Theories continue to swirl about why Olbermann called it quits at MSNBC. I just thought there was some bittersweet irony to this:

With Maddow enjoying both immense popularity inside MSNBC and very strong ratings for her Rachel Maddow Show, Olbermann’s invincibility as the heart and soul of MSNBC’s brand became softer.
<..>
[W]ith the Comcast-related departure of Jeff Zucker, and the rise of Maddow and O’Donnell, the landscape shifted, making an Olbermann exit suddenly seem well-timed.

From Day 1 for Maddow, Olbermann seemed to be an instrumental mentor to her, almost father-figure-ish, with appearances being that Keith was a big reason for Rachel getting her own show on MSNBC. She did so well that the network apparently took comfort in her success, enough for it to become a factor in releasing mentor Keith.

Whatever the reason(s) for Olbermann's exit, one thing is for certain: he will be sorely missed. He not only introduced the viability of liberal or left-leaning broadcasting (in stark contrast to Air America Radio's failure), thus helping to make it possible for Maddow, Shultz and O'Donnell, but Keith delivered with fire, with real heartfelt passion, and came closest to matching toe-to-toe the acidic tone of the right. For those of us who were sick and tired of the wet noodle, weak kneed, overly polite delivery from most figures on the left, he was a welcome and refreshing smack of fresh air.

But for some reason I get the feeling we haven't heard the last from him.... Let's hope not anyway.

It's estimated that 200 underground coal fires burn in 20 states, and thousands more burn around the globe. Just in the U.S. alone, an EPA assessment in 2002 put the amount of toxic mercury emitted in the air from these fires at 48 tons per year.

Just another very important story that goes under-reported, tucked in the back of the newspaper, or not reported on at all. And mind you, supposed "clean coal" won't put an end to these fires....

But again I ask, I thought he said he was innocent....?

On Monday, Keith Olbermann had Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) on his show and among other things they discussed the Republicans stated goal to repeal health care reform. Here's a bit of their exchange:

WEINER: [I]f they want to vote their very first vote to take away prescription drug money from senior citizens, to take away coverage for young Americans 21 through 26, to take away coverage for people who have pre-existing conditions—this is the first thing they want to do. If they want that fight, bring it on, chicky. I think that that‘s exactly the kind of debate that we want to have.
<..>
OLBERMANN: The things that were just signed into law yesterday that the president made a note of seem to be really popular.

WEINER: Exactly.

Weiner believes because many things within the health care reform law do indeed poll very well with the public, it would seemingly be political suicide for the Republicans to try for a repeal. However, I believe Weiner (and Olbermann?) need to wake up on this matter.

Yes, on the surface one can assume Republicans would pay dearly for such an overreach to get rid of something so popular. However, what Weiner (and Olbermann?) fail to consider is that the Republicans and many special interest groups have done yeoman's work at thoroughly confusing the public about health care reform, in many instances convincing them that it will actually cost too much, deliver very little, will hamper job growth and is even likely unconstitutional -- all not true. But the fact remains that despite when asked the public does favor individual items of reform within the law, when asked about health care reform in general, support becomes less uniform and more tepid, thanks in large part to the opposing side's propaganda machine and massive effort to circulate misinformation.

The point being the Republicans and their allies have succeeded in doing what they've done for climate change: hoist enough non-facts and distortions into the discourse in an effort to create mass confusion about what should be fairly clear. By doing so allows them to take advantage of needless uncertainty and unwarranted fear -- in this case, affording the political cover to torpedo a law that in reality would be a huge benefit to the country.

Again, Weiner assumes that if a debate were to occur on this matter that the public would fully understand and appreciate what is at stake, what they stand to lose, and it would hurt the Republicans. Not necessarily true for the reasons I just discussed. The Republicans did what they do (distort and fabricate to achieve their goal(s)) and the Dems did what they do (lack the ability to effectively communicate to the public what they've done on their behalf). Advantage GOP.

Another huge fact the Republicans are well aware of: they must at all costs stop this law from being enacted because once implemented and the public began to actually experience the many benefits it stands to provide, and realize all of what they feared and were confused about were just lies and scare tactics, then the Republicans would never be able to repeal it. To try and do so then would clearly be political suicide, much as is the case today with Medicare and Social Security. Those of the public who criticize big government and excessive spending are most often enthusiastic supporters of both programs.

Republicans know they need to steer this train off the rails before it makes it to its destination. Weiner (and Keith) should've realized all of this and stated such. I think it's why in part the Dems always seem to remain a step or two behind the craftier Republicans.

Another snow storm, another round of sarcastic wise cracks from the right, poking fun at those who would dare suggest that the planet is heating up. Why, we have a foot of snow on the ground in many parts of the country, how could it possibly be that Earth is warming? Those silly scientists, all they need to do is look around and read the newspapers.

Does it get any dumber? Many countries experience flash floods -- but then still continue to have droughts. Short-term events versus long-term trends. It's all just embarassing at this point and shame on anyone who falls for this load of crap. As I've written several times before on this blog, and just last month, global warming and climate change are very complex, or at least more complex than the dim-bulb crowd will lead you to believe.

As Dr. Peter Gleick states:

Record snowfall is not an indicator of a lack of global warming, as has been pointed out in the scientific literature and many, many rounds of Congressional testimony. It merely means that there was a storm and temperatures were close to or below freezing. Indeed global warming can contribute to greater snowfalls by providing extra moisture. Many scientists testifying before the Senate and House of Representatives have explained the difference between a steadily warming planet and occasional extreme cold events in particular spots. But we can expect to see more examples of this kind of B.S. when it gets cold and snowy somewhere, sometime, this winter.

And from conservative David Frum's web site, a quote from Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC):

People who make a lot of money on talk radio and talk TV say a lot of things. They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they’re experts on climate change. They substitute their judgment for people who have Ph.D.s and work tirelessly [on climate change].

Maybe in 2011 we'll see more Republicans convert to the side of reason and science, before it's too late.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Fear is what helps destroy freedom and democracy.

For those not already subscribers, Best of the Left is a terrific podcast. Strongly recommended.

As if there was any doubt:

We found that those who watch Fox nearly every day, compared to those who never or only watch it a little, are more likely to believe some pieces of misinformation...it has been statistically proven that you will be more misinformed if you watch Fox (News) than other networks.

My favorite discovery:

The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it.

Yes, even if you voted Dem you were just as likely to be adversely affected by the power of Fox News. It's like an evil, near-invincible force, just waiting to suck in its next helpless victim. Ever see the movie Videodrome?

And the "Lie of the Year" goes to.... Yes, you guessed it, the GOP fabrication that health care reform was "a government takeover of health care."

Another item I've been meaning to write about for some time now: the Michael Moore / Wendell Potter exchange on Keith Olbermann's show. It's worth watching both Part 1 and Part 2.

It's disturbing to hear Mr. Potter admit to what was common practice by these insurance companies, as if there exists an understood, step-wise protocol on how to discredit someone or something. You try X and if that doesn't work you move to Y, and if that doesn't work you.... Really scary.

A particularly unsettling admission by Wendell is when he says, "But I think it meant that we would do what we had to do to create ads and op-eds that we would get conservative pundits to place in newspapers with the whole objective of, as they call it, reframing the debate, to try to move the attention from them to you as a filmmaker." [My emphasis]

Is Wendell inferring that these companies can "create" propaganda per se, or a fabricated line of attack, and then simply find one of many conservative "pundits" to write it up and get it published in a major newspaper? Really? As if insurance companies have a Rolodex filled with right-wing writers for hire, who are just waiting for that call telling them what to write, with the chosen writer likely sending the finished copy back to the company for final edits. In fact, Potter seems to imply that the insurance companies would actually write the op-ed and then get a conservative writer to attach his/her name and get it published.

I don't doubt it happens, but nonetheless it was revolting to hear.

I am half way through Juliet Schor's Plenitude and it's terrific. Very interesting, crammed with eye-opening facts and lesser-known realities, and yet not written in a preachy, finger-wagging tone. A very important book for our times.

I thought Tea-Party fave Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) was to be an agent of change in Washington DC, to work hard at putting an end to the business-as-usual shenanigans, where special interest money corrupts governing and unduly influences choices?

Yawn, yeah right.

But unlike Brown, I'm sure the rest of the Tea-Bag crew that won this past November will follow-through on their campaign rhetoric and they'll fight the power, refuse to accept special interest money, really "go rogue" and defy what has been the norm in DC....

Yawn, yeah right.

"Judge Who Nixed Health Care Owns Stake in GOP Firm"

Does this shock or surprise anyone?

I'm late re this but still wanted to comment on Obama's press conference following his tax deal. Not long after I wrote, "And is he once again going to command Gibbs et al to lash out against us, the left, as if we were spoiled children who know not what we speak of or believe in?" did it come true, only it wasn't Gibbs doing the lashing but rather Obama himself.

Btw, is it me or is Obama's tone more indignant and hostile when he's criticizing the left than when he's doing the same versus Republicans and the right? Sort of akin to the parents who are meaner to their own kids than to strangers.

In the press conference, Obama attempted to equate the public option and healthcare reform with extending all tax cuts, including those for the wealthy, giving the enemy-of-the-perfect argument a try. Sorry, I don't find the two comparable, making it all seem a bit strained to say the least.

For one, I don't seem to recall Obama being so clearly and strongly in favor of the public option as he was against tax cuts for the wealthy. Secondly, Obama and the Democrats had much more power during the HC reform, to enforce their will, as opposed to coming off a brutal election leaving a lame duck Congress. Thirdly, the Tea Party furor and influence was in its infancy during HC reform, as opposed to now. Finally, most liberals did in fact support the eventual HC reform, even despite it not having a public option, so I think Obama is guilty of amplifying the few to make his point.

So I would argue his tax cut cave is quite different, and given this latest scolding, makes him appear that much weaker.

Let me also say that I fully understand his argument about being held hostage, that if he didn't do this the GOP would've voted against extending unemployment benefits, so Obama was acting as the bigger person and "caving" for the sake of the unemployed. I get that, BUT could we at least hear him be just as stinging and harsh in his comments about this craven maneuver by the Republicans as he was when commenting on the liberals and healthcare reform -- is that too much to ask? As opposed to him graciously and overly-respectfully describing it as the most important issue Republicans feel they must fight for -- no bite, no sting, no condemnation, no harsh tone.

And what makes him think Republicans won't repeatedly use this "hostage taking" tactic over and over again? Why wouldn't they? It worked for them beautifully this time, with hardly a fight and no mean words or mud-slinging. No wonder McConnell and others were praising Obama for acting so presidential. That in itself spoke volumes about how Obama made a mistake.

Obama caving on the tax cuts is just another unfortunate sign of how weak this president has become. Yes, I know he's attempted to offer up a seemingly rational excuse as to why he "had" to go along with this deal. Yada, yada, yada.

Are we not beyond sick and tired of the carefully-worded excuses for each time Obama gives in to the strident, unyielding Republicans? And is he once again going to command Gibbs et al to lash out against us, the left, as if we were spoiled children who know not what we speak of or believe in?

It's really just sad to see someone who was to be a strong advocate of change devolve so quickly into a willing vessel for the status quo. I always knew Obama was not the far-left, ultra-liberal "socialist" the right-wing machine made him out to be, realizing it was in their interest to portray him as a "pinko commie" just as they did with Bill Clinton. Nothing shocking there. However, I still maintained hope that he wouldn't lurch too far to the center and that there was the chance he would actually be a commanding force who exhibited continuous and consistent strength and fortitude. I'm sorry, many of us expected X and instead got Y, and it's not a matter of our expectations being out of whack or too unrealistic, but rather it's more a matter of feeling as if one was sold a bill of goods.

Look, I'm not one who doesn't appreciate the many good things that Obama has done during his two years in office. I've defended him to the point of growing weary (I know I'm not alone on this front), to the point where I feel I've defended him better than he has defended himself! I know he's light years better than most of the alternatives out there.... Blah, blah, blah. But Obama was not elected into office because he was less bad than McCain/Palin -- right?! His victory was one of excitement and promise, not begrudging resignation to what might have been otherwise.

With this recent cave, pact, covenant -- whatever you want to call it -- it just reminds me of the scene in The Godfather, when Brando slaps Johnny Fontane exclaiming, "You can act like a man!" As if Obama has become this pathetic, weak figure, groveling for understanding and support. STOP IT ALREADY, GROW A SPINE AND ACT LIKE A MAN!

Dr. Laura, another crazy right-wing hypocrite.

It wasn't long ago that she refused to belong to a network of stations that would include someone as repulsive and vile as Howard Stern (this was back when Howard was with Viacom).

But apparently with her recent agreement to join satellite radio Sirius XM, the network that Howard Stern belongs to and has built into a formidable operation, it seems now she's OK with being in the same family as Howard.

The hypocrisy just never ends. And as usual, the family-values BS is just crap tossed at the hapless audience, who gladly swallow it up, but meanwhile the Dr. Lauras tossing it could care less when it comes down to it.... Howard, Shmoward, just pay me....

There he goes again, being all far-left, socialist and ultra-liberal.... What a joke, and has always been one.

Julian Assange is now not going to be able to follow anyone, at least not for some time anyway. But I was intrigued with what Richard Cohen wrote:

Say what you want about WikiLeaks - and I don't much like what it has done - it nevertheless would be useful for its founder, Julian Assange, to follow George W. Bush as he lopes around the country, promoting his new book, "Decision Points." When, for instance, Bush attempts to justify the Iraq war by saying the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, Assange could reach into his bag of leaked U.S. government cables and cite Saudi King Abdullah's private observation that the war had given Iraq to Iran as a "gift on a golden platter."

Iraq now has a Shiite-dominated government and many senior officials who are ominously friendly with Iran. It was always American policy to use Saddam's Iraq to counterbalance Iran since it was really Iran that posed a danger to the region. That danger is now amply documented in the new WikiLeaks documents - including the revelation that North Korea has sold Iran missiles capable of reaching, say, Tel Aviv or, a minute or so later, Cairo.

Morning Coffee Spit

I'm going to try and put up here each morning an item that when read or viewed will cause you to spit up your coffee. It will be that ridiculous or idiotic.

OK, here we go for this morning, a video clip. A classic example of offering all opinions and seemingly passing them off as facts.

You have Frick & Frack (Beck and O'Reilly), trying to link Soros with WikiLeaks, with no hard proof offered, no facts, just Beck saying "I think..." and "We've talked about..." Best of all, you have O'Reilly literally say to Beck, "... I'm not going to ask you to prove it..."

No, we wouldn't want that, right?? HILARIOUS.

Senate passes overhaul of food safety regulations:

The biggest U.S. food-safety overhaul in more than 70 years won Senate passage as lawmakers sought to curb food-borne illnesses that cost the nation an estimated $152 billion a year.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration would gain more power to police food companies under the bill that passed today in a 73-25 vote. The measure, backed by the food industry, public- health groups and consumer advocates, adds inspections and lets the FDA force recalls, rather than relying on companies to voluntarily remove contaminated foods from store shelves.

Emphasis mine. I'm still trying to find out the names of the 25 senators who voted against this bill but I know one of them is Sen. Coburn (R-OK), so it's fairly safe to assume the other 24 are likely Republicans.

Let me understand, the food industry (i.e. big business) backed this bill, AND food illness costs this country over $150 billion per year, and yet still many Republicans felt the need to vote against this bill....? Really? And Tea-baggers wish to "take back this country" and hand it back to these partisan idiots?

UPDATE: Yup, all 25 were Republicans -- including John McCain. Maverick my arse.

It didn't take long for preppie-rock gods Vampire Weekend to sell out to commercial interests. But then again, that's assuming they had any artistic integrity to begin with. I tend to doubt it.

Tom DeLay found guilty? But I thought he said repeatedly that he was innocent...? I guess he meant of things other than this....

Go ahead, click here and try to balance the budget without touching Medicare, Social Security or military spending, and without raising any taxes -- GOOD LUCK!

Is Glenn Beck sending coded messages? Sounds completely plausible to me.

Another study, another unsurprising verdict:

A third of Americans say they have gone without medical care or skipped filling a prescription because of cost, compared to 5 percent in the Netherlands, according to study released on Thursday.

The study is the latest in a series by the non-profit Commonwealth Fund showing that while Americans pay far more per capita for healthcare, they are unhappier with the results and less healthy than people in other rich countries.

The study published in the journal Health Affairs also showed that 20 percent of U.S. adults had major problems paying medical bills, compared with 2 percent in Britain and 9 percent in France, the next costliest country.

"U.S. adults were the most likely to incur high medical expenses, even when insured, and to spend time on insurance paperwork and disputes or to have payments denied," the report reads.

Yes, we better make repealing watered-down healthcare reform priority #1!

True dat, from The Economist:

As to hubris, the Republican freshmen bound for Congress next January are in danger of reading into the election a message of their own creation. Many see the mid-terms as a popular rejection of the president’s “extreme” policies. This is doubtful. Voters were more likely registering a protest at the economy than repudiating an ideology. Besides, to the disgust of his own progressive base, Mr Obama enacted no extreme policies. Obamacare is a good deal less radical than the plan Richard Nixon proposed in 1974 or Bill Clinton 20 years later. In fact it closely resembles the bill the Republicans put up as an alternative to Mr Clinton’s, and its central idea—the individual mandate—was introduced in Massachusetts by none other than Mitt Romney, who hopes to become the Republicans’ presidential nominee in 2012.

Summarizes the state of things quite nicely.

The always-insightful Frank Rich:

The G.O.P.’s arguments for extending the Bush tax cuts to this crowd, usually wrapped in laughably hypocritical whining about “class warfare,” are easily batted down. The most constant refrain is that small-business owners who file in this bracket would be hit so hard they could no longer hire new employees. But the Tax Policy Center found in 2008, when checking out similar campaign claims by “Joe the Plumber,” that only 2 percent of all Americans reporting small-business income, regardless of tax bracket, would see tax increases if Obama fulfilled his pledge to let the Bush tax cuts lapse for the top earners. The economist Dean Baker calculated that the yearly tax increase at the lower end of that bracket, for those with earnings between $200,000 and $500,000, would amount to $700 — which “isn’t enough to hire anyone.”

Those in the higher reaches aren’t investing in creating new jobs even now, when the full Bush tax cuts remain in effect, so why would extending them change that equation? American companies seem intent on sitting on trillions in cash until the economy reboots. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office ranks the extension of any Bush tax cuts, let alone those to the wealthiest Americans, as the least effective of 11 possible policy options for increasing employment.

Love that small business nonsense the GOP has stooped to offering as reason to extend tax cuts. Completely ludicrous.

But then while on the subject of what's ludicrous and nonsensical, Kevin Drum points out a sad fact, one that has been the case for decades:

This comes from the LA Times, but I think it could be the lead story in pretty much any newspaper in the country:

Californians object to increasing taxes in order to pare the state's massive budget deficit, and instead favor closing the breach through spending cuts. But they oppose cuts — and even prefer more spending — on programs that make up 85% of the state's general fund obligations, a new Los Angeles Times/USC Poll has found.

That paradox rests on Californians' firm belief that the state's deficit — estimated last week at nearly $25 billion over the next 18 months — can be squared through trimming waste and inefficiencies rather than cutting the programs they hold dear. Despite tens of billions that have been cut from the state budget in recent years, just a quarter of California voters believed that state services would have to be curtailed to close the deficit.

Well, there you have it. This is America in a nutshell.

Americans have always been all for cuts in "wasteful" spending -- just as long as those cuts do not affect any spending that benefits them. Nothing will ever get resolved with that kind of ass-backwards, delusional thinking, but you can count on politicians refusing to explain and force voters to recognize their flawed logic, fearing an angry backlash. Thus, we remain in this increasingly worsening state, seemingly paralyzed and sinking.

I could probably add another 20-30 items to the list, but not bad for starters.

I think we've known or suspected this for quite some time: "Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate"

RUN SARAH RUN!

Most global warming skeptics are ignorant about many things when it comes to that which they deny, this study not withstanding.

Whereas these folks seem to judge the veracity of global warming research based on daily weather patterns in their immediate location (!), the fact remains this subject involves highly complex and sensitive matters that go way beyond whether or not it happens to be inordinately cold in city/state/region "X" of the country. Ocean currents play a huge part in this complicated equation and as the study points out, it doesn't take much to skew the balance of seawater salinity (due to global warming) to significantly alter the direction of currents.

And we already know the ocean salt balance is changing. Weather patterns are already likely changing as a result.

But not to worry, it's all just cyclical, or due to sun spots, or something.... Let's get back to focusing on truly important things, like tax cuts for the wealthy.

I wonder why the Tea Baggers never have a misspelled sign angrily protesting this (the fact that many bankers haven't been prosecuted). Instead, they choose to focus solely on getting rid of the African-American in the White House. Quite telling.

It's been quite a long time since my last post (!) -- did you miss me? Bet you thought I died, or better yet with the election of Obama that I was content to stop blogging now that our national nightmare (GW/Cheney) was over. Wrong on both counts.

Admittedly, with the Bush reign of incompetence no more, I did find fewer things to raise the blood pressure. However, by no means has the new guy in the White House been a bang-up success, and many of his supporters -- including myself -- will tell you about our great frustration with how he has let us down, repeatedly. His excessive willingness to proffer compromise with Republicans who only wish to see him out of office, his seemingly inability to grow a spine and fight for what he believes in ala FDR, his fear that he will be perceived as a -- brace yourself -- "liberal" despite the fact that right-wingers portray him to be much farther to left than he actually is, ultimately alienating the many who put him in office just two short years ago.... The list goes on and on.

Anyway, I'm back and I hope to return to my schedule of posting entries daily. As always, I'd love to receive emails from readers.

As always, Rachel is dead-on correct:

That guy right there, last guy there was Phil Gingrey. He was the one at the end, right after John Boehner — Phil Gingrey expressing his grave concern about how much this [health-care bill] costs.

To be clear, the CBO is projecting that this bill will cut the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. You can see it right there. $138 billion, not added to the deficit, but subtracted from the deficit.

This is the same Phil Gingrey and the same John Boehner who voted for the Medicare Part D drug benefit in 2003. When the CBO scored that bill, at that time, the CBO said that bill would raise the deficit by $394 billion, and yet, Phil Gingrey and John Boehner now so piously concerned about how much things cost, happily voted for Medicare Part D anyway.

When Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts that same year, the CBO score of that one at that time said that legislation would raise the deficit by $349 billion. And Republicans, including Phil Gingrey, had no problem voting yes. When Republicans passed the first Bush tax cuts in 2001, the CBO score of that one at that time said it would raise the deficit by $1.3 trillion — trillion with a “T.” And Republicans, including John Boehner, went along for that ride, too.

So, let‘s just make sure we‘re here on the same page, OK? Phil Gingrey and John Boehner say yes to adding $400 billion to the deficit for Bush‘s Medicare thing, yes to adding $350 billion to the deficit for Bush‘s first tax cuts for rich people, yes to adding $1.3 trillion to the deficit for Bush‘s other tax cuts. Those three votes projected to add $2 trillion to the deficit. Votes yes on all of those.

Lack of consistency? Hypocritical? Nah, it's just liberal spin and mumbo-jumbo from that leftist, pinko Rachel.

Never mind that she cites non-partisan CBO numbers through out. To reiterate, Republicans didn't seem to have a problem with adding $2 trillion to the deficit when voting in favor of Bush-era legislation. However, they are more than willing to get hysterical and cry foul about costs now that they're in the minority -- even though the health-care bill is projected to cut the deficit by $1.3 trillion. So we're talking a total swing of $3.3 trillion, not chump change by any means.

Let's see if the mainstream media can convey to the public this fairly straight-forward contrast in absurdity.

The CBO says the health-care bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years, and cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion (with a "T") in the second decade.

In other words, Obama's health-care reform effort will eventually pay for Bush/Cheney's (illegal) war.

Michael Tomasky writes:

And remember, as I've said several times now: take the poll numbers on reform with a grain of salt. Republican opposition is like 95-5, which skews overall polls. The important thing is how it plays among independents. They're opposed now, but hardly by overwhelming margins. By changeable margins, if they can be persuaded to see the benefits.

It's my understanding that health care reform in the state of Massachusetts was at first not all that popular, but has since become very popular.

This is the GOP's and insurance companies biggest fear that they're not telling us: that this reform will eventually work, that it will eventually effect beneficial change for many, and that it will eventually become very popular. And when that happens, the Republicans will starkly, nakedly be seen on the wrong side of the issue, and if the Dems properly manage it (always a big "if"), it will spell doomsday for the GOP come November.

It's this very probable scenario that drives the GOP and insurance companies to try as hard as they can to block reform. Their livelihoods and positions of power depend on its failure -- and they're certainly not going to make the real reason for their stiff opposition widely known or plainly evident.

Anthony Weiner kicks some GOP butt. Always refreshing to see a Dem with a spine.

More encouraging signs:

Recent successes in killing or capturing top Taliban leaders have shaken the confidence of the militant organization and raised gnawing doubts in the minds of front-line fighters, the top allied leader in Afghanistan said Thursday.

"You see a weakening of the organization's confidence," U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal told USA TODAY at his headquarters in Kabul.

If this series of successes were occurring under Bush/Cheney, you'd be hearing about it via a two-ton megaphone. Instead, this enormously significant progress in the region is receiving woefully inadequate coverage -- certainly when compared to what we were accustomed to with the prior administration.

Recall the many Republicans who conveniently used the recent spate of cold weather and ample snow (to think, for this to happen in the winter!) to scoff at climate change. Once again, they have to eat their words.

"January, according to satellite (data), was the hottest January we've ever seen.... Last November was the hottest November we've ever seen, November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen...."

Dick Cheney -- survivor of five, yes, five heart attacks -- the poster child for what good health care coverage can do for you.

"He's had high-quality medical care and insurance, probably through most of his life," said Dr. Albert Wu at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. "That's probably Cheney's largest advantage."
<..>
"Surviving five heart attacks is certainly impressive, but the man himself is not a miracle," Wu said. "He's just been lucky enough to have good, consistent care."

Rachel Maddow has not been on TV for that long (about 18 months) and yet in that time she's become one of the hardest-hitting, high-impact truth tellers on the tube. She doesn't hesitate to call out hypocrisy, blatant wrong-doing and when politicians simply lie. She deserves some kind of broadcasting award, no one else is doing what she's been doing for many months now.

Here's a good example, a complete take down of GOP hypocrisy, showing Republican wind-bags criticizing the stimulus bill, voting against it, but then showing up to have their picture taken when the big dollars are being dolled out. Classic stuff.

And by the way, where were these Republicans when GW was running up the deficit to the tune of $1+ trillion? I don't recall their red-faced outrage then....

It didn't take long after putting up my blog post Monday for reports to come in that several high-ranking Taliban leaders had been captured. The arrest of Mullah Baradar, Taliban's top military commander, is being heralded as the most significant capture since 9/11. It appears with Obama in the WH that Pakistan has started to cooperate and work with our people in the region. For years Bush/Cheney could not get this to happen.

What say you now Mr. Thiessen?

Dana Milbank, a pompous, phone-it-in, more-inner-beltway-than-Broder "journalist" (hack)?? Nah, no way.

Just when you think their level of hypocrisy and hopped-up outrage couldn't be topped, they continue to surprise....

The latest: President Obama is killing too many terrorists. Yes, he's been too successful at taking out those which we presumably want taken out.

As usual, where to start... Mind you, this piece was not written by some big-gun neocon foreign policy expert, or a renowned professor on foreign affairs, or even a high-ranking retired military officer, but rather it's the work of Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for Bush II. My knees shiver given the level of assumed knowledge and authority on the subject. (Gads, it's like having the hired "certified" resume writer do the actual job as opposed to the candidate vying for it).

But just imagine if a piece like this appeared during Bush/Cheney's reign, accusing them of killing too many terrorists. Oh, the outcry that would've occurred from the screeching right, the fulminating condemnation riddled with labels like "unpatriotic," "enemy sympathizer" and "treason" to name a few. Yet here we are, this tripe published without a peep from the Country First crowd. Just crickets.

Not to mention the idiocy regarding the logic in the article. For one, at the start of this "War on Terror," such senior al Qaeda operatives were likely less submerged and more "available" for capture, but now years later it's apparent they've adapted and are more certain to be deeply hidden in the mountain ranges of Afghanistan or across the border in Pakistan, making it much more difficult for our forces to actually capture them alive. Thus, the new tactic using drones, i.e. they adapt, we adapt. Duh.

In addition, Thiessen lists several captured terrorists and then proceeds to mention several thwarted attacks on the U.S., as if they're linked. Can anyone provide proof that by torturing any of these detainees that it produced information which directly halted a future attack? Yes, we've seen and heard these things uttered, often, but never do you see anything of real substance backing it up. Notta.

Much of the piece is simply a plea to capture more to torture more -- never mind the overwhelming weight of the evidence has argued quite the contrary, that such illegal methods are counter-productive (uh, not to mention, as I mentioned, illegal!).

In the end, it's just another in a series of baseless attacks against the guy in office who beat their guy in Nov08. If Obama were perceived to be not doing enough regarding hunting down terrorists, you'd certainly read/hear about it, but given the ample evidence showing otherwise they decide to attack from another angle ("How can we criticize Obama for being too successful at hunting down terrorists?"). As much as Obama has stepped up efforts to fight terrorism since becoming president, what the opposition party has done in that time is just step up attacks against our presiding president.

Country first? Yeah, right.

Must listen: Beach House, Teen Dream. An astounding, stupendous collection of songs. Mesmerizing, incredibly melodic, and yet not cloying, rewarding again and again with each listen. Wow.

More examples of the Democrats playing the role of political nitwits: here, here, and here.

In this age of craven, hardball politics, it's amazing they ever win any elections.

From Balloon Juice, a reader asks the question, "Why can’t we have a nationally televised debate about HCR and stimulus?" John Cole responds:

First off, Democrats already tried to do this over the summer- they were called town hall meetings, and basically they were freeped by a coalition of corporate backed teabaggers, spooked blue hairs who wanted to keep government out of their medicare, shameless Republicans interested in political advantage, and, in no small part, the mainstream media who simply regurgitated all of their bullshit.

I have seen nothing that would suggest that a national town hall meeting would lead to anything different. As entertaining as it was watch Obama make the Republicans look like the idiots that they are at their retreat last week, what really changed? They still believe all their talking points, as do their teabagging base, because this isn’t about facts or logic or reason, this shit is religion to these folks. And it wasn’t more than a few hours that our Politico inspired media was offering “equal time” for the Republicans to edit their remarks and inject more bullshit into the debate. Jeb Hensarling was given multiple opportunities for a do-over immediately after being depantsed, and guess what the media did?

That’s right- they just wrote down what he said and didn’t bother to fact check it or point out he is full of shit. And so it goes.

Will Republicans heartily back bank reform? I doubt it, very much. Between the GOP being in the back pocket of the financial lobby and odds favoring their continued insistence to just be a hemorrhoid to Obama, they're likely hard had work right now to come up with ways to frame Obama's proposal as unpatriotic or an unjust curtailment of free market activity, which will ultimately lead to economic calamity.

Make no mistake, they will indeed come up with something to sink this. They effectively did it with HCR, throwing the kitchen sink at it (death panels, kill grandma, will balloon deficit, doctor rationing, government takeover and overreach, first step to socialized medicine). Just wait, the fear-mongering will start up again, and predictably too many will allow it to freak them out and adversely affect their ability to make rational decisions.

It's sad but it works, so the GOP will continue to got there.

A bit too cynical perhaps, hope I'm wrong. But precedent dictates otherwise....

Unfortunately, very true:

This really is a defining moment for both Obama and the Democratic Party more broadly. So far both have failed miserably: the party is in a state of meltdown, surrendering completely to a resurgent Republican narrative, refusing to fight for anything it believes in, and caving in to a truly toxic combination of electoral fear and narrow interest group parochialism. For his part, Obama seems either unable or unwilling to rally his troops. I'm not sure which. But the American public really needs to hear some conviction from him, and so far they haven't. He's remained aloof from the healthcare upheaval, pivoted on financial regulation in a way that looks driven more by politics than by core beliefs, and has just generally sounded more chastened than reinvigorated.

This really needs to turn around fast. Another week like this — hell, another day or two like this — and we might as well start measuring the Oval Office drapes for the upcoming Cheney/Palin administration. It's time for everyone to take a deep breath and grow a pair.

My fear is it may actually be too late. The level and depth of disgust by frustrated Obama supporters and his diehard foes collectively may be too chiseled in stone at this point to overcome. It really is amazing to witness how far Obama has slid so quickly. Yes, we've seen the same in other presidents before him, but wasn't Obama going to be different...?

Well said by the terrific Dick Polman:

And yet...the Democrats really have no alternative but to enact something. They're too far in to back out.

If they now abandon health reform, after seven fitful decades, they will lose politically at both ends of the spectrum. Since they're already on record, in both chambers, as having voted Yes on health reform, a retreat at this point would give the Republicans a two-fer message: "Democrats engineered a socialist takeover of the health care system - until they flip-flopped! They were for a takeover until they were against it!" And the Democratic base would simply stay home on the '10 election day for its own reasons - having become convinced that it doesn't pay to elect large Democratic majorities, since those majorities clearly lack the cajones to get anything done.

The only viable alternative for Democrats is to persevere and stick to their policy convictions (thus keeping faith with their base), and remind themselves that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush stuck to theirs even when public opinion was against them (Bush, especially, persevered on his ambitious Medicare drug prescription bill in December 2003 even though only 32 percent of the general public, and only 26 percent of seniors, supported it). It would better for Democrats to have something affirmative to show for their efforts, to campaign this year as the party that (in the face of Republican opposition) barred insurance companies from dropping sick people, that barred insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and that extended health coverage to millions who lacked it before. This political option might not work either, but it's surely more attractive than the fetal position.

Great blog entry by Steve Benen. Another in a long series of examples of why/how Karl Rove has zero credibility and just spews forth fictional nonsense distorted to fit his alternative reality.

The Washington Post recently invited various politicos to offer the Democratic Party advice for 2010. The paper ran a 211-word missive from Karl Rove, which blamed Democrats for creating the "mess" his former boss left for Dems to clean up. In particular, Rove blasted Democrats for "running up" the debt.

Today, David Axelrod, after noting the irony of the Post inviting Rove to give Democrats suggestions, sets the record straight in the same paper.

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

This fiscal irresponsibility -- and a laissez-faire attitude toward the excesses of the financial industry -- helped create the conditions for the deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression.

Well, sure, if you want to bring reality into the debate.

Rumor has it the WaPo has already agreed to publish Rove's response to Axelrod's response to Rove's initial claim.

Here's a Karl back-peddle that's just hilarious. Of course, most of the people that watch and listen to The Turd likely have no clue regarding his hypocrisy, contradictions, lies, etc. It's what he banks on -- ignorance.

Glenn Beck referred to the current president as "a racist" and apparently Scott Brown, Republican running for Ted Kennedy's senate seat in MA, suggests Obama is a bastard child.

As Paul Krugman writes, "So will this actually make political waves? If Brown were a Democrat, it would instantly be a huge scandal. The outrage machine would be working overtime. And the news media would, of course, pick it up."

However, Brown is not a Democrat but rather a Republican, so needless to say his remarks are the equivalent of a tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it.

As Steve Benen points out with the unexpected continuing popularity of Sen. John Ensign in his home state, "PPP's communications director joked, 'Cheating on your wife is a deal breaker for Republican voters -- but only if you're a Democrat.'...The moral of the story: adultery is fine, and hypocrisy is fine, just so long as you have an 'R' after your name."

Yes indeed, a completely different standard applies for those with a "D" next to their name versus an "R." I mean just imagine the outcry and scandal if a Democrat posed naked as Scott Brown did for Cosmopolitan magazine. Sadly, we've become so accustomed to this blatant double-standard that often times it doesn't register and we have to remind ourselves it still exists, now more than ever.

IF YOU ARE A MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENT, YOU HAVE TO GET OUT AND VOTE THIS TUESDAY (AND INFORM ALL FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO DO SAME)

It goes without saying that in one of the bluest states in the U.S., for a Dem to be neck/neck close with clearly a Bushian, non-moderate Republican says loads about Coakley's campaign (read: inept). But she is a Dem and if she loses it will change everything in DC. Already, because she has slipped into a dead heat race, many senior Republicans in Washington are exploiting this full tilt, saying MA represents a nationwide referrendum against health care reform and perceived overreach by government.

To some extent, I believe MA residents have grown so accustomed to Democrats leading races and winning that they got complacent, allowing Brown to sneak up in polls. Fortunately, this race has received tons of media coverage of late and should wake up the Dem faithful, having them turn out in droves on Tuesday.

If not, we get what we deserve.

Re Steve Benen's blog entry, I have to think that Lieberman wasn't delusional and politically stupid enough to not realize that his actions during the health care debate would result in such widespread disapproval by CT voters. He had to see it coming and quite frankly I'm willing to guess he didn't care.

2012 is a long way off so he either felt that was enough time to make plenty of amends to voters and hope they forgot, or more likely he had decided not to run for reelection. This way Joe could do right by his many corporate backers (read insurance companies), supporting their every desire, and in a few years end up working for them in some capacity -- much like his wife.

Just a guess.

There's much talk about the underwear bomber potentially having valuable info, and the sooner the better with regards to obtaining that info.

How about obtaining the info that McCain always bragged about...? You know, that he knew how to track down and capture (or kill) Osama bin Laden.

Funny, it's been over a year and no one has followed up with McCain concerning these statements and the valuable info he may know. But then there is the longshot chance that no one had ever taken him seriously and it was just another of many desperate campaign utterances, promising much but backed by nothing. Like "Country First" and "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Just when you thought Perino's comment (gaffe) couldn't be topped, along comes Rudy.... No domestic attacks under Bush? And yet one under Obama? WTF?

Either Rudy and Dana are completely clueless (very likely) or they believe they can say anything, no matter the veracity, and their doddering followers will just accept it without question. Probably a bit of both.

As is often the case, I spent New Years watching several Twilight Zone episodes (yearly marathon). While watching "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street" episode, it occurred to me that much of this past decade could be distilled in this short study of paranoia and the human condition. Introduce some unknowns, then sit back and watch it happen. Watch "the monsters" take over.

In fact, the main theme of many a Twilight Zone episode is fear and the ugly effect(s) it has on us. Regular folk are shown in everyday lives, and then the fear begins to take hold, amplify and spread, and before you know it people become unglued and mayhem erupts.

I wonder what Rod Serling would've said about the fear-mongering perpetrated over the last several years. I believe he'd find it beyond shameful, but I don't think it would shock him in the least. If anything, he was trying to warn us, to not succomb to mindless fear, to resist acting irrationally driven by anxiety. But as much as we repeatedly watch TZ episodes again and again, year after year, it's as if we willfully overlook the larger, more meaningful underlying messages.

I don't know what's more frightening, the fact that many of us have given in to the scare tactics employed since 2002, or that we've neglected to heed the warnings conveyed by those before us (such as Serling and Orwell, to name two). In either case, ignorance is the common culprit.

Many on the left have been bemoaning the passage of the Senate health care bill, believing it has been gutted to the point where if anything it has become more of a Christmas gift to insurance companies, therefore better to sink it.

While there is much truth in this sentiment, the many positives in the bill have been seemingly tossed by the wayside, receiving little if any well-deserved attention. Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum have both done yeoman's work in their efforts to highlight many of the bill's pluses.

A key point Kevin makes is this imperfect attempt at reform is a move forward and essentially lays a foundation on which to build, to years down the road not just modify what is in need of fixing, but to also pass measures that compliment existing policy in the bill. Before you know it, a once severely compromised bill "matures" into an increasingly stronger bedrock of reform -- much like how coral serves as the foundational base of a reef. If not for the coral, all that follows in terms of growth and life forms taking hold would be impossible.

If anything, we should look at this bill as a first salvo or shot across the bow. It serves as a tipping point that could set the stage for several additional reform initiatives to come in the future. Looking back, we could one day attribute this bill as that which got the ball rolling. After all, civil rights reform or environmental progress did not come about overnight, with the passage of one comprehensive piece of legislation. It took several steps and much political debate and fights over years to achieve gradual, but meaningful, change. We should expect the same with health care.

In effect, with this bill insurance players may breathe a sigh of relief -- but going forward the extremely favorable terms they've been accustomed to should only get increasingly tougher. Like "peak oil," conditions have likely crested for these companies and their time of unfettered dominance is over. In exchange, we should finally get the health care system we not only deserve, but one that won't bankrupt us. It won't happen next year, or in 2011 for that matter, yet over time it will happen and this bill serves as a crucial starting point.

Happy Holidays & New Year!

WTF? In his annual hot-air fest of recognizing those individuals who were especially courageous during the year, Joe Klein awards a Teddy to -- wait for it -- David Frum. Yes, the once strident right-wing hack who is another wingnut who (supposedly) finally saw the light, the err of his ways, and has spent time trying to make amends by wishing his party would be less obstinate and unreasonable.

That takes courage? Are you kidding me?

And Frum doesn't sound like the sober-minded convert here....

But then maybe the award has something to do with this -- "The Sunshine Boys" are looking quite chummy....

I more/less agree with Kevin. After all the clamoring and drama concerning heath care reform, it won’t amount to squat for the 2010 elections.

The bill will pass and it will likely be forgotten within several weeks. It won't mean much for a few years and the media will have suffered from HC fatigue and look to move on. Tea baggers were not going to vote for Dems anyway, and upset liberals will eventually come to their senses.

Moderates and independents – who matter most during election years – will be influenced by issues other than health care. Perhaps Obama and the Dems know this, which in part is why get HC passed and done with sooner. The key will be what issues surface in the next several months that become the driving force re 2010 elections. But it won’t likely be health care.

It’ll be interesting to see which party is able to best manage the message re which issue(s) does rise to the top....

Thank you Think Progress for today's GOP Hypocrisy Moment.

John McCain: "I’ve been around here 20-some years. First time I’ve ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks."

Flashback to 2002:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Please.

Thanks to Kevin Drum, I'm just getting around to this doozy from Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg attempts to make the case the uber-rich are overburdened by pointing out that on an absolute basis the bottom 95% of income earners have paid 1/3 less in taxes, versus a doubling by the top 1% of income earners.

What he's reflecting is income has dropped by 1/3 for the bottom 95%, and risen by over 100% for the top 1% earners.

Whereas he seems to believe he's making an egalitarian case for the rich, in fact he's just illustrating what we've known for years: the affluent have gotten more affluent since 1980, and the less affluent have increasingly lagged behind.

As I've always said, you should root for wanting to pay more taxes -- as Jonah makes clear.

The right-leaning AP thoroughly reviewed Climategate and their verdict is pettiness exists but no fraud was found.

Further proof these people are certifiable:

"We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term," she [Dana Perino] told Sean Hannity.

Food stamps now help feed one in four (25%) children. Simply astonishing.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Kevin when he wrote, "I remain pessimistic on the ability of Congress to rein in the financial community in any serious way. They just don't have the power."

Assuming he doesn't mean willpower, then I beg to differ. I would argue that in fact Congress does have the power, but what they do lack is the will to confront the financial lobby that pays them quite well to look away. Laws and regulations could be passed that significantly curtail the wrongdoings perpetrated by these large firms, however our political system is so riddled with corporate influence nothing with teeth ever gets enacted.

But again, it's not that they don't have the power, it's that they don't have the incentive and/or fortitude to do what's right, and therefore piss off those entities which allow them to remain incumbents.

On a separate topic, I completely agree with Kevin when he discusses how Afghanistan could become a "political nightmare" for Obama:

[W]hat it demonstrates most strongly is the fantastic political nightmare involved in ever pulling out of a war that hasn't been decisively won. Vietnam is the big-ticket example here, of course, but there are better ones. Take Somalia. After the Black Hawk Down incident in 1993, conservatives demanded that Bill Clinton pull out immediately. Not another American life was worth risking for a barren patch of dirt on the Horn of Africa. Clinton refused, insisting that we "finish the work we set out to do," and kept troops in country for another six months before withdrawing in an orderly way.

And what happened? Conservatives turned around and immediately started building up a mythology that Clinton had lacked spine and immediately ran for the exits at the first sign of trouble. Just like a Democrat to be so weak-kneed! What's more, it's now received wisdom on the right that it was this panicky withdrawal that first convinced Muslim fanatics that America was weak and could be attacked with impunity. In the end, Clinton took a hit for withdrawal even though he was the one who insisted on not cutting and running.

If that's what happens to a Democratic president who played a hawkish role in a small, unimportant war, what would happen to a Democratic president who played a dovish role in a big, important war?

From the I Shit You Not File: Business Aims to Relax Bans on Products Made with Child & Slave Labor

Joe "You Lie!" Wilson had the following light bulb moment: if the public option was so good, then all Dems should want to join this plan. What an idiot. All members of Congress have government paid-for health care, i.e. they already more/less enroll in a public option plan. And by all accounts, all said members are very much satisfied and happy with their plan (ever hear of a person in Congress complain about their health care?).

Nicholas Kristof makes an excellent point that should be getting more mileage:

[T]here is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare.

Once Americans reach and get beyond age 65, an inordinate number then go on to live well into their 80s. Mystery solved as to why this occurs: universal health care kicks in (Medicare). Another simple yet powerful piece of fact-based evidence that is not getting enough air play....

Kevin Drum reminds us of how things are likely to change fairly dramatically for Sarah Palin when she inevitably runs for prez in earnest:

Her fellow Republicans mostly treat her with cautious respect right now, but what will they say about her once they're all on stage together during the primary debates?

Yes, will they remain so respectful of her when she's on stage spouting her usual nonsense and drivel? Although like Joe Biden last year, they must be careful to avoid appearing overtly condescending or critical to her, on the other hand she was a relative newbie and fresh face then -- that won't be the case in 2011, when many would expect that by then she will have learned something of substance concerning policy. I for one am not holding my breath, but the point being she likely won't be treated with as much reverence the next time around.

To the idiotic, irrational, irresponsible labeling from the fear-mongering right:

Quote of the month:

"I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom."

What century is this?

Oh, and here are the 30 Republican who voted against an anti-rape bill. Have to love those family values....

And where are the religious pro-life folks regarding this story....? Love the zygote, hate the muscular dystrophy victim?

The House health care reform bill will save money, to the tune of over $100 billion in 10 years.

Would someone please inform Lieberman of this non-partisan fact....

A great collection of clips from that beacon of objective journalism, FOX News.

As always, imagine the screeching right's reaction if there was a far-left network that aired 24/7 this opinion-dressed-up-as-news stuff.... Fortunately, no one on the left would have the gumption or outright willingness to insult their viewers.

This should surprise no one:

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a copy of a long-suppressed report by officials in the George W. Bush administration concluding that, based on the science, the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.

My italics regarding science.

You have to wonder how many other findings exist (not just about the environment) that the prior administration decided to suppress and that we'll eventually learn about during Obama's time in office. We really did have sort of a corporatist dictator for eight years.

So most of Howard Stern's listeners do not realize that they're gay??

It appears Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize has become just another reason for his enemies to dislike him that much more.

Never mind the fact that he had nothing to do with the winning verdict much less getting nominated in the first place. Or that he felt "humbled" by the award, also saying, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”

No, this didn't stop the blathering right from condemning Obama. But more so, if the dopes wanted to lambaste anything or anyone, they should've directed their ire towards the Nobel committee that decided to hand Obama the prize. It's not Obama's fault he was picked, and as for any of this nonsense that he should've declined accepting it -- pleeaasseee! Just imagine how he would've looked turning down such a prestigious award, the same bunch of wingnuts would've bashed him for being such a pretentious, egotistical elitist.

The sad truth remains: Obama can't win for losing with this cast of idiots. Bill Clinton had to put up with it for eight years, and now so also must Obama.

When we voted for change, were we duped?

Granted, Obama was (remains) light years better than the alternative running at the time, but that's not my question. Frank Rich's column today makes evident what has been true all along -- Obama is more of a typical politician than any so-called far-left radical. The latter characterization is simply used by nutball right-wing figures to stoke their crazed base.

But is Obama in fact so typical, so mainstream, that we're not going to get the kind of change we thought we were going to get....?

In other words, Reagan used to placate the religious right, tossing them gratuitous rhetoric when necessary but never really getting behind anything they favored to the point of instituting real change. Will this be our fate ala Obama...? Wink, wink, nod, nothing...?

I always knew Mickey Kaus was more like Mickey Mouse....

He must be Slate's appeasement to the wingers.

Here's something shocking:

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

Apparently Rep. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson was for providing funds for illegal immigrants' health care before he was against it. These guys give hypocrites a bad name.

Glenn Beck and Fox News would like us to believe their DC rally had close to 2 million attendees, and some have even tried to use a fake photo to "prove" it. (Estimates had the crowd at 50,000 to 70,000).

Just look at the many lovely signs held by country-first Americans. I'm sure if signs even remotely as reprehensible as these were ever displayed during Bush/Cheney's eight years that the GOP would've remained as silent as they are now. Yeah, sure.

Knowing the south very well, Jimmy Carter speaks out and is very concerned (and rightly so).

The city of Philadelphia will close its public libraries. Unfortunately over time this will work to boost Glenn Beck's audience.

The indoctrination of our kids apparently begins with warning them about the perils of Facebook.... How clever in a sinister, subliminal way. I can't imagine what will be up Obama's sleeve next....

James Surowiecki seems to be reluctant to say what he really wants to say (which I suppose is understandable given he blogs for the esteemed New Yorker): that David Brooks is an idiot.

Surowiecki has posted several excellent blog entries of late. In another, he again makes mention of David Brooks, namely DB's belief that it would be politically "suicidal" for Obama to resort to reconciliation. Surowiecki rightly says nonsense, stating:

[W]here is the evidence that ordinary voters remember how laws were passed and reward or punish politicians based on that? On the contrary, voters judge politicians (to the extent that they make rational decisions) based on whether the laws they passed worked or not....Political victory on this issue isn’t going to be determined by how the law gets enacted. It’ll be determined by what happens once it is enacted.

Like Bill Kristol, 99.9% of the time it's best to do opposite what Brooks is advising. But more so, with Republicans refusing to negotiate in good faith concerning health care reform, their stiff-armed resistance serves as an opportunity for the Democrats. Use this issue to highlight the stark us-versus-them dynamic that has unfortunately taken hold over the last several weeks, to make it plainly evident for all to see via a go-it-alone course of action in crafting a reform bill. This way the Democrats will get all the credit.

Recall the numerous Republicans that resisted the passing of the stimulus money...? Recall again the numerous Republicans that eventually took credit for the stimulus money making its way through their respective states...? Deep down, they indeed fear that passage of health care reform without their involvement will leave them out in the cold when inevitably such reform is well-received, and in a year or two or three opposing Democrats can score huge political points by making it clear Republican X or Y voted against any beneficial change.

Continued resistance by Republicans should be treated and embraced by Dems in same spirit as Clint Eastwood's line, "Go ahead, make my day."

Surowiecki also writes about how many are advising Obama to behave more like FDR and simply ignore the GOP when it comes to health care reform. On this front I urge everyone to listen to the first segment of Thom Hartmann's Sept. 3rd radio show, where he specifically discusses this point and plays a tape of FDR making bold, emphatic statements.

I'm sympathetic towards this view, even though some may ask, "Where will this defiance get Obama in the long run?" I ask, what has his desire to work with Republicans gotten him up till now? Not much, and I would submit it's made him a weaker and less admirable president to a good number of the people who voted for him, in large part explaining the wane in his poll numbers. If he were to suddenly stand up to the GOP with take-charge backbone and stern language, I bet you'd see his poll numbers spike up dramatically.

By the same token, if the Dems go the recon route, meaning give the big FU to Republicans, then the public option should be included. To leave it out and still say the heck with the GOP is a transparent nod to the health care lobby.

And I thought with Obama's bottoms-up, grassroots win last November that he was less susceptible to being bought and sold by corporate interests -- can we see some evidence of that, please?!

Is this what the town hall meeting disgrace has come down to, a woman in a wheelchair trying to speak her mind about health care concerns, and many in the audience treating her anything but in a civil manner...?

Dick Armey and the GOP must be so proud....

The Dick Cheney Rolling Embarrassment Parade just never quits.... His latest plea for sympathy and voiced disdain for not being treated like the hero he believes himself to be was -- where else -- aired on FOX. He had this laughable removed-from-reality point to make:

I guess the other thing that offends the hell out of me, frankly, Chris, is we had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from Al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, how did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?

Here's a guy who in that same interview categorically states, "I knew about the waterboarding." Last time I looked, waterboarding was torture and it violated international agreements and is a war crime. Yet he's "offended."

Oh, and I love the way he conveniently is off by a few years. Mr. VP, I believe your entire eight years, as you say, in office were not without an attack; I believe something really big occurred not too long after you took control of the country. Yes, it's one "incident" but it's the mother-of-all national security f*ck-ups, a hugely tragic event that if it occurred while say Clinton was top dog, the Republicans would've stormed the White House and drove him out with torches and rocks, and to this day we would've never stopped hearing about it, the blame, the condemnation, the incompetence.

And many would say that even one attack like 9-11 is too many, that something like that should've never happened in a country like ours, with the supposed level of intelligence that we've built up over many decades. But it did, unfortunately, and yet this shameless, delusional, sad man continues to spout fabricated untruths to an audience that by now has hopefully learned to ignore him.

Sarah Palin is a blithering idiot and Michele Bachmann is bat-sh*t crazy, but Betsy McCaughey is just coldly calculating and dangerous with the lies she spreads. She's done more to setback health care reform than any other single individual -- and that's saying quite a lot.

Mike Steele and the GOP were for Medicare cuts before they were against them, or they were against cuts after they were for them -- it's getting so ridiculous I'm confused.... Soon they'll be proclaiming the need for climate change legislation, blaming Dems for dragging feet on....

The fact is it's not the $100 billion per year that truly bothers Republicans. After all, past evidence shows them to be spendthrifts with our money. No, what bothers them is the $100 billion per year is going towards something they don't support and the Dems do, i.e. partisan fighting as usual. (Not to mention the campaign and lobby $$ falling out their back pockets).

It's not the cost or the budget deficit, it's the politics. And meanwhile 40-50 million people remain uninsured.

According to Sen. Grassley, he/she who shouts the loudest gets his attention and anything like polls be damned. So most people who work or are busy with family, etc., who can't attend these town hall meetings are ignored or are less meaningful to Sen. Grassley, as opposed to those constituents who get bused in -- oops, I mean who have the time to attend such meetings...?

How is it the voters in Iowa keep putting this guy in office? I was about to say that he's an idiot but rather the blame is on the voters...

Way to go Lawrence!



Exactly, Republicans demonize government-funded (not run) health care as socialism and evil, yet they're too gutless to repeal Medicare.... Oh, and Rep. Culberson receives government-funded health care like all others in Congress. If he felt it was so awful, he could always stop using it and seek out private insurance -- what do you say to that Rep. Culberson? Or will you dodge that question also...?

Very well said:

I still contend health care reform is over. The GOP and the fringe right will just move on to something else they find “objectionable” like this absurd accusation that voluntary counselling amounted to a panel of experts determining who should and should not live, the senior citizens seem overwhelmingly content to suckle at the public teat in regards to medicare while giving everyone else the bird, the insurance industry is playing both sides, half the Democrats are spooked by their own shadows, and the other half are in bed with the FIRE sector.

It is just over. And the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. If the Republicans had majorities like the Democrats have right now, they would have abolished the IRS and the Department of Education, Bernie Madoff would be running social security, there would be an oil well in every backyard and off every inch of coast, we’d have mandatory prayer in schools, and the defense department budget would be doubled so we could have excellent adventures in Iran while we liberate Georgia from oppressive Russian rule. And we’d be doing it all with a top marginal rate of 3%.

It does seem like the Republicans can rule but can't govern, and the Democrats, well, can't seem to do either... They're on the right side of the issues but it's as if somebody needs to slap them all in the face and remind them of this fact.

About the government stimulus programs, Drew Matus, Senior U.S. Economist at BofA Merrill Lynch, recently wrote, "Coming at a key moment in the evolution of the economy, this boost was a welcome event that likely helped to prevent a bad situation from getting even worse."

True enough, yet the right-wing will choose to prematurely judge and conclude the stimulus is a bust.

For some proof to the contrary, click here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. (I could've made the list longer).

For those who understand economics, if the government is going to elevate spending it should do so during recessionary times -- and this current downturn was in jeopardy of easily cascading into a full blown depression (oh, how we quickly forget). Funny, not too long ago that didn't stop the GOP-controlled government from spending like crazy during non-recessionary times.

But now they're newborn deficit hawks, quick to condemn the stimulus effort. Hilarious.

Pass something -- Obama will fix it. Let's hope.

I think most of us can agree, the free market can very often be a wonderful thing. I emphasize "often," meaning not always. For some (crucial) aspects of life, that old invisible hand just does not suffice. As it turns out, health care is one of them.

The Anonymous Liberal sums it up nicely:

Of course, if we were to let "liberty and market forces" do the rationing when it comes to health care for the elderly, the result would be no health care for most elderly Americans. That's because elderly people consume a lot of health care and therefore it makes no economic sense for private insurers to cover them (at least at affordable rates). That's why we have Medicare in the first place. That's the problem Medicare was designed to solve. It is thanks to the "government bureaucrats" that grandma gets to go to the doctor at all.

Simply put, but too simple for the public that is showing up at town halls, fired up with rage, fearing socialism and government takeover, all the while many of whom are happily enrolled in Medicare...?

• Democrats big problem: they reason, think and depend on facts, and they expect the same of others.
  
  "I think it is very hard because [Democrats] don't have the message machine the Republicans do," said George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley linguistics professor who has advised some Democrats on how to sharpen their message. "The Democrats still believe in Enlightenment reason: If you just tell people the truth, they will come to the right conclusion."
  
  
• "Adolf Hitler was for exterminating the weak, not just the Jews and stuff, and socialism -- that's what's going to happen," spoken by a woman who held a sign of Obama's image superimposed as a Nazi, and who's chronically ill mother gets expensive treatments thanks to "socialized" health care (Medicare). The amount of ignorance prevalent in this debate is astonishing.
  
  
• Worth a listen. Ronald Reagan in 1961 predicting much of what we're hearing today, that through Medicare our government will eventually take over our health care system, our freedom of choice, our way of life. Didn't happen, all fabricated lies to scare and frighten. Much like today.
  
  
• Newt Gingrich was apparently for latter-years counseling before he was against it. The hell with the actual policy or helping people, if the Dems are for it, he's suddenly against it.
  
  
• Michele Bachmann continues to delight the masses with her comedy act. Her latest crazed moment of humor: she criticized AmeriCorp, describing it as a nefarious government program that has "re-education" camps to brainwash our youth, and saying "as a parent, I would have a very, very difficult time seeing my children do this." Guess what? Her son recently signed up.
  
  
• A great fact-check page that clears up many lies being circulated about the health care bill.
  
  
• Out of the many hundreds of pages making up the proposed health care bill, if this is the best they could come up with, a fabricated lie about a "death panel," then it tells me there is quite a bit of good stuff in the bill.
  
  
• Regarding the nearing-end-of-days counseling, which would be paid for by the government, all the choices involved are made by the individual and no one else. If the person decided that he or she wished to try to live to be 200 years old, then the advice received leading up to that decision would be paid for. In fact, the provision specifically bans euthanasia as it's against states laws. So you see it's quite the opposite of "death" counseling.
  
  
• George Stephanopoulos schools Newt. Corrects him about the health advisor claim and about what isn't in the bill. But love the way Newt has a problem with our trusting the government -- the same government he didn't seem to have a problem with regarding torture, illegal wiretaps, lies spread to get us into Iraq, Katrina, the politically stacked Justice Dept., etc. etc. He's OK with THAT government, apparently.

It's my understanding the cash-for-clunkers program was deemed a "failure" by Republicans because it was so popular it quickly ran dry of the money it was initially budgeted, requiring the House to pass additional funding. Sounds similar to the GOP's concern about a public health care option, that it would be so wildly popular it would be a disaster -- driving private insurance companies out of business.

The program has also been a success in lowering CO2 emissions, a less mentioned goal.

It's funny how GW's failures were spectacular failures, and yet Obama's failures are, well, sucesses.

Unlike the many kooks on his side, David Frum has at least thought a bit farther than the nose on his face:

What would it mean to “win” the healthcare fight?

For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president’s proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself.

The problem is that if we do that… we’ll still have the present healthcare system.

Many on the right aren't viewing the current health care debate as an opportunity to fix something that is broken, but rather they're viewing it more as just another in a series of partisan opportunities to hopefully make Obama and the Dems look bad. That's it, to gain political points, period.

But as Frum says, even if his side "wins" this one, we'll still have the same broken system that needs fixing. However, by once again stalling with the needed remedies (first in 1994) means the problems will grow increasingly more massive in size, to the point where whenever we get around to addressing health care reform again, the cures could be so outlandishly expensive at that point that any constructive fix will be out of the question.

For the GOP, it's just another case of winning the battle, losing the war. Unfortunately, many Americans on their side are not thinking beyond their noses, just reacting emotionally, allowing themselves to be manipulated and used by deep-pocket corporate interests. Ultimately these citizens are fighting for that which works against their own interests (ala tax cuts for the wealthy).

And speaking of fighting, these town hall charades have devolved from shouting and screaming, to now pushing and shoving, and soon it will be serious harm or worse. You think any responsible, sane Republican will finally say enough already before the inevitable happens? Doubtful.

If there's ever the opportunity to open mouth and say something stupid (and untrue), she never passes it up.

"Not Have An Intelligent Debate"

Dick Armey's lobby group, FreedomWorks, the outfit that brought you the many tax revolt tea parties, is now spearheading harassment efforts to disrupt health care reform discussions at town hall meetings.

Apparently the last thing this lobbyist-backed group wants is for people to "have an intelligent debate" on the issue with their congressional reps. No, better to shout, scream, and disrupt -- typical gang-like intimidation tactics ala FLA 2000 when thugs stormed the recounting of votes, halting the process.

Another instance where people are being manipulated and used at the behest of corporate power and greed. And people just oblige and go along, like mindless cult followers. Incredible.