Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:41 PM ET, 01/21/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* The Post has a great look at the millions and millions of dollars that banks, health insurers and other major business interests are pumping into the coffers of new House GOP committee chairmen, in hopes that they will roll back Dem regulatory policies.

* Could Obama's choice of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt for the post of jobs czar send exactly the wrong message to the millions of unemployed Obama will need heading into 2012?

* The GOP leadership chose Paul Ryan to respond to the State of the Union in order to underscore their committment to fiscal discipline

* What GOP leadership? Sam Stein reports that Michele Bachmann will be broadcasting her own "Tea flavored" response.

* Bachmann falsely claims the American people "overwhelmingly" want repeal.

* Bipartisanship fetishists dance a gig as a new CNN poll finds that 72 percent support mixed seating and bipartisan thigh rubbing at the SOTU. (Okay, I made up the thigh-rubbing part.)

* But GOP Rep. Paul Broun disagrees, insisting Dems are pushing the idea as a trap: "The sitting together being kissy-kissy is just another way to try to silence Republicans."

* Adam Serwer makes the key point about the 1798 health act for sailors: "There's more historical precedent for that kind of thing among the founders than most conservatives or libertarians would have you believe."

* Josh Green says Obama's rising poll numbers in the wake of bipartisan lame-duck success make it less likely that GOP leaders will cooperate with the President going forward.

* In supporting restrictions on the sort of high-capacity ammo magazine used in Arizona, DNC chair Tim Kaine goes where Obama won't.

* The right wing's increasingly embarrassing attacks on Michelle Obama's wardrobe and anti-obesity campaign look even more ridiculous when you consider that her favorability rating is 72 percent.

* Tea Partyers may hate redistribution of wealth, but that doesn't mean they care a whit about liberty.

* Fantasy of the day: Rudy saying he's more likely to run in 2012 if Sarah Palin gets in. He's just feeding speculation about a run because it earns him free media, goosing his client list and speaking fees.

* Also: The notion that Rudy is a threat to Palin is beyond ridiculous.

* And Dana Milbank pledges not to mention Palin in print, online or on TV for a whole month.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 21, 2011; 5:41 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House GOPers, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House liberals urge Obama to draw hard line: "Hands off Social Security!"
Next: Keith Olbermann out at MSNBC

Comments

bahahahaha, Conservatives are blaming pedestrian deaths on Michelle Obama and saying her wearing red dresses is meant to appease to China.

Hooo boy, Gotta love Conservatives!

Posted by: DDAWD | January 21, 2011 5:55 PM | Report abuse

About the First Lady, I received some hate email the other day based on the purported guest list at the coming royal wedding.

It was poorly written and certainly did not originate at the hands of a Brit [the spelling, you know]. She remains an imaginary symbol of something frightful to some folks, apparently.

I protested to the two persons who circulated it to me.

I like her healthy nutrition for kids campaign. I would pick her for my volleyball team at a picnic, too.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2011 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Any chance you can swear off Palin posts for a month? In my rather unscientific study, it seems like the kidaffi character shows up when she's discussed. So not mentioning her would be doubly beneficial.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | January 21, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Re Immelt-

This quote from Salon maybe telling:

"How seriously we should regard this appointment depends in large part on how seriously we think Obama will rely on his new appointment for real advice. Many observers regarded the appointment of Volcker to the newly created economic recovery board as primarily for appearance's sake, and criticized Obama for not allowing the former Fed chairman to have more influence on policy. But the same underlying factors are responsible for Immelt's appointment. The White House wants to combat the perception that it is anti-business, but that doesn't mean anything fundamental is going to change (especially since any rational observer of the White House over the last two years is well aware that the anti-business accusation is complete malarkey!). If Volcker was a figurehead, so too, probably, will be Immelt."
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/01/21/jeffrey_immelt/index.html
So, the perception *may be* negative until we see if he has any influence.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 21, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

ashot - see

http://live.washingtonpost.com/outlook:-declaring-a-palin-free-month-01-24-11.html

Perhaps Greg will follow suit.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"Josh Green says Obama's rising poll numbers in the wake of bipartisan lame-duck success make it less likely that GOP leaders will cooperate with the President going forward."

Good. All the better for continuing to make them look inflexible.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 21, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"simply do not get this debate. Can there be any doubt that folks in the 18th and early 19th Century who inhabited our land were perhaps more "socialistic" and less "individualistic" than we wish to believe nowdays. Remember the good old fashioned barn raisings? How about citizens combining for wagon trains West...bottom line early Americans got it...United we stand divided we fall...21st century Americans...not so much."
====================================

You must remember that those folks were not acting because they were so compelled by the federal government, but rather out of an inherent concern. Big government today has pretty well taken over acting on behalf of any and all societal concerns and many people are perfectly content to let the government handle it all---a program for everything---especially when somebody else pays the tab.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham re Bachmann:
"She's a lunatic, yes, but in this present movement, that's probably a plus."
====================================

Notice how Bernie is toning down his rhetoric. Nothing like leading by example. In Bernie World everyone to the right of Fidel Castro is a lunatic.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

bahahahaha, Conservatives are blaming pedestrian deaths on Michelle Obama and saying her wearing red dresses is meant to appease to China.

Hooo boy, Gotta love Conservatives!

Posted by: DDAWD | January 21, 2011 5:55 PM
-------

DDAWD's been eating the yellow snow again.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

ChuckinDenton wrote,
"The White House wants to combat the perception that it is anti-business, but that doesn't mean anything fundamental is going to change"
=======================================

Obama is certainly hoping something changes. The smart money is now going to Republicans, and the unemployment rate is still high. Obama needs businesses to get off their surpluses and start hiring, and he wouldn't mind some of those campaign donations coming his way.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Greg could swear-off ALL topics which he constantly repeats.

He mentioned Sarah Pelin earlier this morning.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I would pick her for my volleyball team at a picnic, too.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2011 5:55 PM
====================================

I'd pick her to play Big Bird in my next production of Sesame Street.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

"Josh Green says Obama's rising poll numbers in the wake of bipartisan lame-duck success make it less likely that GOP leaders will cooperate with the President going forward."

Good. All the better for continuing to make them look inflexible.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 21, 2011 6:56 PM
==================================

Another poor soul who totally misread the November election results.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 7:29 PM | Report abuse

ruk from earlier thread:

"I simply do not get this debate. Can there be any doubt that folks in the 18th and early 19th Century who inhabited our land were perhaps more "socialistic" and less "individualistic" than we wish to believe nowdays. Remember the good old fashioned barn raisings? How about citizens combining for wagon trains West...bottom line early Americans got it...United we stand divided we fall...21st century Americans...not so much."

Brigade's response above is dead on.

ruk, you really are making the conservative case against big government/welfare state here. You are at the same time confusing "socialistic" with community and charity-oriented. (Surprising, since you regularly criticize others for supposedly misusing "socialism" and its variants.) The conservative case against the modern, centralized welfare state is in part that it displaces and ultimately destroys community.

I'm surprised you aren't making the standard liberal case -- which I think very much is the position you normally take -- that life before the New Deal was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 21, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I wrote in the previous thread that Greg and all the others pushing the False Story the "new big lie" that Thomas Jefferson would have been in favor of a massive expansion of the Federal government.


Except in the same year, Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions - of the "Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions" -


So the idea that Greg is pushing like a drug dealer is completely absurd.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

By way of the Corner, panic, hysteria, and demogoguery from a DCCC flak:

"Picking Representative Paul Ryan to give the State of the Union rebuttal is a clear sign that House Republicans will move full speed ahead with plans that would have a devastating impact on seniors who are already struggling to get by. As if it wasn’t already clear, House Republicans are now doubling down on their disastrous plans to gamble Social Security funds on Wall Street and dismantle Medicare."


Propoganda anyone?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 21, 2011 7:50 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

I'm with Dana Milbanks, ashotinthedark, and Mark in Austin. I would love to see this blog go a month without Palin. I say this as someone who supports the number of previous posts you've offered...I just think it's time. She's really not relevant except as a reality show host and Fox News correspondent. In other words Sister Sarah deserves as much coverage as Bill O'Reilly or Greta Van Susteren...or perhaps the same amount of coverage as Snooki..she gets plenty just not on this blog.

In fact I am in agreement with Bernie's earlier post. Michelle Bachmann is actually a politician who might have a future...until she actually runs for national office and her extreme right distortions and lies catch up with her.

Bachmann actually blows away Palin if you look at the facts. She is intelligent and actually has some academic achievement unlike Palin. Bachman has a J.D. I know from Oral Roberts..or what do they call it now..Evangel? But she also has another graduate degree..an L.L.M. in Tax law from William and Mary. And Bill and Mary has an excellent reputation. Bachmann is also far, far more articulate than Sister Sarah. What a hoot when Palin joked about Obama's prompter reading skills...talk about projection..what else can Sister Sarah do but read prompter...or perhaps her hand. I actually felt sorry for Palin the other night with Hannity. I'd forgotten how horribly she mangles the English language and has enormous difficulty producing clear and lucid thoughts..at least off the cuff without a prompter. Poor Sean the suckup even tried answering for her within the body of his "questions" She may not say what you wish to hear but Bachmann is good off the cuff and can actually adlib a speech. Bachmann IMHO is calculated wack..she's smart enough to know better. She's simply pandering to the TPers and enjoying her 15 minutes of fame. In fairness to Sister Sarah I honestly don't believe she's bright enough to figure out reality and she takes herself seriously and believes all those losers like Kristol who set her up.

Bachmann is not a quitter...she's finished all the offices to which she has been elected.
Lastly, and totally unimportant..except for those righties who got the tingles when Sister Sarah winked at them instead of answering any questions or addressing any issues during the VP debate...Bachmann is far better looking than Palin.

And so let's have a month free of Palin and concentrate on a REAL politician...Bachmann is in Iowa as we speak...is there any doubt WHY she is there. Go Michele...Bachmann/Gohmert 2012!
How about Demint/Bachmann....yeah that's the ticket..as 12Bar might say..bwaahaaahaa

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Scaring old people . . . fear and paranoia . . . Party of No.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 21, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"Scaring old people . . . fear and paranoia . . . Party of No."

Which part of that is wrong? Hell, even my governor embraced the third part with great enthusiasm.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 21, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Looks like circumstances are forcing even liberals to act like Republicans---and catch the same flack:

===========================================

"Career politician Jerry Brown was ushered into the seat of California's Governor not from a huge turnout of voters at the polls, or even from the same young people who helped Obama's landslide victory, but instead mainly from people who just didn't want to see Whitman get the job. However, just like Whitman, Brown shares her tough on immigrants, education, and workers approach - even though some of the country's biggest unions helped him get into office.

"According to the Daily Californian, Brown's proposed cuts mean simply more sweeping austerity measures:

"With the state facing a $25.4 billion budget gap for the 2011-12 fiscal year, Gov. Jerry Brown proposed $500 million in cuts to the University of California as part of his 2011-12 budget on Monday. Brown unveiled his first recommendation for the state's 2011-12 budget, proposing a total of $12.5 billion in reductions in state spending levels. His plan includes deep cuts to state welfare programs and a total of $1 billion in funding reductions to the state's higher education system.The California State University system - which has also experienced severe cuts in recent years - also will sustain a $500 million cut through Brown's plan. The plan also includes $432.5 million in cuts to the state's community college system while increasing the price per unit from $26 to $36.

"According to Joseph Kishore , these cuts go even deeper than those under Arnold:

"The cuts include: $1.5 billion from the state’s welfare program; $1.7 billion from Medi-Cal (the state Medicaid health care program for the poor); $1 billion from the state university systems; and $750 million from the Department of Developmental Services, which provides aid to the disabled. Pay for state workers not covered by collective bargaining agreements will be cut by 10 percent, and Brown has made clear that he is targeting the pensions and pay of all state workers. In addition, the governor will seek a referendum vote to keep in place a series of regressive taxes, including sales taxes and a vehicle license fee.
Brown’s reference to sacrifices from “every sector of the state” is a fraud, as it is only the poor and working class that will be forced to pay. California, the largest state by population, is also home to six of the country’s wealthiest 10 zip codes and 19 of the wealthiest 400 individuals. A wealth tax of 10 percent on these 19 people, who have a combined net worth of $136.2 billion, would raise more money than the value of all the cuts in Brown’s budget for the next 18 months."---infoshop.org

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 8:03 PM | Report abuse


If the Founding Fathers wanted government-run health care for the ENTIRE nation, why didn't just just write one line into the Constitution ?

AND why didn't they do it in one of the first Congresses ?

BECAUSE THEY DECIDED HEALTH CARE WOULD FALL UNDER STATES' POWERS.


What DID the Founding Fathers do?


They clarified this way by ADDING this to the Constitution:

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "


RATIFIED ON DECEMBER 15, 1791.


______________________


What's government when words have no meaning ?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

How about Demint/Bachmann....yeah that's the ticket..as 12Bar might say..bwaahaaahaa
------------------------------------------------------
Since my name was invoked, I think I'll throw something in. I notice that dream tickets often have Bachmann listed as supporting actor. Dream tickets including Palin usually have Palin as leading lady. Perhaps the right is more inclined to see Mrs. Palin as leading the ticket, or not at all. That makes Mrs. Palin's candidacy more risky as she is "all or nothing". However, if Michelle Bachmann can be seen as taking either spot, she is seen as a more flexible candidate. That adds more credibility to your argument that Mrs. Bachmann would make a more formidable candidate.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 8:08 PM | Report abuse

@Q.B. "that life before the New Deal was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

And you think it wasn't?

We can argue the rest of the evening about intent..of the F.F's..the citizens..all of them...I posit that the citizens would have been more than happy to have some Gov't help.
You think they were all Jeremiah Johnson. We disagree. More importantly there is no place in the modern world for Jeremiah Johnson...yeah perhaps in Alaska or the Pacific Northwest with the rest of the wackadoodle survivalists.

But that is the crux of virtually all of our debates Q.B. Change...human nature does not respond easily to change..I get your difficulty. I remember a Dental Practice Management Consultant in a lecture describing how he went into a Practice once..met with the staff and when he mentioned...here are the changes we plan to implement..one of the girls started crying and said "Change..you mean we have to change?" The same phenemenon manifests itself when a small child who has had cigarette butts put on it..all manner of abuse..yet when the DCF picks up the child..it still cries for it's mother..because the known horror is better than the unknown...CHANGE.

Your fear of change manifests itself in your strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. CHANGE...even if the brightest folks on earth figure out a better way than men who lived over 200 years with limited life experience and zero knowledge of the modern world...CHANGE...ohhhh no...
It manifests itself in our very names Q.B.

con·serv·a·tive
–adjective
1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

pro·gres·sive
–adjective
1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.

These are not my definitions they come from Dictionary.com

And there it is in a nutshell. There would have been no progress in our nation without progressives...who alas have had to battle the anti-progress conservatives who are simply afraid of CHANGE.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

AS PROOF

of Greg's idea about Thomas Jefferson, Greg offers evidence of numerous attempts by Jefferson when he was President for 8 years of trying to have government-run health care, right ???


LETS SEE THAT

____________________

Here is something Jefferson DID DO - the Kentucky Resolutions


Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions

Here is a portion:


That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever;

and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"

therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 8:10 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar Excellent points in your 8:18.

I agree wholeheartedly with your observation.
It is another reason Bachmann has a far better chance than Palin. In all honesty I hadn't really thought of it that way because I've already written off Sarah...but Bachmann..she's not toast...yet.

But great point 12Bar..it is easier to imagine Bachmann as a VP candidate than either Palin or Bachmann at the head of the ticket...and since Sarah has already gone that route she's pretty much locked into the top spot or nothing..while Bachmann still has that flexibility thingy goin' for her. Great point 12Bar

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 8:15 PM | Report abuse

So, the liberals have decided that have made enough nasty remarks about Sarah Palin

Time to move on.


The liberals are now going to make nasty remarks about Michele Bachman.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

What's government when words have no meaning ?


- Response to Obama's bait and switch after the 2008 campaign.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

"Since my name was invoked, I think I'll throw something in. I notice that dream tickets often have Bachmann listed as supporting actor. Dream tickets including Palin usually have Palin as leading lady. Perhaps the right is more inclined to see Mrs. Palin as leading the ticket, or not at all. That makes Mrs. Palin's candidacy more risky as she is "all or nothing". However, if Michelle Bachmann can be seen as taking either spot, she is seen as a more flexible candidate. That adds more credibility to your argument that Mrs. Bachmann would make a more formidable candidate. "

This kind of makes my head hurt.

But I think by some weird standard, the right thinks that Palin has "paid her dues," while Bachmann has not. Also, when you are two years out from an election, prospective candidates are pretty well known and I don't think anyone who doesn't really follow politics knows who Bachmann is.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 21, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

I must be slow, since I don't quite get how life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and at the same time socialistic back in the good old days.

"There would have been no progress in our nation without progressives..."

Well that's just silly, as are dictionary definitions for settling political debates. Why study the history of ideas when it's right there in a few lines at dictionary.com?

Good night.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 21, 2011 8:33 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade "Looks like circumstances are forcing even liberals to act like Republicans---and catch the same flack:"

Wow Brigade talk about a flawed premise.
Republicans suck at balancing the budget.
Just because you all call yourself fiscally responsible doesn't make it so...in fact the R's are a joke when it comes to fiscal responsibility. What are you talking about Brigade. An R who actually DID something about the budget would be acting like a Democrat not the other way around. Do you not care one whit for facts or history. Check out the chart and you'll see you can go back 50 years and the R's always INCREASE the Deficit while the D's actually DECREASE it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Really Brigade you're better than that. An R as a TRUE fiscal conservative? Where?
When? Again to steal from 12Bar Bwahaahaa

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Words to live by from a liberal icon:
=====================================

"The liberal left can be as rigid and destructive as any force in American life."---
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."---
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"The single most exciting thing you encounter in government is competence, because it's so rare."---
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"There are some mistakes only someone with a Ph.D. can make."---
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"There is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future - that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder - most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure - that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved."---
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Brigade likes to use the cat's paw of Moynihan to swat at liberals. Nice try!

Since we're into definitions, a cat's paw refers to a person used unwittingly by another to accomplish his own purposes. Amazing you couldn't find an equally eloquent conservative to make your point.

Bwahahaha!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Really Brigade you're better than that. An R as a TRUE fiscal conservative? Where?
When? Again to steal from 12Bar Bwahaahaa

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 8:35 PM
--------

You should get out more. Brown being attacked for cutting welfare instead of raising taxes? Have you ever heard of New Jersey governor Christie? I guess all liberals are on board for ole Chris. Chet Culver of Iowa made a deal with unions for locked-in raises after he lost the election to Branstad; now Branstad is giving the unions a choice: renegotiate or face massive layouts. We'll see what you say when the Republican House in Washington starts proposing cuts; somehow I expect to hear whining instead of support for taming the deficit. You know what a budget is don't you? One of those things the Dems never got around to while they were starting new programs to bankrupt the country.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse


What's government when words have no meaning ?


- Response to Obama's bait and switch after the 2008 campaign.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Amazing you couldn't find an equally eloquent conservative to make your point.

Bwahahaha!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 8:47 PM
==================================

You forget, liberals don't pay attention to conservatives. In this case, they probably won't pay attention to a liberal either. Unwitting or not, you either agree with the statements or you don't.

While we're on a roll, here's something you'll no doubt remember and appreciate:

---

"A Catholic, Moynihan disapproved of the promotion of abortion by Democrats, declaring early in his career that 'you women are ruining the Democratic Party with your insistence on abortion.'

"Moynihan supported prohibition of partial-birth abortion with this observation:

'I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus. What on Earth is this procedure?'"---conservapedia.com

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a complete failure.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 8:58 PM | Report abuse

What's government when words have no meaning ?


- Response to Obama's bait and switch after the 2008 campaign.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Unwitting or not, you either agree with the statements or you don't.
------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't disagree with Moynihan, for the most part. Sometimes, I would disagree with him.

God gave me my wits to use them, not to just unwittingly endorse someone else's statements.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 9:03 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

You have to remember that Moynihan grew up in a time when the democratic party was aligned with the KKK and lynched blacks on a regular basis.

So the democrats were working with the KKK to enforce the Jim Crow laws.

Moynihan was from New York - however the Jim Crow influence of the democratic party was everywhere.


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 9:08 PM | Report abuse

@ddawd,

Some time ago I noticed that Bachmann was often mentioned as #2 to some other Republican. Almost never was she mentioned in the #1 slot. This may be because of lack of name id, as you mention. It also may have something to a vestige of sexism, although it doesn't seem to apply to Mrs. Palin. I suspect that it has more to do with a common perception that Mrs. Bachmann would settle for #2 slot, whereas Mrs. Palin would not. I just think that makes Mrs. Bachmann more usable to the Republican party.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 9:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't disagree with Moynihan, for the most part. Sometimes, I would disagree with him.

God gave me my wits to use them, not to just unwittingly endorse someone else's statements.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 9:03 PM
--------

I didn't ask anyone to unwittingly endorse his statements. I think the statements are true, but I certainly didn't agree with all of Moynihan's positions. I did, however, respect him. He spread a lot less B.S. than most liberals. In fact, he probably wouldn't even be recognized as a liberal by the rank and file Plum Liners, who like their B.S. at least waist deep.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 9:09 PM | Report abuse

In fact, he probably wouldn't even be recognized as a liberal by the rank and file Plum Liners, who like their B.S. at least waist deep.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any idea how hard it is to reply to you? Normally, I cease paying any attention to someone who insults me. I'm just speaking for myself, no one else on this blog. BS at least waist deep? That is so insulting and so untrue of me, anyway. And to make it more ironic, I liked Pat Moynihan.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade "We'll see what you say when the Republican House in Washington starts proposing cuts;"

We'll see what YOU have to say Brigade. I come down with the American People..doubt the R's will do that...they rarely do.

In a poll this week conducted by the New York Times/CBS News...
When asked where the American people want to cut the budget...
Medicare 21%
Social Security 13%
DEFENSE 55% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No Opinion 10%


Got that Brigade. Here is a chance for your blowhards in Congress who are always talking about the will of the people to put up or shutup. Does this resemble Ryan's proposals? Hardly.

By more than a 2-1...yeah Brigade 2-1 plurality folks prefer Defense cuts to Medicare cuts.
By a more than 4-1.....4-1.....4-1 plurality Americans prefer defense cuts to Social Security cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/20/us/poll-graphic.html

And so Brigade do you suspect the R's will ACTUALLY listen to the will of the American people? Yeah right...those American people (as defined by the Supremes) that also happen to be Corporations. Listening to Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility or listening to the will of the American people makes my head hurt...BS has a way of doing that.

BTW Brigade...nice dodge..you went exclusively to State Gov't and then returned to the new R majority in the NATIONAL Gov't House. Talk about apples to oranges. Virtually all of the states have a balanced budget Constitutionally mandated. The pols in the states...D or R shouldn't get credit for doing what the law forces them to do. Yet nationally while the R's bleat about balanced budget Amendments it's all just BS again. Clinton balanced the Budget with paygo...the R's did away with that obvious bit of common sense...if you're trying to balance a budget..simply pay for everything as you go and voila the budget stays balanced...again see Bill Clinton..it's not rocket science but apparently beyond the comprehension of R's.
When Obama wanted to do the same thing and resurrect paygo the R's were apoplectic.
When the R's came up with a Deficit commission and Obama said great idea...the R's voted against THEIR OWN FREAKING LEGISLATION...bills THEY HAD INTRODUCED!!!
And you wonder why there is so little respect for the current group of R's?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Do you have any idea how hard it is to reply to you? Normally, I cease paying any attention to someone who insults me. I'm just speaking for myself, no one else on this blog. BS at least waist deep? That is so insulting and so untrue of me, anyway. And to make it more ironic, I liked Pat Moynihan.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 9:15 PM
==================================

Not sure why you chose to take it so personally. Since you're pro-life, you hardly qualify as a rank and file liberal Plum Liner.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

You have to remember that Moynihan grew up in a time when the democratic party was aligned with the KKK and lynched blacks on a regular basis.

So the democrats were working with the KKK to enforce the Jim Crow laws.

Moynihan was from New York - however the Jim Crow influence of the democratic party was everywhere.


________________


It's called historical context.


Something that has been lacking from all this nonsense that Greg has been writing about Thomas Jefferson.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade 7:26-

Word.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 21, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

What's government when words have no meaning ?


- Response to Obama's bait and switch after the 2008 campaign.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Not sure why you chose to take it so personally.
----------------------------------------------------------
Nor do I. I'm rather old fashioned and expect respect.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama appoints the head of liberal NBC to some stupid board


AND the Conservatives are supposed to come swooning???

Have you heard some of the ridiculous things said on MSNBC lately???

UM, Im not sure what a reasonable person is supposed to say about Obama's conduct recently.


I can say thing: NOTHING since last May has worked at all. Everything Obama has tried has failed. Every idea floated has been shot down quickly and abandoned by Obama. Obama has nothing. Repeal will be moving forward because that is what the American People want.


The nuances are just another attempt to deceive.

At what point will the democrats stop this nonsense??? Seriously folks, when will the democrats start to act like adults???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Not sure why you chose to take it so personally.
-------------------------------------------
Nor do I. I'm rather old fashioned and expect respect.


_______________________________


With the nonstop ridiculous things you say???

AND with your destructive behavior in which you PURPOSELY brought Cao to this blog ?

You brought CAO here knowing FULL WELL what he would do on this blog - and you were proud of it. You made several statements indicating how happy you were with yourself.

12Bar, I don't know how old you are. But you certainly are not mature. Even your elderly father was angered by you on a regular basis.

What is wrong with you?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 9:32 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade "Not sure why you chose to take it so personally. Since you're pro-life, you hardly qualify as a rank and file liberal Plum Liner."

Not to jump in on 12Bars battle...she can handle herself far better than I could ever speak for her...but I would like to offer an observation.

Life is not black and white! Neither are politics or political parties. I realize that is hard for an R to relate since your party prefers purity and doesn't brook anybody thinking outside of the current talking points...whenever you see an R speak you can just think Frank Luntz...

You come up with too many blanket assertions. I may disagree with 12Bars pro life position but I completely respect it and realize the religious beliefs that inform that position.

Again Brigade watch out for your side...as Yogi Berra once famously said...it's deja vu all over again. Once upon a time it was the D's who demanded party unity. In the late 60's we might have mistakenly run off 12Bar because of her pro life views.
How'd that work out for the D's...that party purity exploded in the 1968 Convention led to Tricky Dicky and allowed the R's to gain enough power to trash our economy and embarrass us repeatedly on the World stage. The D downfall was party purity.

Well is either party now insistent on party purity. Has either party primaried some very successful and very conservative legislators because of ONE vote they took?
Yeah...keep the purification process in high gear...more Christine O'Donnells...more Sharron Angles and fewer Chris Christies.

I can hardly wait for the 2012 R convention. It's going to be must see TV.
We may get Chicago 68 all over again minus the student protests. And to think all this excitement is going to take place right across the bay just 30 minutes away.
I'll give you this Brigade. The D convention in 2012 is going to be very boring and predictable...the R Convention...as I said..must watch TV.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 9:33 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:
"BTW Brigade...nice dodge..you went exclusively to State Gov't and then returned to the new R majority in the NATIONAL Gov't House."
===================================

It was you who made the dodge. My original post was about Jerry Brown. You responded as follows:

"Wow Brigade talk about a flawed premise.
Republicans suck at balancing the budget.
Just because you all call yourself fiscally responsible doesn't make it so...in fact the R's are a joke when it comes to fiscal responsibility. What are you talking about Brigade. . . Check out the chart and you'll see you can go back 50 years and the R's always INCREASE the Deficit while the D's actually DECREASE it."

And the link you provided concerned national debt by U.S. presidential terms.
So I then referenced the federal deficit in response to your rambling.

"And so Brigade do you suspect the R's will ACTUALLY listen to the will of the American people?"

And now you introduce something totally unrelated to my point. I don't know that Brown is necessarily "listening to the will of the ... people". I just said his proposals sound more Republican than Democratic. You could either agree or disagree (and state why) but instead you went off on a tangent about federal debt under American Presidents and ranted about the will of the people.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade 7:26-

Word.

Agreed.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 9:39 PM | Report abuse

12bb, it's absolutely undebatable that Dems are the party of balanced budgets and deficit reduction. I'm not even going to argue it any more since it will just be met by Conservatives saying their Conservative Things.

But yeah, Bachmann and Palin are interchangeable. Both are vile people that will appeal to the absolute dredges of their party, but little else. It will speak to the delusions of the Republican party if Bachmann gets nominated as the VP. Who do you think would select her? Romney? Huckabee?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 21, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade "It was you who made the dodge. My original post was about Jerry Brown"

Hardly Brigade...you said..
"Looks like circumstances are forcing even liberals to act like Republicans---and catch the same flack:"

I was simply responding to your original premise that began the post...Jerry Brown is actually an insignificant specific.
You spoke broadly at the beginning...liberals acting like R's. That is flawed when talking about the pain or difficulty of balancing a budget. When D's face the grief of the electorate and make painful choices it's what they have done historically..unlike the R's who have never made a painful choice in the past 50 years.

"And now you introduce something totally unrelated to my point."

What? It was a very specific response to your statement.

"We'll see what you say when the Republican House in Washington starts proposing cuts;"

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 9:49 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade 7:26-

Word.

Agreed.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 21, 2011 9:39 PM
-----

I guess liberals have their own language with which to communicate with one another.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 9:49 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:
"I was simply responding to your original premise that began the post...Jerry Brown is actually an insignificant specific.
You spoke broadly at the beginning...liberals acting like R's. That is flawed when talking about the pain or difficulty of balancing a budget."
==================================

Only an insignificant specific to you. Brown's taking flack from liberals for proposing spending cuts instead of increasing taxes. And last time I checked, he was a Governor, not a President. You immediately shifted the focus to past US Presidents. I mentioned Chris Christie and Terry Branstad, both Governors, but you insist on changing the subject because the facts don't fit your argument. And, as I suggested, we'll see what you have to say about pain and difficulty when Republicans in Washington start talking about exactly the same sort of cuts Jerry Brown is proposing. Simple enough?

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Who do you think would select her? Romney? Huckabee?
------------------------------------------------------------
That's the uncomfortable question. I see that recent polls have inexplicably got the R slate with Huckabee in the low 20's, with Romney/Palin/Gingrich lagging ten points. It wasn't very long ago that Romney and Palin were around the low 20's with Gingrich & Huckabee lagging ten points. Other than Mrs. Palin recent blackeye and the effect on her polling, I haven't heard anything that would cause Romney/Gingrich/Huckabee to double or halve their support. My suspicion is that Republican support for any one candidate (except Mrs. Palin) is ephemeral.

The only clue I have picked up, and this might mean nothing, is that Huckabee seems not to be attending CPAC in a couple of weeks. That doesn't sound like a candidate to me.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 9:59 PM | Report abuse

What recent Palin black eye?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 21, 2011 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Olberman's show is cancelled....


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

What recent Palin black eye?
--------------------------------------------------
The effect of the Tucson shooting. That brouhaha definitely did not elevate Mrs. Palin's approval rating. The most recent polls have her approval number dropping more. One poll even has her at 19% approval, but that looks an outlier (so far).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/fav-palin_n_725513.html

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

"But GOP Rep. Paul Broun disagrees, insisting Dems are pushing the idea as a trap: "The sitting together being kissy-kissy is just another way to try to silence Republicans.""

Someone remembers the teaching of the Reverend Grover Norquist, when he taught his sacred, profound insight that "bipartisanship is just another word for date rape".

Posted by: akaoddjob | January 21, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Ah, ok. Yeah, I assumed that Palin's remarks were classless, but that's par for the course for her.

But I didn't realize how her ratings had been dropping so steadily. It's pretty crazy given how she is propped up by the press. Imagine what will happen once she actually gets in a campaign against other Republicans.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 21, 2011 10:58 PM | Report abuse

But I didn't realize how her ratings had been dropping so steadily.
-------------------------------------------------
I take it that you looked at pollster's metagraph of all the polls. I'm always surprised when her fans come on here and claim that she's so popular. If you look at **all** the polls over the last two years, you see a steady erosion of her popularity.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Bachmann on the GOP ticket.

Palin running as Gun Owners or Constitutional or Really Pissed Off Hicks party, truthing in the Lort to fix the election, splitting the conservative vote. Obama takes 48 states.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 21, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama takes 48 states.
-------------------------------------------
Or more.

That scenario would have Bachmann riding the white horse, Palin on the red horse and the rest of the R's on the black and pale horses.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 21, 2011 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, if we want to get all Constitutional, might we not ask a few pointed questions?

Ridding our beloved community of 30-bullet-clips that can murder or maim 20 people in less than a minute might clearly be required under the notion of "insure domestic Tranquility"?

Medicare-for-All might remind us of our national promise to "promote the general Welfare"?

Posted by: wendyf | January 21, 2011 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the very idea of promoting the general welfare sounds like a phrase translated from another language in a foreign country.

What those who refer to themselves as conservative call Socialism or collectivism or redistribution or something.

30-round clips? Shall not be infringed! Shall not be infringed! This is what it looks like when a country simply disintegrates.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 21, 2011 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the very idea of promoting the general welfare sounds like a phrase translated from another language in a foreign country.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 21, 2011 11:21 PM
==========================================

Cao lectures us from Vietnam.

==========================================

2008 Human Rights Reports: Vietnam

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices

February 25, 2009


The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, with a population of approximately 86 million, is an authoritarian state ruled by the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). The most recent National Assembly elections, held in May 2007, were neither free nor fair, since all candidates were vetted by the CPV's Vietnam Fatherland Front (VFF), an umbrella group that monitored the country's mass organizations. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.

The government's human rights record remained unsatisfactory. Citizens could not change their government, and political opposition movements were prohibited. The government continued to crack down on dissent, arresting political activists and causing several dissidents to flee the country. Police sometimes abused suspects during arrest, detention, and interrogation. Corruption was a significant problem in the police force, and police officers sometimes acted with impunity. Prison conditions were often severe. Individuals were arbitrarily detained for political activities and denied the right to fair and expeditious trials. The government continued to limit citizens' privacy rights and tightened controls over the press and freedom of speech, assembly, movement, and association. The government maintained its prohibition of independent human rights organizations. Violence and discrimination against women remained a concern. Trafficking in persons continued to be a significant problem. Some ethnic minority groups suffered societal discrimination. The government limited workers' rights and arrested or harassed several labor activists.

=========================================

But as long as cao is happy, it's not really important what the government does to anyone else.

Posted by: Brigade | January 21, 2011 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama takes 48 states.
-------------------------------------------
Or more.

That scenario would have Bachmann riding the white horse, Palin on the red horse and the rest of the R's on the black and pale horses.

==

Bachmann or Palin, they're both nuts. Imagine a whole election cycle of Bachmann's Greatest Hits and lots of exposure of those ... eyes.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 21, 2011 11:49 PM | Report abuse

What's government when words have no meaning ?


- Response to Obama's bait and switch after the 2008 campaign.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Olberman is a maggot


he is nothing but a worthless hate-monger who has done nothing positive for anyone.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I take it that you looked at pollster's metagraph of all the polls. I'm always surprised when her fans come on here and claim that she's so popular. If you look at **all** the polls over the last two years, you see a steady erosion of her popularity.

==

38% of 310 million is 117,800,000 votes.

Seriously. How many did Obma get? Huh? Huh?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 21, 2011 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Correction


Olbermann is a maggot


little spelling correction there


he has always been a vicious hate-monger, completely worthless to everyone around him.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 21, 2011 11:55 PM | Report abuse

38% of 310 million is 117,800,000 votes.
------------------------------------------
Who said that?

First, 310 million is the entire population including babies.

The number of voters last time out was about 110m.

38% of 110m is about 40million.

Obama got about 63m votes om 2008.

I just going on memory here.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 22, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Oh, by all means, if Palin runs then Obama will win all 57 States.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 22, 2011 12:15 AM | Report abuse

38% of 310 million is 117,800,000 votes.
------------------------------------------
Who said that?

==

Jake, of course. And he was serious.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 22, 2011 12:24 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRising, his show getting canceled could not have happened to a nicer guy.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 22, 2011 12:55 AM | Report abuse

"We'll see what you say when the Republican House in Washington starts proposing cuts;"

==

Seen the movie.

They'll propose cutting essential government-provided necessities, and when they can't be cut, the GOP will act all persecuted and put-upon and the base willl eat it up.

I'm sure some were wondering how the Republicans were going to use their House majority. Well, now you know. Posturing and preening. Symbolic (hi, tao9!) votes, phony investigations, ideological BS. They'll try to take an axe to the middle class, they'll go after insignificant expenditures like NPR and the NEA, they'll attack the EPA, but won't shave so much as a nose-hair from defense.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 22, 2011 3:35 AM | Report abuse

An armed society is a polite society.

Ah, no.

"At least two recent studies show that more guns equals more carnage to innocents. One survey by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that guns did not protect those who had them from being shot in an assault — just the opposite. Epidemiologists at Penn looked at hundreds of muggings and assaults. What they found was that those with guns were four times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without guns. The unarmed person, in other words, is safer.

Other studies have found that states with the highest rates of gun ownership have much greater gun death rates than those where only a small percentage of the population is armed. So, Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest.

Arizona, where people can carry guns into bars and almost anyone can get a concealed weapons permit, is one of the top 10 states for gun ownership and death rates by firearms. And in the wake of the shootings, some lawmakers want to flood public areas with even more lethal weapons."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/?ref=opinion

Posted by: caothien9 | January 22, 2011 5:41 AM | Report abuse

For a short, succinct piece on Murdoch's growing problems in Britain...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/21/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-crisis

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Tomorrow's yakking will have a large Olbermann component, of course. Here's my thoughts...

1) It's in corporate's interests to deny that the Comcast aspect is irrelevant. There's no reason to believe those statements.

2) It's a symbolic victory for the right wing in the US

3) In terms of journalism, I prefer both Maddow and O'Donnell to Keith (more substantive, better researchers) so, I think, the loss is mitigated

4) But given the modern media universe, particularly cable and Fox and the corporatization of news dissemination, any loss of a left wing voice in major media has importance particularly if already popular

5) the money at this level - for news! - is not merely obscene, it multiplies incentives to continue the status quo and to resist significant chance to structures of power and wealth

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 6:58 AM | Report abuse

On the merger that preceded Olbermann's firing (it seems the right word at this point)...

"The closest many will have come to expressing an interest in the merger between NBC Universal and Comcast is through watching a parody of the deal unfold in 30 Rock, NBC's self-referential comedy.

The comically awful marriage between NBC and the fictitious Kabletown was sold by Alec Baldwin's brilliantly smug Jack Donaghy to a congressional committee in the hit show by a rather lurid pitch around "VI" or vertical integration, using the horribly inappropriate metaphor of a local farmer. Extending the crude metaphor, Donaghy paints a picture to a gullible committee whereby if the farmer is not able to achieve "VI" he is literally beheaded. As of Tuesday, the joke became reality: US central regulator the FCC finally approved the $30bn merger.

The scale and type of the deal, however, has struck at the core not just of the media business world in the US but also at its philosophical framework for media regulation. By combining the largest TV network with one of the largest cable distributors, the FCC is allowing a concentration of power that some might argue is healthy for the efficiency of the business, but more worry will stifle competition, plurality and even increase the threat to net neutrality..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/21/nbc-universal-comcast

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 7:02 AM | Report abuse

As Milbank notes today, the Republicans are once again going to go the the abortion issue to motivate their base for 2012 and to gen up the hatred towards this administration and, most crucially, to one again set Americans against Americans. It's a vile crowd, these days.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Funny, I was never that big of an Olberman fan although I loved him during the HCR fight and all the work he did and money he raised for the free clinics, which really highlighted the need for reform. But now that he's gone, I miss him. I think in a lot of ways he became the voice of many marginalized Americans during the Bush years.

Regarding Obama's adding Immelt to his economic team with the new catchy name, call me unimpressed. Everything right now will be geared toward re-election, my least favorite part of politics, but he's got to raise about a billion to be successful so I imagine we'll see the corporate tax rate fall in the not too distant future.

""As the administration struggles to prod businesses to create jobs at home, GE has been busy sending them abroad. Since Immelt took over in 2001, GE has shed 34,000 jobs in the U.S., according to its most recent annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But it's added 25,000 jobs overseas.

At the end of 2009, GE employed 36,000 more people abroad than it did in the U.S. In 2000, it was nearly the opposite.

Unions are worried. Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said he hopes the Immelt-led White House panel won't be dominated by big business.

"It has to have more than CEOs that are already operating offshore," Gerard said.

Foreign work has proven lucrative to GE. In 2007, it derived half of its global sales from work abroad. In 2009, that share increased to 54 percent. U.S. sales have shrunk.

And rather than invest in the U.S., the company has decided to look elsewhere. In 2008 and 2009, GE decided to "indefinitely" reinvest prior-year earnings outside the country, according to SEC filings. That's helped the firm lower its tax rate.

In 2009, the Connecticut-based firm effectively had a negative tax rate, thanks to the $498 million loss it booked on U.S. operations versus the $10.8 billion in earnings it booked abroad. GE realized a $1.1 billion tax benefit in 2009.

In 2008, it paid $1.1 billion in taxes for a 5.3 percent tax rate. In 2007, it paid $4.2 billion in taxes for a 15.1 percent tax rate.

By comparison, during those three years -- 2007 through 2009 -- the firm reported combined net income of $50.6 billion.

The corporate tax rate in the U.S. is supposed to be 35 percent.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/obama-picks-jeffrey-immel-ge-jobs-overseas_n_812502.html

Posted by: lmsinca | January 22, 2011 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Kristol, interestingly, does *another* column on "the 2012 GOP nomination would be a terrible thing to waste".

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/2012-open-field-and-fair-chance_536867.html

Bill REALLY wants to win the WH. Or perhaps it's more accurate to consider that what he really wants is to bring down the (any) Dem president particularly where a progressive agenda is being forwarded (the rationale for his work in bringing down healthcare).

But it's interesting to consider why he is arguing here that activists should go slow in getting behind any particular candidate at this point in time.

There's a disadvantage in isolating an individual now (even if, as Weigel noted last week, in prior electoral cycles front runners were being isolated at this point) because opposition forces can be mustered and have the time to function. He's learned a lesson here from the Palin VP nomination, I think.

But I think the better understanding of why he's advising as he is in this piece is that he understands the deep inherent divisions in his movement this cycle and he's trying to avoid loud, visible and prolonged internecine battles which will do damage to any and all candidates. I think Bill figures that if a lid can be kept on all of this, then when a candidate who can win (not Palin) emerges as the best bet, everyone can get behind him/her.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 8:08 AM | Report abuse

GOOD MORNING AMERICA

Olbermann's show is cancelled....


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom


Another one bites the dust.....


bom bom

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 22, 2011 8:10 AM | Report abuse

I don't know how many of you read the NYTimes piece re the new push to find a way for underwater states to file bankruptcy, but there's an ongoing conversation this is only a ruse to break the backs of public employees and their pensions. Here's a piece that counters the NYTimes with a quote from the CBPP. Oh and if you do a little more digging you'll discover this "bankruptcy" plan is a Conyers/Gingrich scheme.

There are definitely some changes that need to be made across the country re public employees such as increased contributions, older retirement ages, and other shared sacrifice issues, but reneging on retirement benefits through bankruptcy should not even be on the table. Most states are already dealing with these issues out of budget necessity, let's not make it worse.

"" A spate of recent articles regarding the fiscal situation of states and localities have lumped together their current fiscal problems, stemming largely from the recession, with longer-term issues relating to debt, pension obligations, and retiree health costs, to create the mistaken impression that drastic and immediate measures are needed to avoid an imminent fiscal meltdown.

The large operating deficits that most states are projecting for the 2012 fiscal year, which they have to close before the fiscal year begins (on July 1 in most states), are caused largely by the weak economy. . . . [i.e., the US could easily fix that, as they did partly in the stimulus act]

Unlike the projected operating deficits for fiscal year 2012, which require near-term solutions to meet states’ and localities’ balanced-budget requirements, longer-term issues related to bond indebtedness, pension obligations, and retiree health insurance — discussed more fully below — can be addressed over the next several decades. It is not appropriate to add these longer-term costs to projected operating deficits. Nor should the size and implications of these longer-term costs be exaggerated, as some recent discussions have done. Such mistakes can lead to inappropriate policy prescriptions.""

http://my.firedoglake.com/scarecrow/2011/01/21/nobel-economist-hints-nyt-propaganda-against-public-pensions-cant-be-trusted/

Posted by: lmsinca | January 22, 2011 8:15 AM | Report abuse

re: Olbermann

I think FOX should hire Olbermann. In all seriousness. Give him the 11pm time slot to start,which is currently filled with O'Reilly reruns. Conservatives will watch in order to hate him, and it might attract a new liberal demographic. And it runs counter to the liberal narrative about FOX. If I was Ailes I would seriously consider it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 22, 2011 8:18 AM | Report abuse

ps - another important aspect to keeping the lid on loud internecine war within the movement is that it presents a movement of ideological confusion and policy complexity.

One of the fundamental aspects of modern conservative propaganda techniques (and it works) is to present an image and narrative of uniformity and agreement. It works because humans in community tend to follow a consensus or an apparent consensus - it avoids the necessity of thinking for oneself or digging into details, ofen complex.

The same social/psychological mechanism is at work in appeals to authority (invalid appeals) where a worldview will be founded on a sacred scripture (literally understood) or a constitution (literally understood and made sacred).

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 8:20 AM | Report abuse

@Ims...yup...more on that here...

"Newt Gingrich's bankruptcy dreams
The real goal behind a plan to allow states to default: Crushing public sector unions once and for all"

http://www.salon.com/news/newt_gingrich/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2011/01/21/newt_gingrich_and_state_bankruptcy

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"As Milbank notes today, the Republicans are once again going to go the the abortion issue to motivate their base for 2012 and to gen up the hatred towards this administration and, most crucially, to one again set Americans against Americans."

Why is opposition to abortion an example of setting Americans against Americans, but support for abortion is not?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 22, 2011 8:23 AM | Report abuse

ps on Kristol - reading Joan Walsh just now who reminds me that Bachmann has arranged her own rebuttal to the SOTU speech even while the GOP had chosen Paul Ryan to do this function, it becomes more clear how dangerous and immediate the internecine struggles in the movement are for Kristol's agenda.

(And note the illustration of potential candidates that accompanies Kristol's piece at the WS... no Palin, no Bachmann)

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca

The issue is this: in recent years, some locals have school budget approval by the voters.

If the budget is not approved, there is still a way for them to get approval.


The voters, in the end, have little say.


The unions have stacked the other side of the negotiating table - and the voters are handed the bill.


I have seen schools expanded when the number of children cycles up - they build more classrooms, and add more teachers - but it NEVER gets cut back when the number of children cycles down.

Anyway....


We need to go back to the same levels as the 70s, - adjust for inflation, adjust percentages for whatever - and that is the percentage of LOCAL BUDGETS, and percentage of GDP devoted to education.


Sorry people, but we have to cut back - the unions have to give-back.

We need to allow the economy to grow


Right now the democrats ARE CHOKING OFF ECONOMIC GROWTH.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 22, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

The job killing Republican Party has been caught in more lies. Really these guys have reached the point of being pathological.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jan/21/judging-job-killing/

"So calling something job-killing is a powerful and effective sound bite, but is it accurate? At PolitiFact, we analyzed the phrase as it has been applied to the health care law and Wall Street reform and found the evidence is somewhat flimsy.

We examined the claim by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor that the health care law is "job killing" and rated it False.

And we looked at the same claim by Rep. Mike Pence about the financial regulation bill and rated that Barely True."

And of course the job killing Republicans got caught in the lie of the year with Sister's Sarah's infamous "death panels"

Can one righty tell me why your side feels the need to lie so much. You can't even exaggerate your side's accomplishments because the job killing Republicans HAVE NO accomplishments to even exaggerate for political gain so they have resorted to egregious LYING about Dem proposals and legislation.

It's pretty self evident from all the lies coming from the job killing Republicans that they have NO REAL IDEAS. If they had a single worthwhile idea they'd be pushing it and not in the background ala Paul Ryan's joke of proposals already being avoided by his own job killing party.

I guess it must be really tough these days belonging to the lying job killing Republican party.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 22, 2011 8:37 AM | Report abuse

A very bright piece on how neoconservative philosophy provides a perfect justification for China (or any other powerful emerging nation) to do whatever is necessary to achieve domination in the world's affairs where treaties are cast aside on calculations of self-interest and where international bodies whose function and design were to to prevent or mitigate against such lone-wolf-aggressive-national moves to dominate others are derogated or dismantled or disempowered (a very obvious consequence many of us were arguing a decade ago)...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47766.html

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 8:38 AM | Report abuse

@Scott As a former broadcast journalist who is fairly aware of how the game is played I LOVE your idea in your 8:18 post.

And not because I'm a K.O. fan but because you have elucidated the exact reason why Ailes should do it.

Kudos to you my erudite friend for thinking outside the box this morning!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 22, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

rukilling

Who is stopping the job creation and the Economic Growth is the democrats and the liberals

The unions are too expensive, the local democratic government budgets are jammed-packed with democratic programs and massive government programs

THAT is what is choking off Economic Growth - its the liberals.


You really do not understand economics


Sorry, but after reading what the liberals write over a long period of time, I can see all the liberals want is a fantasyland - the major FLAW in their thinking is they rarely consider the costs of what they want, or who is going to pay for anything.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 22, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

@ru - I saw that piece yesterday and considered posting it. What stopped me from doing so was the simple perception that it would have zero effect on any conservative posting here, regardless of its source or content. Because the conclusion doesn't match the narrative they ascribe to.

Once again, this just points up how critical and pervasive the epistemological system that's been set up for rightwing audiences now is.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

"You really do not understand economics"

You do not understand reality or facts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

FACTS RFR..HOW ABOUT SOME FREAKING FACTS..
If you look at the chart it's really clear which party creates the jobs.
Jimmy Carter...arguably the least popular Dem Post War Pres created FIVE TIMES THE NUMBER OF JOBS AS THE FIRST BUSH!!!
Carter created TWICE AS MANY JOBS AS REAGAN'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION...AND equaled the number of his second term.

Clinton blows away ALL the R's. And Bush is the first President since WWII to preside over an 8 year term with NO JOB CREATION.

Really RFR. Are you able to read? Able to identify CLEAR trends. WTF are you talking about you job killer..you want us to vote for the lying job killing R's when History shows them to be economic losers...job creation...deficits..the R's suck at all of this...AT LEAST FACTUALLY AND HISTORICALLY...but somehow this is all going to magically change if we return them to power. Great deductive reasoning RFR.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 22, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

From Tomasky...

"Frum's state of the union
David Frum has penned, for Esquire, a state of the union address he'd like to see Obama give, and while I don't agree with everything in it, I think on balance it's pretty darn good. It opens:..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/21/barack-obama-frum-sotu

Posted by: bernielatham | January 22, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie "Because the conclusion doesn't match the narrative they ascribe to."

Exactly! Which is why they've been literally reduced to a bunch of liars. The R's have ZERO credibility at this point except with those who have made conclusions totally devoid of reality or fact based evidence...like our friend Sybil here.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 22, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

rukidding

The Economic Fact is that government actions impact the economy years later - it takes years for a government action to have its full affect on the economy.


For instance, Bill Clinton's Sub-Prime Mortgage Program did not explode in the democrats' faces until years later.

The internet bubble, which Bill Clinton allowed to run wild, didn't explode in the democrats' faces until later.


Your analysis is not an analysis at all - it is a partisan rant with zero basis in reality.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 22, 2011 9:06 AM | Report abuse

@RFR Waaaaaaa Waaaaa the truth hurts doesn't it? It's your contention that the reason the D's score so well during their terms is because the R's who DID NOT create nearly the same jobs actually set the table for the Dems......Do you realize how effing stupid that is? Who can argue with something so pathetic...Facts don't matter simply RFR's interpretation.

You gotta do a LOT better than that RFR if you expect me to engage with you. Sorry dude...not to be uncivil...but I'll take facts over your opinion everytime. I'll take an independent analysis from Politifact over your OPINION every time.
The lying job killing republican party has no record of achievement!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 22, 2011 9:10 AM | Report abuse

If you want to talk about Jimmy Carter - it was the impact of the high cost of the Great Society programs and the impact of the Nixon price controls which LED to the state of the Economy in the late 70s.

Jimmy Carter actually deserves credit for Paul Volcker and a good chunk of the Economic improvements which happened under Reagan.

One can blame Reagen for the bank crisis, which in part led to the election of Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton is responsible for the Free Trade deals, which have destroyed small towns all around the country.

Clinton is responsible for the Deregulation of derivatives.

Clinton is responsbile for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.

Clinton is responsible for the Sub-Prime Mortage programs. Clinton stacked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with his OWN DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING RAHM EMANUEL.

You want facts - I give you FACTS AND ANALYSIS.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 22, 2011 9:12 AM | Report abuse

All, my take on Keith Olbermann's ouster:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/keith_olbermanns_ouster.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 22, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

@RFR I want RESULTS. Show me the jobs!!!
Show me how the middle class benefits under R rule. There are too many studies which show the middle class ALWAYS does better under D governance than the R's...but go ahead and live in your dream world of delusion.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 22, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Rukidding

Ask your pal Obama for the results you seek.


By the way, your rant is a little unnerving. Please don't go to Safeway today.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 22, 2011 9:32 AM | Report abuse

"Tomorrow's yakking will have a large Olbermann component, of course. Here's my thoughts... 1) It's in corporate's interests to deny that the Comcast aspect is irrelevant. There's no reason to believe those statements."

Why did Obama's FCC permit the Comcast merger? More to the point: Is the goal getting Obama re-elected or doing what is right for country? It appears to be the former, though no doubt Democrats convince themselves that the two are the same and believe that getting Obama re-elected is good for the country NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES. I'll leave the wisdom of that position for others to ponder, especially those who maintain it.

But I'll just note this: the Democrats have plainly moved into re-elect-Obama mode and, whatever he proposes to cut -- Social Security included -- will be accepted by Democrats, both on the Hill and in the blogosphere. Obama knows that the only people he actually has to satisfy are the Congressional Republicans. More, Obama sees his popularity increasing as he placates the Right by doing what it wants and since Obama is more in re-eclect Obama mode than anyone we can expect much much more of that. Which returns us to the beginning: Is the goal getting Obama re-elected or doing what is right for country?

One final point re: Olberman: KO's replacement, Lawrence O'Donnell, is a DLC Centrist all the way. Is it a coincidence that one of the Administration's gadflies is being replaced by a Third Way sycophant just as Obama plunges fully into corporate Republicratism to boost his popularity?


Please excuse the rhetorical questions.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 22, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

TominColorado (and maybe even rukidding7) knows that "performance or early buy out" clauses typically include "confidentiality or non-compete" clauses. Hopefully, we've heard the last from Olbermann for a while. DLC-conspiracy theories, though, are still welcome. Good to see wbgonne back!

Speaking of dramatic changes, Greg still hasn't given us details of the new comment system he promised / threatened.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 22, 2011 10:15 AM | Report abuse

@RFR You sick puppy you have absolutely crossed the line.

"By the way, your rant is a little unnerving. Please don't go to Safeway today."

The fact that you do not even realize how despicable and tasteless that comment is is not worthy of response or reading. Other than to post this on the next two threads so people get an idea of what kind of human being you are I shall be happy to block your pathetic sorry mind. Honestly RFR I genuinely feel pity for you not contempt.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 22, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company