dues to the Chamber in the past two years:

Microsoft’s corporate disclosures state that the company paid the Chamber up to $999,999 in 2009 and up to $999,999 in 2010 in its minimum dues.

Proctor and Gamble paid the Chamber $3.2 million in 2009.

Outsourcing giant CSC, which specializes in IT outsourcing, paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in 2009 and $100,000 in 2010.

Intel paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in yearly dues ($100,000 in 2010, and what appears to be $100,000 in 2009).

Drug company Merck paid the Chamber $234,000 in 2008, and still counts itself as a dues-paying member of the Chamber.

Utility company Dominion Resources gave the Chamber $100,000 in 2009.

On the Chamber’s Egypt Business Council website, Apache Corporation, British American Tobacco, The Blackstone Group, The Boeing Company, Cargill USA, CitiGroup, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, Google, Microsoft Corporation, PepsiCo, Intel Corporation, Monsanto Company, Pfizer Inc, Philip Morris International combined committed an additional $375,000 to the Chamber for 2009-2010.

There is way more at Think Progress.

By the way, didn't Jon Stewart just talk about Coke vs. Pepsi in his Larry King Interview, and here they are donating large sums to the Chamber.

Second, about Citibank:

Earlier this year, U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue admitted to ThinkProgress that CitiGroup, a bailed out financial conglomerate that still has not paid back taxpayer TARP funds, is a dues-paying member of the Chamber. Many bailed out banks are in fact dues-paying members of the Chamber.

I may not smoke weed, but I certainly want it taxed! (VIDEO)

Believe it or not, I don't feel I have much of a dog in the fight over California Prop. 19. I don't much care to smoke pot, nor do I care about other folks wanting to smoking pot.

Still, I'm still going to vote in favor of Prop. 19, and my reasons can best be summed up in the new ad below:



All you have to do is watch HBO's Boardwalk Empire for a more expansive reason as to what prohibition just doesn't work.

Another great catch by Andrew Sullivan.

President Obama's Backyard Discussion on Women and the Economy (IVDEO)

President Obama holds a discussion on ensuring economic stability and opportunity for women in the backyard of the Foss family in Seattle, WA. October 21, 2010.



Highlighting a portion of his talk, that was aimed right at the Tea Party:

I think people have a legitimate concern, a legitimate worry, as to what are we doing to start -- now that we’re out of the immediate crisis but we’re only experiencing sluggish job growth at this point and sluggish economic growth -- how do we get back to a point where we’re living within our means? That’s an entirely legitimate concern. It’s a concern that I have. And we’re going to have to have a serious debate over the next several years about how to do it.

The problem I have with the argument the way it’s playing out right now in the country is that there’s a suggestion on the other side that somehow the problem with our debt and our deficits all arose magically the minute I took office, whereas in fact when I arrived at the White House I was inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit. We had taken record surpluses last time there was a Democratic President, and over the course of a decade moved to record deficits.

The big problems we have in terms of debt and deficits have to do with structural gaps between the amount of money we’re taking in and the amount of money we’re spending. And if we’re going to get serious about the deficit, then we’re going to have to look at everything: entitlements, defense spending, revenues. How do all those things fit together so that we can have a sustainable budget that invests in the things that we absolutely need for our long-term future, and we stop funding some things that are nice to have but we can’t afford.

And that’s going to be a tough conversation -- which is -- it’s interesting now when you listen to the Republicans talk about out-of-control government spending, and then you ask them, well, what would you cut, and there’s this deafening silence. And they’ll say things like, well, we’ll roll back health care -- except it turns out that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care bill is actually going to reduce our deficit by over a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. So that would add to the deficit.

Then they’ll say, well, we’ll pull back the unused portion of the stimulus. Well, first of all, that’s -- most of it has already been spent and a big chunk of what hasn’t been spent are actually tax cuts, which they say they’re for.

And then they’ll say, well, we’ll roll back spending back to 2008 levels, without being clear that that would mean, for example, a 20 percent cut in education spending.

So one of the things that I think as voters everybody here should be doing is constantly asking people, when you say you want to get the budget under control, what exactly do you mean? What exactly are you going to do? And if they can’t answer the question then it means they’re not serious about it.

Finally, on a lighter note, the President gave his autograph on an iPad...

Courtesy Gizmodo.

A brothah' did this too. Good for him.

I don't know what the app is he chose to use, but there are a lot of finger-drawing apps on the iPad. The results are here:

CNN: FBI says Powder in package sent to Arizona congressman is 'nontoxic' (VIDEO)

Coming off Keith's breaking news last night, I'd say a lot of us were worried.



Well, apparently it wasn't so "confirmed", this according to CNN:

The suspicious powder inside a swastika-adorned package sent to an Arizona congressman is "nontoxic," an FBI spokesman said Friday.

Staffers checking mail in the Tucson, Arizona, office of U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva on Thursday found a white, powdery substance and drawings of two swastikas inside an envelope, Grijalva campaign spokesman Adam Sarvana told CNN.

Almost a dozen people were in the office when the incident happened around 12:30 p.m. Thursday (3:30 p.m. ET), he said. All of them were checked on-scene by local authorities and sent home.

Scientists at an FBI laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, conducted a full analysis of the substance, according to Sarvana. Those tests came back negative midday Friday, according to FBI Special Agent Manuel Johnson.

Johnson said the FBI would have no further comments, as "the investigation is ongoing."

The incident was the third security issue at Grijalva's district offices this year, Sarvana said.

Even though he's a fellow Liberal, I'm not the biggest Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) fan in the world (He was in the "Bill Killer" caucus for a time). Still, I want him safe, alive and in the Congress to keep on aruging with.

But we know who did this, and we know what they'll tolerate.

So, I'm guessing the President won't be one of the special guests at the Rally To Restore Sanity

According to the L.A. Times:

President Obama will return to Chicago for a Democratic rally at the end of this month, a source familiar with the plans said Thursday.

The Oct. 30 event will be hosted by the Democratic National Committee to benefit candidates nationwide.

The rally comes as part of the president's final push on behalf of fellow Democrats as they battle to keep their majorities in Congress. It also coincides with the last days of a competitive Illinois governor's race, though the DNC has not named the candidates who will participate on stage with the president.

Same day as the Rally To Restore Sanity.

Oh well.

Probably works out for the best, if he'd been there, the Security would've been a pain in the ass for the attendees. Plus, Jon said in his interview with Larry King, this wasn't a Political rally anyway.

Keith Olbermann's complete in-studio Interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (VIDEO)

One-stop shopping for all your Pelosi interview needs.

Part 1:




Part 2:

And now the New York Times is looking at who is buying this election (VIDEO)

From yesterday's New York Times:

Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kicked off a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations.

Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.

And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending. These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret, as it is allowed by law — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s Congressional elections.

They suggest that the recent allegations from President Obama and others that foreign money has ended up in the chamber’s coffers miss a larger point: The chamber has had little trouble finding American companies eager to enlist it, anonymously, to fight their political battles and pay handsomely for its help.

And these contributions, some of which can be pieced together through tax filings of corporate foundations and other public records, also show how the chamber has increasingly relied on a relatively small collection of big corporate donors to finance much of its legislative and political agenda. The chamber makes no apologies for its policy of not identifying its donors. It has vigorously opposed legislation in Congress that would require groups like it to identify their biggest contributors when they spend money on campaign ads.

Andrew Sullivan's poignant reaction to President Obama's "It Gets Better" Video #DADT

Sorry Andrew. Your piece was so well done, I couldn't resist putting up the whole thing.

Dan Savage should be beaming with pride about what he started. Here is the president of the United States reaching out to gay kids being bullied in their teenage years.

It's beautifully crafted and gently put. I think it's the first time in history that a US president has spoken directly to gay Americans in support from the White House. Which makes it a milestone.

It comes the same day that the procedure for expelling openly gay servicemembers solely for being gay has been made the responsibility of only five senior figures in the military, so that abuses do not occur, that the discharges can get rarer and rarer, that some of the country's servicemembers do not need to live in constant fear as they risk their lives to defend us:

In a memorandum dated Oct. 21, Mr. Gates said that “until further notice,” only five senior Defense Department officials, all civilians, would have the authority to expel openly gay service members. As the memo explained it, the relevant service secretary — either the Secretary of the Army, Navy or Air Force — has to consult with the Pentagon’s legal counsel, Jeh C. Johnson, and the undersecretary for personnel, Clifford L. Stanley, before the three can make a group decision on whether a gay service member should be forced out of the military. Until Thursday the decision was in the hands of a far larger number of less senior military and civilian officials.

I have been very critical of this administration for its slow and cautious approach to gay civil rights. That is not because I believe they are somehow not in favor of such rights, but because I feel strongly about our dignity and equality, and have always used whatever mouthpiece I have to make the case. But I have to say that this gesture from Obama and the practical reform within the military are important steps forward. The ban still needs to end.

But this is a real step in the right direction, and many of us are deeply encouraged by it.

I missed the story on how much DADT has been changed in light of the Court Ruling and subsequent appeal. I'll try to get something up on it, soon.

I've had my issues with the GLBT Community over the last two years, and every time I read something like this I start to feel better, that tensions whether they're between the White House and the GLBT Community, or between African-Americans and the GLBT Community might start to simmer down.

I agree that the ban needs to end.  At the same time, the Gay Community needs to understand that DADT is Law, and cannot simply be struck aside with the stroke of a pen.

A Conversation with President Obama on MTV

On a side note, the MaddowBlog had this to say:

Americans who care about the rights of sexual minorities have plenty of reasons to be frustrated and even angry with President Obama and his administration. Still, I'm trying to think of another American president who could have given this talk -- and it is a talk, not a speech. This is a president, a father, talking to kids the same age as his daughters. President Lincoln in the YouTube age? President Clinton, plus 15 years? In a time when progress feels painfully slow, this counts.

I think its safe to say that the GLBT Community is pissed about there being slow progress, but at least feels represented today.

The Tea Party not only advocates Racism, but (if necessary) Armed Insurrection

...and will use the occasional black person to do it.

First, the meat of the story from TPM:

Stephen Broden, a Republican running for Congress in Texas' 30th District, said he would not rule out a violent overthrow of the government if the midterm elections don't cause a change in government, saying that "our nation was founded on violence" so "the option is on the table."

According to the Dallas Morning News, Broden said in a TV interview yesterday: "We have a constitutional remedy here and the Framers says if that don't work, revolution."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," he continued.

And yes, I'm well aware this man making these seditious statements is an allegedly fellow black man, he is not the only one.  So let me quote myself...for the third time:

Just because this Terrorist (let's call him what he is) is black doesn't mean that it this isn't about race. It still is. He may think he's giving this Domestic Terrorist organization racial cover, but these guys didn't feel the need to bring out their gats when the last few white guys were in charge at the Oval Office.

This is about a few Terrorist Douchebags responding to the worst stereotypes of African-American men, and resorting to threats of violence when they don't get their political way.

I said that back in August...of 2009!

This from the TPM Story about the guy who brought a gun to an Obama appearance in Arizona. And what was his quote?

"We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what you want. It only matters what we (Republicans and Teabaggers) want. You (Liberals and Democrats) don't have a right to Govern, even if elected by a majority.  That is the Tea Party Philosophy in a nutshell.

Expect more on this on Countdown tonight, but in the meantime, Keith Olbermann's Daily Kos diary has this:

Now, you and I would expect that some kind of parallel comment from a Democrat or Progressive (if any such call to sedition is imaginable) would inspire a conversation in which the local head of the Party would be suggesting the candidate leave the country, or at least epoxy his own lips together.

Why am I thinking Mr. Neerman will settle for a quick "I apologize if you were offended by my suggestion that Republicans should violently overthrow the government, Vote Broden November 2"?

Here is the repudiation from the Tea Party:

Ken Emanuelson, a Broden supporter and leading tea party organizer in Dallas, said he did not disagree with the “philosophical point” that people had the right to resist a tyrannical government. But, he said, “Do I see our government today anywhere close to that point? No, I don’t.”

Emanuelson goes on to suggest that Broden's willingness to run for office instead of, say, try to shoot government officials or try to seize Fort Sumter or something, shows he's not really serious about this insurrection stuff.

Not excited about November 2? Feeling a little let down by the last 21 months-plus? Not really committed to getting one more Democrat to the polls for the mid-terms? Take a number. But as The Right Reverend Treason of the Texas 30th proves, this is no longer about timid Dems or unheard Progressives. This now boils down to keeping the nutjobs out of office.

The Conservatives newest "cat-toy": NPR

At the end of the day, I could live with Juan Williams' firing by NPR. If everyone else is getting fired for saying racist stuff (Rick Sanchez, Dr. Laura, Don Imus...somehow not Brian Kilmeade), then why shouldn't Juan Williams?

Oh, that's right. Bashing Muslims is okay in this country. How silly of me.

Anyway, we have this little nugget from Josh Silver of FreePress.net:

The reactionaries of the far-right are clawing and scratching at their latest red meat: National Public Radio's decision to fire Juan Williams for comments he made about Muslims on Fox News Channel.

It's hard to work up too much sympathy for Williams -- a once esteemed journalist who has repeatedly embarrassed himself in recent years as a soloist in Bill O'Reilly's amen chorus. He was warned multiple times by NPR about providing commentary on Fox News that violated his employment contract. And his reward for the noxious comments that cost him one job was a new $2 million contract from Fox, announced Thursday.

But that hasn't stopped Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Malkin, Andrew Breitbart and, of course, O'Reilly from seizing on this contretemps to resuscitate a long-standing right-wing pipe dream: to gut NPR's federal funding altogether. And like clockwork, after a day of increasingly frenzied rhetoric from the usual suspects, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint announced he will introduce legislation on Friday to do just that.

Adam Serwer (posting at Greg Sargent's Plumline) had this:

For his part, Thinkprogress editor Faiz Shakir told me this morning that he wouldn't have fired Williams, and that the purpose of the original post was to "highlight a comment that was incorrect for a larger audience so that we all can better understand why that comment doesn't help us move in the direction of the kind of society we want to live in."

Since Williams was let go, conservatives have been calling for NPR to be "defunded" over the incident, with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner suggesting a "left wing radio network" shouldn't be receiving public funds. Sarah Palin has returned to her bizarre understanding of the First Amendment, which is that people who share her views have a right to be paid for them. I suspect part of the reason conservatives are upset is that they're not used to seeing a news organization react with such outright panic to transient public outrage from the left the way the media usually reacts to heat from the right. Few on the right thought CNN's hasty decision to let go of Octavia Nasr was a threat to freedom. Williams himself seems to think his own firing is the kind of thing that leads to Soviet-style forced labor camps, which is the kind of reasoning that really is more at home on Fox News.

However poorly NPR handled the Williams incident, the notion that NPR is "left wing" is ridiculous. Williams' presence on the network is emblematic of the network's milquetoast approach to political analysis. The reason Williams was let go wasn't because of the all powerful left, but because NPR is so concerned with the perception of bias that it didn't want one of its analysts associated with a network that works as a staging ground for Republican presidential hopefuls. NPR's commitment to a contrived form of journalistic objectivity may be counterproductive from the point of view of informing its audience, but there's no question that even prior to this incident Williams' appearances on FOX went against NPR's code of ethics, which advises employees to "not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist."

And now the President joins into the "It gets better" campaign (VIDEO)

Still more.

In Florida, Canadians and Western Europeans will be presumed to be here legally, and not required to document it.

How many times do I have to say it?  For the GOP, its completely about race.

Florida is one of at least 20 states designing an immigration bill similar to Arizona’s SB-1070, which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they think might be in the country illegally. State Rep. William Snyder (R) introduced the legislation in August, and Rick Scott, the Tea Party-backed Republican candidate for governor, favors such a bill.

Snyder has denied criticisms that such legislation could be used to discriminate against Latinos, saying in a recent radio interview that “race, ethnicity, and national origin cannot be used in making arrests. It’s immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional.” However, the bill he introduced does appear to do just that — it exempts all Canadian and Western Europeans from extensive scrutiny. The exception, first reported by the Miami New Times, says a person will be “presumed to be legally in the United States” if he or she provides “a Canadian passport” or a passport from any “visa waiver country.” Four Asian nations and all 32 Western European countries make up the visa waiver list.

So under the proposed law, Canadians and Western Europeans will simply be presumed to be here legally, and they are not required to document it. “That language makes it clear that police are targeting only a specific minority,” Susana Barciela, policy director at the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, told the New Times.

Lawrence O'Donnell balances the Federal Budget...

...for Esquire Magazine.

Esquire magazine called on Senators Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, John Danforth, Bob Packwood and our very own host with the most Lawrence O'Donnell to balance the federal budget by 2020. (Yes, before his days moonlighting on cable TV, Lawrence worked as a Senate aide for Daniel Patrick Moynihan). They all came in to this project with a range of political beliefs and party affiliations.

For three long days in August, the guys toiled away in one conference room, hammering out solutions to one of the biggest problems facing our country today. There were raised voices and many disagreements. But, the guys powered through. They managed to balance the budget, add a surplus of $12 billion, reform Social Security and its longevity and maintain current tax rates for a decade.

Isn't it amazing what happens when you don't have to run for anything?

The article is here.

Joel Burns: He who saves one life, saves the world entire (VIDEO)

This is how lame I am. I'm just discovering this now.

It's not just Joel Burns, and it's not just the Secretary of State, there's a whole YouTube channel of these stories, all dedicated to helping young Gays survive and thrive.

He who saves one life, saves the world entire.

It's hard to believe Mr. Burns' brave speech hasn't done a lot more than that.

Former Alaska Judge Joe Miller is going to get someone Court-Martialed...

You'd figure that a former Judge would've known better that...I don't know...arresting a Journalist with your own private Security force, yet...here he is doing just that.

But I had to have private Security force. The School I hired out made me.

Well...

Was Joe Miller required to bring a security detail to his town hall meeting Sunday at Central Middle School in Alaska?

That's what Miller, the Republican Senate candidate, told two national cable news networks Monday in the wake of the arrest by his security squad of an online journalist at his public event.

But the school district said there was no such requirement made of Miller -- he only had to provide a hall and parking lot monitor, and advise participants of school district courtesy and food rules.

So that's one bald-faced lie.  He needed a teenager with maybe a flashlight.  Instead, he used a bunch of Active-Duty Soldiers to rough up a journalist.

And there's even a major problem with that:

Meanwhile, the Army says that two of the guards who assisted in the arrest of the journalist and who tried to prevent two other reporters from filming the detention were active-duty soldiers moonlighting for Miller's security contractor, the Drop Zone, a Spenard surplus store and protection service.

The soldiers, Spc. Tyler Ellingboe, 22, and Sgt. Alexander Valdez, 31, are assigned to the 3rd Maneuver Enhancement Brigade at Fort Richardson. Maj. Bill Coppernoll, the public affairs officer for the Army in Alaska, said the two soldiers did not have permission from their current chain of command to work for the Drop Zone, but the Army was still researching whether previous company or brigade commanders authorized their employment.

The Army allows off-duty soldiers to take outside employment if the job doesn't interfere with their readiness, doesn't risk their own injury and doesn't negatively affect the "good order" and discipline of their unit, Coppernoll said.

"They've got to be up front with the chain of command," Coppernoll said. "The chain of command needs to agree they can do that without affecting the readiness and the whole slew of things that are part of being a soldier that they need to do first."

Miller's chief guard at the Middle School event, Drop Zone owner William Fulton, said it wasn't his job to ensure soldiers complied with the regulations, though he said he informs them of their duty.

"They're adults -- they are responsible for themselves," Fulton said.

The fact that they were employed isn't the only problem, the fact that their employment involved them in a Political campaign, is what's going to get them into real trouble.

TPM: So who are you going to believe, the Mainstream Media asks, us or your lying eyes?

I'm flashing back to 2008, where every single news outlet was telling me that Hillary was winning the election, and my eyes were telling me that Barack Obama was winning.

Nowadays, the same Media is telling us how much the Corporate Money scandal doesn't matter to voters when the polling shows it obviously does.

Josh Marshall over at TPM posts this question from Alan Abramowitz about the modeling for the Gallup Generic ballot:

But that's not the most implausible result in the latest Gallup likely voter survey. Among nonwhites other than blacks, a group that comprises about 13% of likely voters, a generic Republican is leading a generic Democrat by 10 points, 52% to 42%. That's a group that voted Democratic by a 2-1 margin in the 2006 midterm election. Moreover, it's a group that has never given a majority of its vote to Republican candidates for Congress in any election since the advent of exit polling. According to the 2006 exit poll results, about two-thirds of these "other nonwhite" voters are Latinos. How plausible is it that at a time when the Republican Party is closely associated with stridently anti-immigrant policies that Latino voters are moving in droves toward Republican candidates? Not plausible at all, especially when Gallup's results are directly contradicted by other recent polls of Latino voters.