Saturday, October 1, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Huffington Post. Still the scum of the Journalistic Earth...
Finally, since I figured out how to use screen capture, you get to see what I mean.
So I saw this this evening:
Don't worry, the actual story is just as bad.
Oddly enough, I was familiar with Biden story before seeing this headline. Familiar enough to know that Huffington Post's take (or at least the headline's take) was 100% bullshit.
If you wanna know what the Vice President actually said, you might have to go to an actual newspaper like the Washington Post:
Greg Sargent put it like this:
So Greg's right about Conservatives spinning the story this way...
...so why is Huffington Post doing the same thing?
So I saw this this evening:
Don't worry, the actual story is just as bad.
Oddly enough, I was familiar with Biden story before seeing this headline. Familiar enough to know that Huffington Post's take (or at least the headline's take) was 100% bullshit.
If you wanna know what the Vice President actually said, you might have to go to an actual newspaper like the Washington Post:
“Even though 50-some percent of the American people think the economy tanked because of the last administration, that’s not relevant,” said the vice president. “What’s relevant is we’re in charge.”...
Biden said it is “totally legitimate” for the 2012 presidential election to be “a referendum on Obama and Biden and the nature and state of the economy.” He said Americans will need to make a choice between what the Obama administration is offering to address the problem and what is being offered by the eventual Republican nominee.
Greg Sargent put it like this:
You can see why conservatives would jump on this — it gives them something to undercut the idea that Bush continues to deserve more of the blame for our current mess than Obama does. What Biden’s quotes really reflect, I think, is the tricky political spot the White House is in when it comes to the former President. White House advisers are aware that the public does still blame Bush more than Obama for our current predicament — this is confirmed in poll after poll, though that may be changing — but they also think voters probably don’t want to hear Obama telling them they should continue to blame Bush more than himself.
Conservatives constantly claim that Obama does try to fob off blame for the economy on to Bush, in order to dodge blame himself. But by and large, the real political argument Obama is making when he invokes the problems he inherited is one about the scale of the challenges we face, and how long they were in the making. It’s not finger pointing. It’s a plea for patience.
By the way, conservatives are right: Obama probably does “own” the economy in political terms right now. Indeed, it’s possible for the two following things to be simultaneously true: First, the public continues to blame Bush for originally tanking the economy; and second, this may be mostly irrelevant in 2012. The American people know Bush made an absolutely hideous mess of things. They hired Obama to clean up that hideous mess. They will judge Obama in 2012 on his progress towards completing that chore — whether the public will factor in GOP efforts to block Obama’s solutions remains to be seen — and will decide whether they think his GOP opponent would manage it any better. Obama will argue that his GOP foe plans to revive the ideas that tanked the economy under Bush in the first place. But that will ultimately be an argument over how to proceed in the future, not a relitigation of the past.
Bush broke it. Obama now owns it. Americans will judge his efforts to fix it — and will pick whichever candidate and party they think would best complete that job. Okay?
So Greg's right about Conservatives spinning the story this way...
...so why is Huffington Post doing the same thing?
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Well, now the White House is saying they didn't try to save Troy Davis...
From Politico, in the same spot where I found the previous story:
I'm not sure what to make of this since its possible both sides are speaking the truth. All the Redding News said was that the President looked into it, and determined there was nothing he could do, which is not far from the: "Obama, she said, was "unequivocal" that there was "nothing he could do" in the Davis case."
So we're really arguing over whether or not he looked into it before realizing there was nothing he could do.
A White House official and a reporter who was in the room today denied a report from an African-American radio host who says Obama told a group of black journalists that he tried to save Troy Davis.
The report from Rob Redding Jr. at The Redding News Review, which we were unable to confirm, says the president said he'd looked into saving the death row inmate for "three days" and inquired with the local authorities.
But White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer flatly denied the report to me just now, as did American Urban Radio Networks' April Ryan, who was among the reporters at the off-the-record meeting from which the story purported to draw.
"That article was completely, 100 percent wrong," said Ryan, who said she'd pressed Obama on Davis at the gathering with African-American media figures including radio hosts Joe Madison, Tom Joyner, and Michel Martin, though not Redding. Obama, she said, was "unequivocal" that there was "nothing he could do" in the Davis case, though he did tell the group that in general, he had concerns about innocent death row inmates, and that he'd worked in Illinois to improve the criminal justice system.
UPDATE: Redding emails, "In your report, even April D. Ryan says that the death penalty was mentioned at the meeting. She is clearly not the source of our story. We stand by the story, as posted on our websites."
I'm not sure what to make of this since its possible both sides are speaking the truth. All the Redding News said was that the President looked into it, and determined there was nothing he could do, which is not far from the: "Obama, she said, was "unequivocal" that there was "nothing he could do" in the Davis case."
So we're really arguing over whether or not he looked into it before realizing there was nothing he could do.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The President tried to stop the Troy Davis execution...
From Politico, via the Redding News Review:
Obama's White House spent "three days" looking at how it could legally get involved in the case on a federal level, one source said. The Obama administration even called the state of Georgia about getting involved and were told "No".
"'We looked at every possible avenue legally,'" the source reported Obama said. "'There was not one there.'"
"'It was a state case and I could not intervene because it wasn't federal,'" another source reported Obama said.
If you really want to see the President get heckled by a Religious Zealot (VIDEO)
His reaction to these always makes me smile. Most politicians have a "how dare you interrupt me" look on their face as this is going on. The President meanwhile has you "Are you done yet? Can I get on with my speech as the Secret Service knocks you into next week?"
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
President Obama's speech at the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati, Ohio (VIDEO)
Wow, they booed the Bears. Really, Cincinnati? Really?
And yes, that was a decidedly mixed response for Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Thursday, September 22, 2011
What a shock. Republicans are set to break their word on the Budget Control Act.
Did I call it...or did I call it?
I said in an earlier post, this:
And now, we have confirmation from Talking Points Memo:
Remember there are consequences to this strategy, from Stan Collander:
Lemme repeat something. There was a deal between the White House and Congress as to how much spending would be cut made back in August. I'm sure you remember.
Now, in order to secure more Republican votes (some of which he may lose, but I bet they can twist enough arms), they are going back on their word.
Boehner is probably going to get this out of the House, and make it the Senate's problem...but hopefully the Senate will turn around and throw it back in the House's face, meaning Conference Committee here we come!
In the meantime, the Senate will be screaming over how the House went back on their word.
Oh, and by the way, they need to do all this by the end of the month.
Sooner or later, that 9% approval rating is going to look sky high.
I said in an earlier post, this:
For John Boehner, nothing is worth doing, unless you can screw the Democrats at the same time. My bet is he tries to go the Teabagger route, because he wants to do whatever it takes to kick a Conservative bill into the Senate, and have the Democrats there "take the blame" for shooting it down.
And now, we have confirmation from Talking Points Memo:
Looks like House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will try to close GOP ranks around existing legislation to fund the government rather than scrap a controversial requirement that disaster relief funds be offset with an unrelated budget cut. And that means they'll be moving ahead without Democratic support -- a risky gamble that could lead to a government shutdown if it fails.
"The Speaker's seeking more Republican votes," Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who led a House conservative rebellion on Wednesday, told reporters after an impromptu Thursday GOP meeting.
According to other Republicans, Boehner will swap out the existing disaster relief offset -- a hybrid vehicle manufacturing incentive -- with new cuts.
Remember there are consequences to this strategy, from Stan Collander:
[By moving to the right] to pick up tea party votes by (1) proposing bigger spending reductions for fiscal 2012 than were included in the bill that was defeated yesterday and (2) continuing to refuse to allow the Hurricane Irene-related disaster assistance to be provided unless others spending is cut to pay for it. The tea partiers want fiscal 2012 discretionary spending to be set at the level included in the House-passed budget resolution — AKA, the Ryan plan — rather than the higher level included in the debt ceiling increase/deficit reduction plan (the Budget Control Act) enacted on August 2.
The problem with this strategy, however, is that it will likely lose other votes from Republicans in North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey — the states that were hardest hit by Irene. Note that three of these four — all but North Carolina — have Republican governors who have said that they want/need/must have the federal assistance. And House Democrats are very unlikely to go along.
Lemme repeat something. There was a deal between the White House and Congress as to how much spending would be cut made back in August. I'm sure you remember.
Now, in order to secure more Republican votes (some of which he may lose, but I bet they can twist enough arms), they are going back on their word.
Boehner is probably going to get this out of the House, and make it the Senate's problem...but hopefully the Senate will turn around and throw it back in the House's face, meaning Conference Committee here we come!
In the meantime, the Senate will be screaming over how the House went back on their word.
Oh, and by the way, they need to do all this by the end of the month.
Sooner or later, that 9% approval rating is going to look sky high.
So what's more important to Boehner, his ties to the Tea Party or the Country?
We're about to find out...even though, if we're honest, we already know the answer.
From Stan Collender:
For John Boehner, nothing is worth doing, unless you can screw the Democrats at the same time. My bet is he tries to go the Teabagger route, because he wants to do whatever it takes to kick a Conservative bill into the Senate, and have the Democrats there "take the blame" for shooting it down.
From Stan Collender:
The big question now is the one we’ve been wondering about for some time in analogous budget situations: Where do Boehner and Cantor go from here?
On the one hand, they can move to the right to pick up tea party votes by (1) proposing bigger spending reductions for fiscal 2012 than were included in the bill that was defeated yesterday and (2) continuing to refuse to allow the Hurricane Irene-related disaster assistance to be provided unless others spending is cut to pay for it. The tea partiers want fiscal 2012 discretionary spending to be set at the level included in the House-passed budget resolution — AKA, the Ryan plan — rather than the higher level included in the debt ceiling increase/deficit reduction plan (the Budget Control Act) enacted on August 2.
The problem with this strategy, however, is that it will likely lose other votes from Republicans in North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey — the states that were hardest hit by Irene. Note that three of these four — all but North Carolina — have Republican governors who have said that they want/need/must have the federal assistance. And House Democrats are very unlikely to go along.
In other words, moving toward the tea party may not guarantee that the bill passes.
On the other hand, moving in the other direction on this one bill very likely will cause the tea party to split permanently with the two House leaders. The tea partiers have been leery of both Boehner and Cantor since the start of the year. In fact, a tea party supporter is running against Boehner in the GOP primary and the Virginia tea party has been threatening to challenge Cantor since before the 2010 election. Working with House Democrats at this point might get the bill passed but might also make it all but impossible for the GOP leadership to lead in 2012, that is, in the months heading into an election where anger about Congress is already at an all-time high.
For John Boehner, nothing is worth doing, unless you can screw the Democrats at the same time. My bet is he tries to go the Teabagger route, because he wants to do whatever it takes to kick a Conservative bill into the Senate, and have the Democrats there "take the blame" for shooting it down.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Where I wish the execution of an innocent man was more important that an argument about Presidential Powers...
This is an national tragedy but idiots like Michael Moore (who apparently said sometime today that this was all on Obama) are making it worse by not understanding something called the Constitution. It doesn't exist by convenience. It says:
Ummm, Mike?
But it turns out that not even the Governor of Georgia has the power to stop the execution (this is where David Roberts and Zerlina Maxwell come in, because they put this piece from the Atlanta Journal Constitution out on the twitter.)
NOTE: David from what I can tell sent it out first, but Zerlina helped by tracking down a proper link, so, thanks to one and all!
"...he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Ummm, Mike?
But it turns out that not even the Governor of Georgia has the power to stop the execution (this is where David Roberts and Zerlina Maxwell come in, because they put this piece from the Atlanta Journal Constitution out on the twitter.)
NOTE: David from what I can tell sent it out first, but Zerlina helped by tracking down a proper link, so, thanks to one and all!
Q. Can the president grant clemency or stop the execution in any way.
A. No. While President Obama has said he thinks the death penalty does little to deter crime, he has no legal authority to get involved, officially, with a state execution. When the death penalty is imposed for a state crime like murder, it is a state issue.
Q. Can the governor stop the execution?
A. No. Georgia's Constitution gives that authority only to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Q. Can the Chatham County district attorney ask the judge who signed the death warrant to withdraw it?
A. Mike Mears, a professor at John Marshall Law School and who has challenged the death penalty for decades, said probably not. "I don't think there is a legal mechanism to ask a judge for a do over," he said.
Q. Can the courts stop it?
A. Though his attorneys he can fill appeals, the only viable option is the Georgia Supreme Court and that is a questionable one. His lawyers would have to file in the Superior Court in Butts County, where the prison is located, and then, if necessary, the Georgia Supreme Court and then directly to the US Supreme Court. Federal law limits appeals in that court system and Davis has exhausted those.
Q. Can the Pardons and Paroles Board change its mind?
A. If additional evidence is provided the board could step in but the board has already twice rejected Davis' requests for clemency. This morning they said they would not reconsider additional requests.
You know that Elizabeth Warren? I...uh...think she can campaign... (VIDEO)
Just a little bit...
This is her SAVAGING the Class Warfare argument.
This is her SAVAGING the Class Warfare argument.
The (mostly) rights and wrongs of Ron Suskind's Interview on the Daily Show (VIDEO)
I'm starting to wonder if Jon is turning into one of Liberal Whiners. He so loves stories about how Wall Street got away with murder, that if you have a pamphlet saying just that and are handing it out on the street, he'll have you on the Daily Show to talk about it.
But Ron Suskind is no pamphleteer. He is a serious author, and his new book has serious things to say, both good and ill about the Administration.
The problem is now we have two Administration Sources quoted in the book who are saying that they were either taken out of context (that old chestnut) in the case of Anita Dunn, or misquoted entirely in the case of Christina Romer. Book publishers are so hell bent on providing juicy nuggets in advance of a book sale that they tend to overshadow the rest of the damn book. And worse if there is any reason to doubt said nuggets, it tends to throw the rest of your book into question; all while under a harsh media spotlight.
This is a long way of saying, yes, I think Ron Suskind fucked up, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the book is crap. He didn't help himself any, thought.
This is also a long way of saying Jon was right to give the man an interview on the Daily Show and did a credible job, though I am starting to doubt whether or not he's helping in the long run. Undercutting the President may be noble and honest in his eyes, but how does that help the country if all it does is get Rick Perry or Mitt Romney elected President?
That aside, Jon said one thing that did actually bother me in the interview: "Geither's tied to Wall Street", which is true and in some ways very much not. Remember, this is a meme spread by the Huffington Post, and we know what great experts they are.
Geithner has had only one job outside of Government, and that was working for a Think Tank run by (shudder) Henry Kissinger. He has never worked in Wall Street. Never! (Never evah? Never evah!). In his position as Chair of the New York Fed, Geithner has worked with Wall Street, and has represented their interests, which is kinda what you expect the New York Fed Chair to do.
When the Huffington Post says what its been known to say, and when Jon makes his crack like he did in Part 2 of the Interview, it makes it sound like he's Hank Paulson, going from the Head of Goldman Sachs right into the Treasury Building, and that part is just not true.
Part 1:
Part 2:
But Ron Suskind is no pamphleteer. He is a serious author, and his new book has serious things to say, both good and ill about the Administration.
The problem is now we have two Administration Sources quoted in the book who are saying that they were either taken out of context (that old chestnut) in the case of Anita Dunn, or misquoted entirely in the case of Christina Romer. Book publishers are so hell bent on providing juicy nuggets in advance of a book sale that they tend to overshadow the rest of the damn book. And worse if there is any reason to doubt said nuggets, it tends to throw the rest of your book into question; all while under a harsh media spotlight.
This is a long way of saying, yes, I think Ron Suskind fucked up, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the book is crap. He didn't help himself any, thought.
This is also a long way of saying Jon was right to give the man an interview on the Daily Show and did a credible job, though I am starting to doubt whether or not he's helping in the long run. Undercutting the President may be noble and honest in his eyes, but how does that help the country if all it does is get Rick Perry or Mitt Romney elected President?
That aside, Jon said one thing that did actually bother me in the interview: "Geither's tied to Wall Street", which is true and in some ways very much not. Remember, this is a meme spread by the Huffington Post, and we know what great experts they are.
Geithner has had only one job outside of Government, and that was working for a Think Tank run by (shudder) Henry Kissinger. He has never worked in Wall Street. Never! (Never evah? Never evah!). In his position as Chair of the New York Fed, Geithner has worked with Wall Street, and has represented their interests, which is kinda what you expect the New York Fed Chair to do.
When the Huffington Post says what its been known to say, and when Jon makes his crack like he did in Part 2 of the Interview, it makes it sound like he's Hank Paulson, going from the Head of Goldman Sachs right into the Treasury Building, and that part is just not true.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Markos: For anyone thinking Hillary Clinton would've been better than Obama...
From today's Huffington Post. Remember, this was the guy running Hillary's campaign (right into the ground):
Strategy Corner: Obama -- Don't Bring Back Class Warfare
Once again, for those of you who missed it, Ralph Nader is a racist.
It's getting harder and harder to remember that this man was once a champion of anything.
But Ralph Nader's ego is way to of control. It's his fault that we had Bush in the White House for at least four years. He's got a lot of blood on his hands. I don't care what he says.
And he's also a racist.
I'm sorry, when someone calls the first black President an Uncle Tom, on the record, he's a racist. I said so in January of 2010, and I'm saying it again now.
And now that he's talking about recruiting candidates to run against the President in the Primary, I can only assume that his motives here are racist as well.
But Ralph Nader's ego is way to of control. It's his fault that we had Bush in the White House for at least four years. He's got a lot of blood on his hands. I don't care what he says.
And he's also a racist.
I'm sorry, when someone calls the first black President an Uncle Tom, on the record, he's a racist. I said so in January of 2010, and I'm saying it again now.
And now that he's talking about recruiting candidates to run against the President in the Primary, I can only assume that his motives here are racist as well.
Monday, September 19, 2011
"We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable" (VIDEO)
And yes, thre was a direct shot in the speech at Paul "Punching Bag" Ryan's voucher program.
A couple key graphs from the text of the speech:
You know, last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner gave a speech about the economy. And to his credit, he made the point that we can’t afford the kind of politics that says it’s “my way or the highway.” I was encouraged by that. Here’s the problem: In that same speech, he also came out against any plan to cut the deficit that includes any additional revenues whatsoever. He said -- I'm quoting him -- there is “only one option.” And that option and only option relies entirely on cuts. That means slashing education, surrendering the research necessary to keep America’s technological edge in the 21st century, and allowing our critical public assets like highways and bridges and airports to get worse. It would cripple our competiveness and our ability to win the jobs of the future. And it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
So the Speaker says we can’t have it "my way or the highway," and then basically says, my way -- or the highway. That’s not smart. It’s not right. If we’re going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do it together.
And...
[A]ny reform should follow another simple principle: Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it.
It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it. And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution.
Now, we’re already hearing the usual defenders of these kinds of loopholes saying this is just “class warfare.” I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare. I think it’s just the right the thing to do. I believe the American middle class, who've been pressured relentlessly for decades, believe it’s time that they were fought for as hard as the lobbyists and some lawmakers have fought to protect special treatment for billionaires and big corporations.
Nobody wants to punish success in America. What’s great about this country is our belief that anyone can make it and everybody should be able to try -– the idea that any one of us can open a business or have an idea and make us millionaires or billionaires. This is the land of opportunity. That’s great. All I’m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families get. And I think most wealthy Americans would agree if they knew this would help us grow the economy and deal with the debt that threatens our future.
It comes down to this: We have to prioritize. Both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount -- by $4 trillion. So what choices are we going to make to reach that goal? Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can’t afford to do both.
Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get. We can’t afford to do both.
This is not class warfare. It’s math. The money is going to have to come from someplace. And if we’re not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more: We’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor. We’ve got to scale back on the investments that have always helped our economy grow. We’ve got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and schools that are crumbling.
That’s unacceptable to me. That’s unacceptable to the American people. And it will not happen on my watch. I will not support -- I will not support -- any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans. And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)