The Fireside Chat for February 5th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President discusses the labs at Penn State as an example of how American innovation, particularly in infrastructure and energy, can create jobs and win the future for America.

Desperate to change the subject after that last post...

I'm posting this not because it has anything to do with anything (other than being a damn good Super Bowl ad for Sunday...and featuring Star Wars), but I wanted to wash the taste out of my mouth from that last video I posted. Euugh.

KFC China, your new commercial was an INCREDIBLY BAD idea... (VIDEO)

Watch it while you can, and don't be surprised if its yanked...and soon.



Lord have mercy.

Was anyone else offended? I was.

Forget the old stereotypes of black men and fried chicken (that was chicken, right? My Mandarin is rusty). But crushing him with it, and having the crowd cheer? Tone deaf much?

Winning the Future with Clean Energy (VIDEO)

President Obama travels to Penn State University and speaks about encouraging and investing in innovation and clean energy technologies to create new jobs, grow the economy, and win the future.

The President's Address at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2011 (VIDEO)

Speech heavy day today:

The Bonddad makes it plain! The Economy Has Turned the Corner.

We talk about the Economy a lot on this blog.  Of course, the mission of Fort McHenryis Political, but I doubt you'll find much argument that the Economy isn't important to the President's re-election prospects. So when it comes to getting plain-english Econ-talk (backed by statistical facts), you gotta go to the Bonddad.

And boy, did he lay it out today!:

Let's start with top line economic growth. The economy has now printed six quarters of GDP growth. Simply put, economies grow in an expansion, not a contraction.

Next, let's turn to retail sales. The Christmas season was the best in several years. More importantly, consumer spending is now at levels higher than the previous expansion, and retail sales have been printing some strong numbers for the last several months. The data indicates the consumer has returned and with thesavings rate fluctuating between 5%-6%, there is plenty of ammo to keep spending.

Next, look at manufacturing, which the recent Beige Book also indicates is doing well. However, we've had two great data prints this week -- the first from Chicagoand the second from the ISM -- indicating that manufacturing is on track -- in fact, more than "on track;" on fire. A cheaper dollar and strong overseas growth should help manufacturing to keep the momentum up.

Services are also in decent shape, although not as good as manufacturing. This does not mean they are in a recession, but it does mean that on a scale of 1 to 10, they're probably 6.5; they're in OK shape, but also appear to be turning the corner. However, with an expanding economy, this sector should continue improving. (UPDATE: The latest ISM was strong as well, printing a stronger number).

Employment also finally seems to be improving. While weekly initial claims have jumped around for the last month, the problems have been administrative, but fundamental. The last two ADP reports have been good and while the BLS data has been weaker, NDD has correctly noted the data has been positive for some time and all the revisions have been positive.

Housing is still a basket case and will continue to be for for some, largely because of a massive inventory overhang. But if that hasn't killed the recovery yet, then it probably won't.

In short, the data (I know, those pesky facts again) indicate the economy has expanded for over a year and most of the underlying components are improving. There has been enough data over a long enough period of time to indicate we're turned the corner.

White House White Board: Austan Goolsbee on Startup America (VIDEO)

This'll show you how much Egypt has sucked the air out of the room. I almost missed this!

President Obama's statement on the Transition in Egypt (VIDEO)

Rich Guys have somehow Jedi-Mindtricked themselves into believing that the First Amendment protects them from criticism.

First off, you don't have to be a football fan to enjoy (or understand) the following story:

If you root for the Washington Redskins, as I do, odds are you loathe Redskins Owner Daniel Synder. Mr. Sydner is a Maryland Grad, a brilliant owner, and one of the worst Owners in Pro Sports. He has managed to improve the Redskins balance sheets while simultaneously guaranteeing q burgundy and gold slump towards mediocrity. (4-12 in 2009, 6-10 in 2010).

Needless to say, the Press has noticed Mr. Synder's inept management of the team and one of them wrote a rather harsh (but funny as hell) article on the history of Synder's terrible, horrible management history. It was called: The Cranky Redskin Fan's Guide to Dan Synder.

Needless to say, Danny didn't like it.

Few of us like criticism (few meaning everyone planet-wide). It would be one thing for Danny to shake his fist angrily at the Washington City paper, or release a statement trashing the paper and the article for...well, whatever reason they saw fit.

But of course, that's not what Danny's doing.

What's Danny doing? He's trying to get the writer of the article fired.

With that we can now tie this Football story into a story worthy of a Political blog.

This isn't the first time Danny's done something like this. As the Skins were imploding in 2009, and the 'Skins fans were letting him have it in every manner possible, he banned signs in Fedex Field.

This seems to be the first tact of the those in power. We saw it in Egypt. We see it in China every day. The first idea that pops into the heads of those in power, when faced with criticism, don't address it, squelch it.

Now, let me not make the Steve Cohen mistake. I am examining an idea, an impulse in the human conditition. While on a really bad Sunday where we're losing to the woeful Detroit Lions, one might be cranky enough to compare Danny Synder to a totalitarian dictator, the comparison isn't really apt.

Danny Synder is an @$$hole. He's a bad businessman. He sucks at what he does, but he's not Murbarak, by any measure or stretch of the imagination.

So let's go back to the idea. Why is the first impluse to squelch dissent? Why do the powerful not only do it, but defend the practise as though it was a natural human right.

I would accept it's a natural human impulse. We're all human, and don't like it too much when criticism is hurled our way, no matter how mild it is. The first impulse is to shut it off. For you or me, that means turning away, walking away, pretending it never happened. While these actions may not be helpful in the long run, they are natural impulses.

But the rich and powerful are in a different position than the rest of us. They not only can turn away from such criticism of their wonderful selves (normal), but they have the ability to make sure no one else hears it either. And now we're into creepy territory.

And worse, as I have said, the rich and powerful tend to confuse their rights as a political authority or their rights as a property owner or business owner...with what is right.

It takes a brave person with a stout heart to turn and face criticism. It takes character. One of the things we're going to have to ask in the future is that people in power and authority have more than a little, and not just claim that they do.

Signs you've been in the Senate too long (a not-too-fond farewell to Orrin Hatch)

Courtesy Ezra.

It's not like I ever liked Hatch to begin with, but he is an arrogant bastard. And while it's very likely we wind up with someone like Mike Lee as his replacement, let it be said, Hatch is going down in 2012, and I won't shed any tears:

Perhaps the most telling moment came when Utah's Orrin Hatch scolded Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor who served as Ronald Reagan's solicitor general and considers the mandate easily constitutional, for the quality of his arguments.

The primary flaw Hatch pointed out in Fried's thinking was that, well, Hatch disagreed with it. Despite his preexisting respect for the quality of Fried's legal thinking, the fact that Fried's position differed from Hatch's had left Hatch "shocked" at Fried, not more skeptical of his own thinking. Motivated skepticism in action, I guess.

The Affordable Care Act represents the last time Liberals will compromise on Health Care Reform

Conservatives...be damn careful what you wish for.  Because this ruling, also makes unconstitutional one of your preferred fantasies.

Ummm, what other thing would you like the Government to make us all go out and buy?

Would it be Stocks and Bonds...with your Social Security money, a scheme known as Privatization?

If you can't stomach the idea of being made to buy Health Insurance, how can you then justify making us all go out and buy stocks and bocks with our Social Security Insurance?

And you do realize that the Affordable Care Act represents something else, don't you?

It's the last compromise.

Yeah, because if you trash this, if you make this law invalid, we Democrats will be left with only one choice when it comes to reforming Health Care...that'd would be something we love, and you hate called: Medicare for all.

Yeah, Single...payer.

Not the Public Option.  Not Medicare at 55, Medicare...for...all.

Game on, fellas.

The next big and dangerous lie about Health Care Reform...

You watch it. What's going to happen is that the 26 Attorneys General who sued the Adminstration over Health Care Reform are going to seize upon Judge Vinson's ruling that the Law is unconstitutional, and start saying: "How dare the President enforce his unconstitutional law."

One problem.

Judge Vinson called the Law unconstitutional...sure.

He neglected...for some reason...to put a stay on it.

That's right, for all the hubbub and hoopla over this ruling, the Judge in the matter neglected stop it from being enforced. Mostly likely because he knew it wouldn't stand up in Court for more than a nanosecond.

Still, that won't stop a lot of Conservative douchebags and liars out there from proclaiming that the Law is unconstitutional. (Uhh, you've got two Judges saying it is, I got two Judges saying it is -- meet you at Anthony Kennedy's desk in a little over a year).

Once again, the Rhetoric around Health Care Repeal will escalate to dangerous proportions, because in their zeal to make their argument (which will be that the President is doing dangerous and unconstitutional things), we continue down the road that led to Congresswoman's shooting, only this time the the consequences might be far, far more tragic.

Do we even know what the Muslim Brotherhood is? (VIDEO)

Seems to me that a great deal of the commentary about the possible future of Egypt rests on a definition of the Muslim Brotherhood that may not be entirely valid.

That's not to say that they're not bad news, they are.  But co-flating The Brotherhood with Al-Qaeda (as a lot of Righties are doing) is not valid (apparently, they hate each other).



Should the Brotherhood get into power Will they be more radical than Murbarak? Yes.

Will they institute Sharia Law? They'll try.

Will they try to walk away from the 1979 Peace Agreement with Israel? Again, they'll try...they might even succeed as Israel is real unpopular in Egypt.

Will they wage War on Israel? Only if they really, really, really want to get their asses kicked by the Israeli Military and have their stay in power only be a few short months. (If the Protests are about a lack of food and jobs, how does attacking Israel, or sparking an attack from Israel help on either of these fronts?) My bet is they shake their fists real, real hard, but stop short of anything provocative, like sending aid directly into Gaza.

Will they attack America? See the Israel answer above, and multiply times fifty.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Mubarak Mu Problems - Samer Shehata
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

Once again, WHY AM I GETTING BETTER INFORMATION ON COLBERT OR THE DAILY SHOW than I am from the News Media?

The slightly out of place (on reflection) Fireside Chat for January 29, 2011 (VIDEO)

By the way, this was done the Wednesday before in Wisconsin, before all hell broke loose in Egypt:



The President discusses his visit to a company in Manitowoc, Wisconsin and how it exemplified his agenda for America to “win the future” spelled out in the State of the Union Address.

The YouTube Interview with President Obama (VIDEO)

Your questions (well, a good handful, not all 300 million Americans) answered by the President.

The President's speech at Families USA (VIDEO)

Egypt is certainly on the minds of friends and loved ones around the world. It is most certainly the most important news story out there right now.

But the fight goes on...still.



From the Hill:

In his most vigorous defense of the healthcare law since Republicans took control of the House, Obama fired back Friday at GOP claims that the law deprives essential care for seniors and balloons the deficit.

“You may have heard once or twice this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity,” Obama said to pro-reform advocates at the Families USA annual conference in Washington. “That just doesn’t match up to the reality.”

Obama’s fired-up rhetoric comes just days after the president offered a more muted defense of the healthcare reform law in the State of the Union address.

The president was firm Friday and used the home-field advantage of a pro-healthcare reform crowd to bolster his defense of the law, which House Republicans voted to repeal only a week ago.

Obama fought back against GOP claims that the bill won’t reduce healthcare costs and would hurt the nation’s seniors while expanding the deficit.

With House Republicans using committee hearings this week to pose the reform law as bad for business, Obama touched on a report from a large business advocacy group that said the law would reduce premiums for workers.

“That’s money that business can use to grow to invest or hire. … That’s money workers won’t have to see vanish from paychecks or bonuses. That’s good for all of us,” he said.

“And I can report that granny is safe,” he added, hitting back at GOP claims that the administration wants to ration expensive care for the elderly.

Steve Benen:

As a rule, consultants tell officials not to repeat the wording of a rhetorical attack, because it only helps lend credence to the criticism, but I'm glad Obama put it this way this morning. The president is, in effect, openly mocking Republicans for transparently ridiculous talking points that are fundamentally dishonest.

And since they deserve to be mocked, this was an entirely appropriate line to take. Instead of getting angry, there's something to be said for a "can you believe these guys?" kind of approach.

President Obama's statement on Egypt (VIDEO)

Ezra. Ever more pessimistic.

I couldn't find a place to snip and cut "Did the Senate just lose the future?" without losing its meaning (a testament to the writer). the last sentence was the killer for me:

The pity of the deal that Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell struck on rules reform is that this was a really good moment for Senate reform. The usual danger with this kind of project is that it'll end up being a power grab directed at passing some discrete pieces of legislation, as when Bill Frist tried to free judicial nominees from the filibuster, rather than an overhaul dedicated to making the institution work better. But with one party controlling the House and another controlling the Senate, there was no way that a more majoritarian Senate could start ramming all sorts of legislation into law. For the next two years -- and probably some time after that -- Barack Obama will not sign anything that John Boehner hasn't already approved. Both Republicans and Democrats had the luxury of contemplating the Senate's workings without giving either party a major advantage in passing new legislation.

Instead, the Senate decided that its current procedures are good enough. There's something slightly terrifying about that. Accepting a dysfunctional legislature is, as James Fallows and others have argued, one way to lose the future. Our problems -- debt, health-care costs, infrastructure, education, etc. -- are on autopilot. Our solutions are not. Obama can give as many speeches as he wants. If we don't have a political system capable of acting on our challenges, we don't have a political system capable of overcoming them.

I've never been a huge fan of 'the constitutional option. My oft-expressed preference was for both parties to recognize that the Senate is broken and requires fairly fundamental reforms. One way to do that would be to phase in the reforms over six years, ensuring that no one knew who would benefit from the more majoritarian institution first. Another would've been to do it now, when divided government would undermine any advantage that Democrats might gain from the new rules, and thus might have given both parties space to participate in the process with more of a long-range perspective.

Instead, both parties decided to back off. There were hard decisions to be made, and they agreed not to make them. They chose the parochial comforts of what they were used to, and what would advantage each of them personally, to the discomfort and sacrifice that creating a more workable legislative process would require.

When I speak publicly, I always get variants of the same question: We've got so many problems to solve. Can we solve them? And the answer I always give is the same: Yes. in most cases, we already know what to do. The question is simply whether we'll do it. And I'm a lot less confident about that.

As much as I personally at "the Club" (aka the Senate) I understand the Founder's intentions. The House is and remains the House of the people, where their passions are recognized, and Legislation passed in accordance with those passions.

Problem is the people are flakes. They tent to jerk the Country too hard one way or the other, and the consequences of such flakiness can be rather dramatic.  WE WANT HEALTH CARE!!!  JUST NOT FOR THOSE PEOPLE!!  WE WANT GOVERNMENT SERVICES!!  JUST DON'T TAX US FOR IT!!!  And of course KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!!!

 Thus, we have the Senate, the saucer that cools (or kills) the drink. It's function is to prevent the leftward-rightward shifts the people want to put the country through are milder, less severe.

Get me a better quality person...and I'll get you a better Senate.

In the end, Ezra notes that we're more worried about what we'll lose rather than what we'll gain, and the Senate is no different.

So why did Senate Democrats agree, in principle, that simple majorities can't change the Senate's rules, and even exceedingly modest changes to the filibuster are out-of-bounds? Easy: They're a simple majority now, but someday soon, they'll be a simple minority. When that happens, they want to be able to mount constant filibusters as well.

To borrow David Brooks's schtick for a minute, there's an easy behavioral explanation for this preference: Loss aversion. Study after study shows that human beings fear the consequences of loss much more than they value the benefits of gains. And so too in the Senate, where the two parties think about the rules in terms of "what happens when I lose" rather than "what happens when I win?"

But if you really think you've got a great agenda and that the voters would agree, that would imply a fantastic upside to rules that allow you to make good on your campaign promises: Either the American people would get to judge you on all the great stuff you want to do, as opposed to all the great stuff you got stopped from doing, or they'd get to judge the other party on all the awful stuff they did, and which you could then reverse with a simple majority vote. That's a coherent theory of the way accountability encourages good ideas and wise governance in American politics. A world in which you can't enact your ideas or govern effectively and so the voters end up thinking you as feckless as the folks across the aisle isn't. That's a world in which the rules of the Senate, and not the policies of the parties, drive outcomes, and thus drive elections. That's a world where voters never know whose ideas are best because neither side can ever enact their agendas. But that's the world the Senate apparently prefers to inhabit.

The point about the Democrats soon (possibly) being in the minority is a point I made yesterday. The only problem I have with this analysis is one of simple human psychology and mathematics.

We're human beings living in the world, living with other human beings. Most of the time, we as individuals we want things (events, items, etc.) and most times, we don't get them (i.e., we don't "win"). And the same time, we tend to forget that other individuals want things as well, and they're not getting them either. You put the two of them in collision and you get a great big stew of people not getting what they want colliding into other people not getting what they want...

...yet somehow we all muddle through.

Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains. Think about that. (--Nuke LaLoosh)

Ezra made it sound like these results are not normal, when they're anything but.

It's also called Democracy.

In the end, Senate Reform for me, isn't about making better rules. The rules are fine. It's the Senators willingness to game them that has broken the system down. It doesn't take a genius to filibuster something, but it does take a particular corruption of the soul to abuse the filibuster the way it has been abused, to use it more times than at any point in History.

One type of person says: Hey, we lost the election. There are more of them than there are of us. These guys what Health Care Reform. Let's see which of our ideas we can get in there to make it more palatable for our side.

The other type of person says: So what if we lost the election. I don't care if there are more of them than there are of us. They don't get their way, period. Let's burn Health Care Reform down, even if we have to take the whole country with us!

Who do you think we've had to deal with in the Senate these last two years?

Get me a better quality of person in the Senate (and I'm not just talking replacing only Conservatives or Republicans believe it or not), get me people more interested in the country than in ideology (...or the club), and I'll get you a better Senate.

I'm sure Professor Dad has a better, more elegant, and mathematical explanation for all this.

Where a Liberal (that'd be me) argues that losing the Filibuster would have been bad, bad, bad...

Ezra banged out this little 'graph, with a twinge of disappointment in his writer's voice:

A few moments ago, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell took to the floor of the Senate to announce a five-point agreement on rules reform. But the five-points weren't, well, the point. The real agreement was on the process by which rules can be reformed.

"As part of this compromise," Reid said, "we've agreed that I won't force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate -- that is the so-called ‘constitutional option’ -- and he [McConnell] won't in the future." In other words, Reid and McConnell have agreed that the Senate's rules cannot -- or at least should not -- be decided by a simple majority. That was what the constitutional option was about, and that's what Reid explicitly rejected in his speech. Why? "Both McConnell and Reid feared what would happen if they were in the minority," explains a Reid aide.

Okay, the big, big thing is the fact that Give 'Em Hell Harry got McConnell to agree to not hold a similar filibuster vote in the future. Why?  Because given the number of Democratic Senate Seats up for grabs in the 2012 election, its quite possible that we're going to lose the Senate as we're re-electing Barack Obama (yes, I'm still way confident that's going to happen). Should we lose the Senate (the number of Democratic Seats up outweighs Teabaggers by 2 to 1) you, me and every other Liberal out there is going to fall so in love with the Filibuster, it's gonna make your head spin like Linda Blair.

Now, if you want to question whether or not Reid can trust McConnell to keep his word, have at it. (Ultimately, to because Senate decorum is more important to these guys than anything else, I actually believe McConnell will keep his word). But as far as the long game, Harry Reid surrendered our ability to get some stuff done in 2011 to keep our ability to hold back a Teabagger Apocalypse in 2013.

Good job, Harry.  Though, I'm betting the Professional Left doesn't see it that way for two more years.