Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) FINALLY gets in someone's face over Hagel Nomination... (VIDEO)

And the lucky winner is Mr. "I Likes to Wear Diapers", Mr. "DC Madam" Sen. David Vitter (R-LA):



Seriously, this guy gets to questions anybody's ethics...ever??

In Mitt Romney's world "Cars get the Elevator, and Workers get the shaft" (VIDEO)

Yeah, we know what you're sayin'.

"Succeed" Obama for America Ad (VIDEO)

"That's exactly what I said. Let Detroit go Bankrupt..." (VIDEO)

"We’re going to see if congressional Republicans will put country before party.." (VIDEO)

The President always fires a warning shot before he gives a big speech. Here it is:

We're back, baby! 4000 Jobs in the Detroit area makes the CBS Evening News (VIDEO)

I know, we're not back all the way. But 4000 jobs means 4000 consumers. That means 4000 Consumers who can go to the Grocery Store, where the employees at the Grocery Store can make some money. Where the inventory of that Grocery Store is emptied, but refilled by even more workers. Truck Drivers moving the inventory. Bakers and Famers making the inventory. And hopefully, through it all, all these people have enough money to get themselves a new car...hopefully made at the same plant that started it all.

I know it's not going like we want...but it's going.

President Obama's speech on the National Wireless Initiative (VIDEO)

President Obama discusses the National Wireless Initiative in Marquette, MI, a proposal will help America win the future by building a 21st Century infrastructure.

John Dingell. An old soul with fire in his belly. (VIDEO)

Via Talking Points Memo, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) reading off a list of the various comments he's heard in the last two years:

More stories that are not getting enough coverage: The U.S. District Courts ruling on Health Care.

First, the overall picture from Jonathan Cohn:

The future of health care reform just became a little more secure, thanks to a federal judge in Detroit.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh issued a ruling in Thomas More Law Center v. Barack Obama. It's one of a dozen lawsuits the opponents of health care reform have filed in federal courts, in an effort to roll back the Affordable Care Act. But it is the first case in which a judge has issued a verdict. And the verdict is pretty much a wholesale win for reform.

The plaintiffs in this case are the Law Center, a conservative public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with some Michigan residents. The focus of their lawsuit is the individual mandate--the requirement, which becomes effective in 2014, that all Americans obtain a "creditable" health insurance policy. ("Creditable" is wonkspeak for a policy that includes basic benefits, as defined by the government.) According to the plaintiffs, the federal government has no right to impose that requirement, since it would compel people to spend money on health insurance instead of some other good.

In response, the Obama Administration has argued the authority to impose the mandate lies in two separate constitutional provisions--one that gives the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce and one that gives the federal government power to tax for the sake of promoting the general welfare. Steeh basically agreed with both propositions.

From the ruling itself (courtesy Andrew Sullivan):

The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses — through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties.

This phenomenon of cost-shifting is what makes the health care market unique. Far from “inactivity,” by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants.

Back to Jonathan Cohn:

But the premise of Steeh's legal argument seems to be a notion about policy--that it's not possible to regulate the insurance industry, in a way that would make coverage available to all people, without compelling every person to get coverage. On that count, I would argue, Steeh is correct.

So what does this mean for the repeal movement? My limited understanding, informed by a few casual conversations with some law professors, is that Steeh's decision is consistent with the traditional understanding of the Commerce Clause--that the only way to throw out the mandate would be to reexamine conventional assumptions about the Commerce Clause. That would be a fairly radical move.

And finally, Ezra Klein:

There's no "right" argument here. No one doubts that health-care reform would be constitutional if Antonin Scalia decided to pursue his passion for beekeeping and allowed President Obama to appoint his replacement. The only reason there's any question about the law's constitutionality is that conservatives appointed five of the nine sitting justices, and conservatives have organized against the constitutionality of a proposal they once considered not just constitutional, but desirable as a matter of public policy.

And so it goes. Politics is politics, and the Supreme Court is, at this point, deeply and unquestionably political. I continue to think it unlikely that they will want the sort of direct confrontation with the political system, and with the Democratic Party, that overturning health-care reform would entail. But only time will tell.

The Fireside chat for July 31, 2010 (VIDEO)

More framing for 2010. Keep it up, Mr. President...



President Obama praises the successes of the auto industry restructuring as good news for our economy, and calls on Republican leaders in the Senate to "stop holding America’s small businesses hostage to politics" by blocking a vote to help them create jobs.

The President's speech on the Auto Bailout: July 30, 2010 (VIDEO)

Steve Pearlstein, in a piece blasting the Chamber of Commerce over their opposition to the GM bailout:

The irony is that this set of bold government initiatives that saved the country from economic catastrophe remain as unpopular today as when they were introduced.

Perhaps none was more controversial than the decision to rescue Chrysler and General Motors, using $86 billion in taxpayer funds and an expedited bankruptcy process that wiped out shareholders, brought in new executives and directors, forced creditors to take a financial haircut, closed dealerships and factories and imposed painful cuts in wages and benefits on unionized workers. It was an extraordinary and heavy-handed government intervention into the market economy that left the Treasury owning a majority of both companies. As one participant recalls, public opinion was divided among those who believed that the companies should have been allowed to die, those who believed they would never survive bankruptcy and those who believed the government would inevitably screw things up. Among the most vocal skeptics: the Chamber's Donohue.

A year later, the auto bailout is an unqualified success. The government used its leverage to force the companies to make the painful changes they should have made years before, and then backed off and let the companies run themselves without any noticeable interference.

The results, which President Obama will tout on a visit to Michigan on Friday: For the first time since 2004, GM and Chrysler, along with Ford, all reported operating profits in their U.S. businesses last quarter. The domestic auto industry added 55,000 jobs last year, ending a decade-long string of declines. Auto sector exports are up 57 percent so far this year and, thanks largely to new government regulations, the industry is moving quickly to introduce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Most surprising of all, GM and Chrysler have already repaid more than $8 billion in government loans, while GM is preparing for an initial stock offering later this year that would allow the government to recoup most, if not all, of its investment.

Greg Sargent, also of the Washington Post:

President Obama just delivered a rousing speech at an auto plant in Detroit, and it gave us a glimpse of how the fall elections could go for Dems if things start trending their way.

The tanking economy has left the public highly skeptical of Obama's larger goal of restoring faith in government as an effective agent for reform and a necessary corrective to the excesses of free enterprise. Indeed, a CNN poll out today finds that a whopping 61% thinks the government is doing too much that should be left to private individuals and businesses.

But today, Obama gets to claim that on one front, at least, he was absolutely right about the need for government intervention in the economy -- and that his critics were absolutely wrong. Last year, Republicans derided Obama's auto industry bailout as a dire threat to capitalism as we know it, but today, the auto industry is once again turning a profit and adding jobs in key communities.

And finally, Ezra Klein (what a coincidence!) of the Washington Post:

President Obama's remarks at various Michigan automobile plants today get to the heart of the task facing the administration as we enter the 2010 election. The White House doesn't lack for accomplishments. What it lacks is popular accomplishments.

The auto bailout is a perfect example. By and large, it worked. The automobile sector stabilized. GM, Chrysler and Ford are all posting profits. Millions of workers who would've gone down with the car companies still have their jobs. America retains an automotive industry that's both competitive in developing markets like China and starting to scrap with the Japanese and German automakers in the high-tech, green-car market.

But the policy wasn't popular. Few liked it. Some thought it socialism. Some thought it cronyism. Which presents, of course, a difficulty for the White House: Saving millions of jobs and the American auto industry at an ultimately very small cost to the taxpayer is the sort of major policy accomplishment you should be able to run for reelection on. But what if people don't really understand that you did it, or that it worked, or that it didn't cost them much?

Obama doesn't have to invent accomplishments for Democrats to tout in the 2010 election. Rather, he has to convince the public to also consider those policies accomplishments. You can read his Chrysler speech, which gives this a shot, here.  (See above)

President Obama's Commencement Address at...that University (VIDEO)

...that University being...Michigan.

Can you tell I'm an Ohio State Fan? (What, the President couldn't have gone to Columbus first? Michigan isn't in play. Ohio might be.)

Maybe I'm being too hard on Michigan after all. When your Football Program sucks, and your Basketball program sucks, you need something to justify your existence. Just don't go bringing down the Boss's Presidency, Big Blue!

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

Oh, and this may be my 1000th post. Enjoy!

The Fireside chat for April 24, 2010 (VIDEO)

As the auto industry and financial markets begin to stabilize, the President says the government’s emergency interventions can now wind down. He pledges that real reform, particularly on Wall Street, must now begin.

First of the "Stupak Dozen" breaks with Stupak...

Yay.

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), a key supporter of Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) anti-abortion language intended for the health care bill, said Tuesday night that he’s satisfied the Senate abortion language prohibits federal funding of abortions and will likely vote for the bill.