An Arizona man found out his house caught fire after reading about it on Facebook. (Dec. 1)
Continue reading …Today’s “summit” between the House and Senate leaders and President Obama looks a little like Bristol Palin pretending to be a dancer on TV. Everyone shuffles around, but it doesn’t look pretty or feel quite right. Everyone has a favorite and everyone’s rooting for theirs to win. After the summit, the first couple stepped up: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. They mentioned bifurcation as a compromise on the vote. Looked pretty, sounded good, but they knew they had Dave Camp on the judges panel waiting to shoot it down. On the other side, President Obama stepped up with an optimists’ view and sunny outlook, claiming that these summits would continue, that people wanted them to work together, and naming his priorities. Extending middle class tax cuts, ratifying the START treaty, and extending unemployment were on his to-do list. Applause all around. And now the voting begins. Here’s what’s on the table with a 12/24 deadline looming large: Unemployment extensions: Democrats want a year-long extension. Republicans want no extension. Extension of Bush tax cuts: Democrats want middle class tax cuts and the stimulus tax cuts extended. Republicans want all tax cuts extended for all income levels . Wild card: BlueDog Democrats START Treaty: As amazed as I am to even include this in the list, here it is. It must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate before the end of the 111th Congress or the entire committee process begins again in the next session, meaning it could be delayed as much as another year, for nothing more than political grandstanding. Medicare “Doc Fix” : This delays the cut to doctors’ reimbursements for 20% as it has each year. Note : It looks like this has now been pushed into the next session of Congress, since the president signed a 30-day extension today. Defense Appropriations Bill, which currently includes DADT repeal and DREAM Act : DADT is the sticking point, of course, despite today’s report from the military affirming minimal disruption if it’s repealed. The only leverage the administration has on DADT repeal beyond the principle of the thing are pending court challenges, which they’ve kept alive in order to have that leverage. If it is not repealed in this session, it creates a policy mess for this administration and those who come behind it. Those are the bargaining chips. How do they fall, in light of this appearance of bipartisanship which isn’t really that at all? Assume the Republicans will not give an inch on tax cuts. Assume they’re willing to allow unemployment extensions to expire. They should feel some duty toward our military and national security, so I imagine START and appropriations will be on the table. Will they trade a one-year extension of the full tax cut package for a one-year extension of unemployment insurance? Will the DREAM Act survive or be sacrificed for DADT repeal? It really comes down to this: No side will get everything they want. All sides may get something they want. What do we want most? How would you put all this together and get it done before December 24th?
Continue reading …
In his latest bid to chip away at our nation’s trillion-dollar deficit, President Obama announced a new proposal Monday to freeze civilian federal employees’ salaries for the next two years, pointing to the need for all Americans to “sacrifice” … Related Entries November 29, 2010 The Pentagon Gets What It Wants November 29, 2010 White House Proposes Federal Pay Freeze
Continue reading …Mitchell and Cook Predict Doom and Gloom for Obama Due to the Economy While Ignoring Republicans’ Part in Trashing It
November 28, 2010 No Comment
Click here to view this media I am so tired of this “Obama needs to move back the the middle” meme constantly being pushed by our Beltway Villagers. Andrea Mitchell and Charlie Cook took their turn this week while wondering if President Obama might face a primary challenge from the left. Of course, what they completely ignore here is that the Republicans have done everything humanly possible to keep the economy from improving. Steve Benen wrote a piece last week on how the Republicans are sabotaging the economy for political gain, which apparently didn’t sit too well with former Bush speech writer Michael Gerson . The fact that they’re playing this zero sum game with our economy to regain power is apparently a topic of little concern to Mitchell and Cook; just whether they’re going to benefit from the results of their obstruction. Once again the Republicans can behave terribly and they never pay a price for their actions by the media because as we all know, no matter what happens, it’s bad news for the Democrats. Mitchell: With his approval rating at 45% President Obama could face a primary challenge in his reelection hopes next year. A new McClatchy/Marist poll shows 41% of Democrats want someone to challenge the president for the party’s 2012 nomination. That percentage jumps to 56% when you ask independent voters who are just leaning Democratic. […] What does he face, the president and especially looking at the economic climate, because that’s really what’s going to dictate what happens? Cook: This is what’s scary is if you think about the fed issues… Mitchell: Scary for the Democrats? Cook: Yes. Yes. Or for the White House because if you look at the fed report yesterday, they said that unemployment’s likely above 9% through 2011 and be at 8%, no lower than 8% by 2012. You know how many months of presidential election years in the post WWII era we’ve had with that 8% unemployment? One month, January of 1984. So the idea of having basically from the first full month the president set foot in office on all the way through election day with 8% plus unemployment, nobody’s ever been here before. And so that’s got to be very scary for the White House. Mitchell: And the White House, trying to retool, but they don’t seem really able to take that step. They’re not reaching out, according to most Democratic insiders, not looking beyond the immediate circle. Cook: Well I think they’ve already spent a very tightly knit group of people and they, you know, they view the establishment as having been for Hillary Clinton back in 2007 and eight and so there’s um… it’s a clickish group of folks. I mean they’re very bright, very talented people but reaching out hasn’t necessarily always been their strong point. Mitchell: Now the other thing looking out at the horizon is that they really did lose independents, moderates, whatever you want to call them. How do they regain them and still reach out to the base because you’ve got this much more liberal caucus, the House caucus led by Nancy Pelosi. They’re going to want to, you know, keep firm to Democratic principles and the president if he looks at this landscape is going to be wanting to move back to the center? Cook: Well I think you’ve hit the nail on the head that he’s going to be pulled two directions. They’ve got to solidify and enthuse their base while at the same time reaching out to independents.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving and that you didn’t have to spend any time arguing with your right-wing relatives about this nonsense. Right Wing Continues to Push “Socialist Pilgrims” Myth : Despite a comprehensive repudiation by historians of the belief that the original Pilgrims were socialists who only began to succeed and prosper once they turned to capitalism, on this Thanksgiving conservative leaders and writers continue to spread the urban legend that the settlers were almost doomed by their socialist-ways. Some background: according to real historians , the Pilgrims held their land in common “in the interest of realizing a profit sooner, and was only intended for the short term; historians say the Pilgrims were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism.” But the settlers, who came from different part of England, “spoke different dialects and had different methods of farming, and looked upon each other with great wariness.” Because of such difficulties, the colony scrapped the land arrangements in 1623, yet the colony held the first Thanksgiving in 1621 and the original “arrangement did not produce famine.” But that hasn’t stopped the Right from propagating the myth that the failures of “socialism” forced them to embrace capitalism. In order to make the myth seem true, Fox News commentator John Stossel simply moves the date of the first Thanksgiving from 1621 to 1623. And Rep. Todd Akin continued to embarrass the state of Missouri with some similar nonsense as well. Rep. Todd Akin: The Pilgrims Came To America To Flee ‘Unbiblical’ Socialism In The 1620′s : Today, millions of Americans celebrate Thanksgiving with their families. To mark this holiday, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) took to the floor of the House of Representatives on Tuesday to explain its history. At one point, he opined, “It might be helpful to think back and say there’s more to Thanksgiving than the Pilgrims.” He explained that they were “a group of people who were willing to change the system, to think of different ideas.” Akin continued, “They came here with the idea that after trying socialism that it wasn’t going to work. They realized that it was unbiblical, that it was a form of theft, so they pitched socialism out. They learned that in the 1620s”: AKIN: It might be helpful to think back and say, there’s more to Thanksgiving than the Pilgrims. They were a group of people who were willing to change the system, to think of different ideas. They came here and separated civil and church governments. They came here and created the model of a written constitution, the idea that the government should be the servant of the people. […] They came here with the idea that after trying socialism that it wasn’t going to work. They realized that it was unbiblical, that it was a form of theft, so they pitched socialism out. They learned that in the early 1620’s. And as TPM noted, the teabaggers and Glenn Beck have been getting in on the act as well. Happy Thanksgiving! Right Jabs Pilgrims For … Communism? (VIDEO) : It’s reasonable to assume that tea partiers, Fox News hosts and conservative bloggers look forward to today for the same reason most Americans do: the turkey (or tofurkey , depending on your preference) and the football (or cable TV marathons , depending on your preference.) But those folks also look forward to Thanksgiving for another reason that it’s equally reasonable to imagine most Americans don’t : the celebration of capitalism’s final victory over communist-leaning Pilgrims. “Sadly, few Americans know the real story of the early colonists,” FreedomWorks’ Julie Borowski wrote yesterday. “For evidence of the failures of communism, we do not need to look to disastrous experiments in foreign lands. In fact, the Plymouth Plantation is one of the most apparent examples of the failures of collectivism.” As the New York Times reported last week, the story is part of Rush Limbaugh’s yearly Thanksgiving broadcast, and it’s part of the course load at Glenn Beck’s online university . And last but not least Steve Benen did a nice write up on Akin’s hackery as well — J ust in Time for Thanksgiving .
Continue reading …Flashback: In 2009, Time Saw GOP As ‘Endangered Species’ Unless Party Moved Left
November 25, 2010 No Comment
With all but one of the House races now resolved, Republicans have picked up at least 63 seats, the most in a midterm election since 1938. So, it might be fun on this Thanksgiving Day to recall how, just 18 months ago, Time's Michael Grunwald was arguing in a big cover story that demography and its “extremely conservative” philosophy meant the Republican Party could be on the verge of extinction. Back in May 2009, Newsbusters Brent Baker picked up on Grunwald's piece for the ridiculous way he painted the GOP as extremist: They are extremely conservative ideas tarred by association with the extremely unpopular George W. Bush, who helped downsize the party to its extremely conservative base. But re-reading the piece today, it's even more striking how Grunwald's “analysis” was based on liberal wishful thinking that small government conservative policies were like political arsenic, and how Republicans had to drop tax cuts and cultural conservatism if they ever hoped to come back from the wilderness. In other words, move left. But the GOP instead moved right, and was rewarded by voters. Which is why conservatives should probably not take strategic advice from their ideological adversaries in the media. read more
Continue reading …
Former US House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, once one of the most powerful and feared Republicans in Congress, was convicted Wednesday on charges he illegally funneled corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002. (Nov. 24)
Continue reading …
The holiday special for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was a big helping of guilty-as-charged Wednesday, as the former Republican lawmaker found himself on the wrong side of the Texas legal system in a money laundering case stemming from a sketchy campaign finance maneuver he and a couple of accomplices pulled in 2002.
Continue reading …The DCCC has a systemic problem: I can’t believe Steve Israel is going to run the place
November 24, 2010 No CommentOur Blue America buddy Howie Klein just wrote a great investigative piece on the DCCC’s pay to play scam, which uses campaign consultants tied into members of the group: Have Contributions From Donors Been Finding Their Way Into DCCC Officials’ Pockets? Howie has the goods on the DCCC. It’s not a partisan problem, by the way; I wouldn’t doubt that this happens on the other side of the aisle too. And it might be the way that things work in Washington, but it’s just not right. I gather the Beltway media don’t have a problem with this corrupt form of government either and are comfortable with it — because, you know, that’s the way things are done in the Village — but they should. There are relationships between members of Congress and consultants that really should be outlawed in our political system. Please read the entire article . Outside of the corrupt relationships, we now also find that a Blue Dog will be heading the DCCC and not Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She was not very good overall, but she was much better than a Blue Dog will ever be. Friday Nancy Pelosi didn’t pick supposed front runner Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the next chair of the DCCC. She picked someone just as bad, Steve Israel. In fact, he’s actually worse that Wasserman Schultz in one key way. She at least supports progressive legislation. Until 2 years ago the conservative Suffolk County congressman was a member of the Blue Dog Caucus. He’s the epitome of the DLC/Third Way hack. The Washington Post describes him as someone who “joined the Blue Dog Democrats in the House and crossed party lines to support President George W. Bush on a number of key issues, most notably Bush’s 2001 tax cut package [one of only 28 mostly right wing Democrats who did] and the GOP prescription drug bill the following year. He has also espoused more hawkish views on foreign policy, voting to authorize military force in Iraq.”… read on Isn’t that just charming? There weren’t many people looking to replace Chris Van Hollen, so Israel wasn’t picked over a Progressive. I believe only three people applied for the job, but it’s still frustrating to see a Blue Dog at the helm. Especially because we need a DCCC that understands we don’t need a repeat of the failed Blue Dog experiment; we need to support candidates who will actually stand up for the party banner they got elected under. How will Israel treat Progressive members in the House in 2012? We’ll be keeping an eye out and let you know for sure.
Continue reading …