"The top X% of wage earners pay X% of income taxes."

This is a favorite line of right-wingers (fill in your own figures, top 1% pay 58%, top 2% pay 72%, etc.). You get the point they try to make, go easy on the wealthy, they pay their fair share and then some.

Please. As usual, it's all hocus pocus word games. I'll show you.

Suppose a country had a population of 10 people. Person A, the tycoon, made $100 per year, and the other 9 people all made $10 each per year. Thus the total amount of income to be taxed = $190. Suppose 10% is the income tax rate applied to all. This means the total amount of taxes paid is $190 x 10% = $19.

Person A, the tycoon, paid $100 x 10% = $10 in taxes. $10 / $19 = 53%

So you see, Person A, 1/10 of the population, paid 53% of the total taxes paid -- wow, what a swell person, cheers, bravo.

Ahh, not so fast. Person A pays 53% of the total taxes paid because Person A makes 10 times more than each of the other 9 people. Duh. But that's not the point! The point is all 10 people pay the same tax rate, thus it's arguably very fair. Person A doesn't deserve applause or accolades as this person is doing the equivalent of all other citizens in this country.

And this is with a system of one tax rate for all. If it was a bit more progressive, where say Person A had to pay a 15% tax rate, then we're talking: $15 / $24 = 63%, or Person A now pays 63% of all taxes paid.

As you can see, right-wingers try to use deception by shifting the viewpoint quite a bit. It just takes a little bit of thinking to see what they're doing, but how many people take the time to do that thinking?

Meanwhile, the sad fact of the matter is the top 400 wealthiest households in the U.S. (worth $350+ million) pay a lower tax rate than the average citizen pays.

Yes, let's continue to cut taxes for the rich -- woe to them....

Osama bin Laden is dead

What GW failed to do for seven years, Obama achieved (read story, he was heavily involved). Great day for America, but let's see what the hyper-partisan Republicans have to say.... (Most likely "what took so long?" or "that's fine but what about the deficit??"  You know, the deficit that GW and Republicans were creating for many years without a peep from anyone at the time....)

If you've ever wondered whether or not Republican politicians actually believed the birther crap, we can thank Donald Trump for settling it.

Until Trump recently became the most famous birther, many Republicans would either look to side-step the issue by not answering questions directly or they would encourage the continuation of the conspiracy theory by mentioning the possibility Obama may not be a U.S. citizen, thus leaving the door slightly ajar to satisfy and energize the kooks in the base. It worked for the GOP politically.

However, along comes The Don, who quickly makes it his #1 issue in his maybe/maybe-not 2012 run.  I assumed all those same Republican officials would do the usual when asked what they thought of Trump's allegations about Obama's place of birth, that they'd hee and haw but ultimately do some wink-wink and deftly support the notion (leaving door slightly open....).

But I was wrong. One after another, Republicans have been firmly and clearly coming out against all this birther nonsense, stating for the record that it's not a serious issue and seemingly never was. Michele Bachmann, Karl Rove, Eric Cantor, just to name a few, are suddenly above such silliness.

Why the change of mind? I surmise two reasons. The first is they never actually believed the birther stuff and felt with the 2012 race beginning to take shape that they would need to appear like credible people and distance themselves from something that has served their political purposes up till now.

The second reason is the GOP establishment quickly figured out that they needed to put a stop to Trump's growing popularity as a presidential contender. He may not have the billions of dollars he claims to have but he certainly has enough to make a go of it. But more so The Don appears to be a loose cannon who will say anything that pops into his head. Trump is loyal to only one thing: himself. He will and has gone off script and such behavior frightens the heck out of Republicans. In other words, The Don truly "goes rogue" and by all means Republicans do not want that!  Oh yes, say you're "going rogue," that you're not just another politician, that you're a maverick, etc., but just don't mean it!

The bottom line is thanks to Trump, we've come to learn that Republicans never believed in the birther movement. Nothing has changed with regards to the existing documentation, what is known, what Obama and his administration have said, etc., and yet suddenly we observe this rising tide of GOP converts. As I've said, Trump's antics and 2012 fast approaching combined to force Republicans to admit the truth they knew to be the case all along.

And once again, the too-many nutballs in the GOP base get played by their leaders.... That never gets old.

Do you know what "fracking" is? If not, I highly encourage you to watch the Oscar-nominated "Gasland" documentary, made by Josh Fox. It's scary to say the least.

On a related note, this news from PA:

Pennsylvania has come under fire lately as pollution from drilling in the Marcellus Shale threatens water resources across the state. But instead of ratcheting up oversight, Gov. Tom Corbett wants to hand authority over some of the state’s most critical environmental decisions to C. Alan Walker, a Pennsylvania energy executive with his own track record of running up against the state’s environmental regulations.
<..>
Private water wells have been contaminated with methane gas and other pollutants across the state, and in many cases the DEP has found that hasty or insufficient gas well construction was to blame. Several drilling site accidents have led to spills where wastewater, including from hydraulic fracturing, contaminated streams.

A 2009 ProPublica investigation revealed that Pennsylvania’s sewage treatment plants were accepting millions of gallons of drilling wastewater, but lacked the technology to remove or treat many of the chemicals and pollutants the water contained. In 2008 people along one stretch of the Monongahela River were advised to drink bottled water because the level of dissolved minerals and salts in the river was almost twice as high as the DEP considers safe.
<..>
In January, the Associated Press found that about 150 million gallons of Marcellus Shale wastewater—the majority of the wastewater for the period examined—had been dumped into rivers and streams after only partial treatment. A subsequent story from the New York Times revealed that much of that wastewater was dangerously radioactive, and that drinking water facilities have not been testing their intake for this radioactivity.

On Monday the EPA leaned on Pennsylvania’s DEP to tighten its oversight of drilling waste disposal. The next day, Gov. Corbett released his budget, reducing DEP funding and stating that job creation should trump lengthy permitting delays.

It's not shocking to learn that Republican Corbett accepted more than $800,000 in campaign contributions from the oil & gas industry.

Another bought-and-paid-for politician paying back his supporters at the expense of the people -- in this case possibly their health, not to mention land value.

Every so often Fox News gets it correct. It's an extremely rare occurrence but it does happen, almost by accident.

Shep Smith is caught telling it like it truly is in Wisconsin.

Shepard Smith said the battle over union rights in Wisconsin was all about busting unions and securing Republican political power, not about the state's budget deficit....Smith said the fight was "100 percent politics."
"There is no budget crisis in Wisconsin," he said, adding that the unions "[have] given concessions." The real point of the fight, Smith said, could be found in the list of the top ten donors to political campaigns. Seven out of the ten donated to Republicans; the other three were unions donating to Democrats.
"Bust the unions, and it's over," Smith said. He then brought up the Koch brothers, the billionaires who have bankrolled much of the anti-union pushback in Wisconsin. The fight, Smith said, "started" with the Kochs, who he said were trying to get a return on the money they donated to Walker's campaign.
"I'm not taking a side on this, I'm just telling you what's going on...to pretend this is about a fiscal crisis in the state of Wisconsin is malarkey," Smith said.

Watch the video.

• Michele Bachmann gets her facts and history wrong, again. I thought Tea Party folks were all about getting this stuff right?

• Dirty air triggers more heart attacks than cocaine.

• "I just want to say, if you're a Republican, please go screw yourself."
  

• For those who haven't figured it out yet, it's fairly obvious that with the start of this year the Republicans had put together and implemented a strategy where they would try to systematically go after those who tended to vote for Democrats. It's what they're doing to unions in Wisconsin, with attempts to do similar in other states (Indiana, Ohio). Break the unions and strip them of all power and you succeed in extinguishing a primary donor to Democrats. That's the real goal in Wisconsin, ignore the trumped-up nonsense about a fiscal emergency. Next on the list: make it harder for minorities and college students to vote, two groups that generally side with Democrats. My question is are Democrats in Washington DC too naive or stupid to realize this is going on? Do they care?? WAKE UP!

• Matt Taibbi on John Boehner: "He's a five-tool insider who can lie, cheat, steal, play golf, change his mind on command and do anything else his lobbyist buddies and campaign contributors require of him to get the job done....Look back over almost every controversial episode in the recent history of the U.S. Congress and you will find Boehner's face appearing, Zelig-like, somewhere in the foreground....Boehner, in short, has for most of his career been a Bush Republican, i.e., a corporate schmoozer and a remorseless spender of taxpayer money for whom the notion of small government is just something to say when the cameras are on."
  

• Republicans Gut EPA Climate Rules

• Sums things up.

Niall Ferguson's Newsweek piece is just more proof that Obama is anything but a socialist, much less a radical progressive. I would say (as I have many times) that he's slightly left of center -- slightly. In other words, he's a fairly conventional politician.

The right has been doing to Obama what they did to Clinton for eight years: attempt to define him as more of an extreme ideologue than is truthful. They succeeded in convincing their base that Clinton was a far-left liberal -- a joke at the time and even more so looking back. And the same is true now with Obama, with their tireless effort to cast him as a pinko-socialist "community organizer." He's of course nothing of the sort -- if anything, he's been pissing off his own supporters for not being liberal enough!

But the right and Republicans control via fear-mongering and their base complies, allowing such tactics to prevail repeatedly. The base gets played over and over.... Idiots.

So Newt Gingrich is very likely going to jump in the race in 2012. This despite him being a member of the party of family values, a guy who is on his third wife, apparently cheating on his first two.

Best of luck to you Newt!

Regarding the mess in Wisconsin, it's fairly simple to understand at this point. It's all about politics and very little is about fiscal concerns. If the prank phone call was not revealing enough for you, all you have to know is Gov. Walker exempted those unions that supported him in his run for office.

If the state is in such financial trouble, requiring unions to sacrifice, going so far as to demand the abolishment of collective bargaining, than why is it some unions don't have to relinquish that right?

So Orrin Hatch is in danger of losing because he's not conservative enough...??!! Come again!! That's like saying the Devil is to be replaced in Hell for not being evil enough.

Just how far to the right is the GOP going to drift?? Reagan today would be the equivalent of Jerry Brown.

Given this latest news, isn't Glenn Beck supposed to be passing out on air at this point??

Finally saw The Social Network. I'd give it a "B" on scale of A-F. It was good, but not great. Why do I get the feeling that because Fincher and Sorkin's names were attached, it had critics extra-excited before viewing, elevating their reception from B to A....

Frankly, a better film is Mike Leigh's "Another Year," but it's British and has no big names involved.

Remember this ("Republicans Gut EPA") the next time you hear someone complain about the EPA not doing its job. Tough to do one's job when you're constantly underfunded, understaffed and overwhelmed -- just as corporations and Republicans (one and same) like it.

Mind you, these cuts don't do jack sh*t to solve the deficit, just a bug bite on an elephant's ass. More meaningful cuts would come from the nearly $1 TRILLION we spend on defense each year but we can't cut there, right? Spending on defense amounts to more/less $800 billion per year, versus the EPA's meager $10 billion budget. Yes, we spend 80 times more on defense than our environment -- and that doesn't include GW's unpaid-for wars.

Attention Tea Party folk, the deficit will be the least of our kids' problems if the planet is uninhabitable. Duh.

I recently finished Wendell Potter's book, Deadly Spin. A very good read, highly recommended. Many of the horrible things he confesses to about the industry are not shocking, but I must admit even I didn't realize the extent of the rot and evil riddled throughout the for-profit health care system. What people won't do to earn an extra buck! (OK, many bucks). Beyond shameful.

Potter makes many good points in the book, too many to list, but I felt his discussion about the medical-loss ratio (MLR) was worth posting here. He writes, "The best example of the industry's secrecy is the medical-loss ratio, which, as I mentioned previously, is the measurement of the share of premium revenue spent on actual health care." When an insurer lowers its MLR, that means its spending less on health care leaving more for "overhead" (i.e. salaries, profits, etc.). Wall Street wants to see the MLR head lower; for it to rise typically means the stock price will selloff.

The graphic below depicts what Potter discusses about the MLR. Since 1993, the MLR for insurance companies has declined from 95% to 81% in 2007, an enormous drop-off in what is actually devoted to health care services. Note that the MLR for Medicare has consistently remained at the 97%-98% level, meaning "overhead" is at a scant 3% compared to about 20% for private insurers.

Yet Republicans and others backed by the insurance lobby will try to murky the waters, demonize Medicare and deflect our attention from plain facts like this.

Continue to fall for the "socialized medicine" and "government takeover of health care" line of crap. Potter divulges in the book that these exact phrases tested very well in PR focus groups when it came to effectively frightening people. The industry is by no means dumb, spending many millions to maintain the status quo and keep the public stupid. For them, it's always been money well spent.

Drought and floods, get used to it. Why? Because of man-made global warming. Warmer air can carry more water vapor, meaning the clouds can accumulate and hold on to more water (rain) for a greater duration of time. This creates extended periods of drought until the clouds become extremely "full" with water vapor, finally releasing the water as deluging rain = massive floods. To put it in terms that Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly can understand, global warming has made the clouds bigger sponges.

And this story relates with the above. Drought and floods = worse agricultural conditions = less food = higher prices = more starvation = more unrest, outrage, protests and violence. It's not just about Twitter. Climate change has far-reaching impact and effects.

Curveball lied.

Let's see if this makes it on network news at all -- you know, the liberal MSM. Bets anyone?

Incredible. Not that this "informant" lied, fabricating BS and not long after we're in a war. Many at the time said he was lying, and much (real) intel didn't confirm, so not shocking.

No, what is incredible is no one cares anymore why or how we got into a war that is expected to cost us between $2 and $3 TRILLION (with a "T") dollars when all is said and done.

But not a peep out of the "newly awakened" Tea Bag crew. They never cite anything having to do with GW/Cheney or war when it comes to deficits. Nope, they can only focus blame on a non-white man in the White House, and all that supposed wasted $$ going to welfare abusers. Oh, and the tons of $$$ going to PBS and the arts.

From Fox Geezer Syndrome:

After the Tucson shootings, Fox chief Roger Ailes said he had told his crew to “tone it down.” I’m skeptical, but I hope he succeeds. One of the great advantages of a conservative disposition is a suspicion of emotions, and emotionalism. The dumbest decisions I’ve ever made, about politics and everything else, were executed while I was worked up about something, and trusted my emotional response. (my emphasis)

Come again?! If I had to sum up the modern conservative today, I would say he/she is all about emotion, period. Specifically anger, but throw in fear and paranoia. Unlike what this author asserts, I see no evidence whatsoever of level-headed, unemotional, objective reason. Just look at the Tea Party folks! And did we observe lots of cool, detached thinking last year during those infamous town hall meetings??

The fact this person could even type this with a straight face says it all. Complete and utter delusion.

Rush, Glenn, Sean -- these guys are hilarious. If the events in Egypt were occurring with their boy GW in office, we would be hearing emphatic words of support about the encouraging opportunity for democracy to finally take root (mind you, without requiring U.S. armed forces to invade and make it happen). But because it's Obama sitting in the White House and not their guy, we hear nothing of the sort. Rather the rightwing bloviators flame cautionary warnings of socialist uprisings, radical youth, and the ever-heinous "community organizing." Be very afraid!!

Saddam was evil enough for GW to misdirect 9/11 rage and our military into a war to free Iraqis, yet in this case, when Egyptians have been protesting for weeks in the name of democracy, the wingnut pundits do not side with the oppressed people desiring liberty. No, instead these partisan sociopaths will use any excuse, any policy issue, any world event to go against whatever Obama is for. No matter what it is, they must be against Obama, period.

That's change to believe in? That's a cohesive, sophisticated, fruitful vision for our country's future? Seems pretty simple-minded to me -- but then judging by the throngs of Tea Party followers, simpletons abound.

Reagan turned 100, another occasion to debunk and myth-bust and shatter the many fictional accounts of the man. And I didn't know he was a big fan of FDR, something I assume would greatly upset most conservatives.

Gail Collins writes about Michelle Bachmann, inevitably spending some time making comparisons to Sarah Palin. How can one not compare the two -- in their own ways, they're both bat-crazy. I love this description by Gail: "If Palin and Bachmann were your co-workers, Palin would be the one sneaking out early to go bowling, while Bachmann would stay late to reorganize the office seating chart to reflect her own personal opinion of who most deserves to be near the water cooler."

Speaking of Palin, an interesting article on narcissism. Doesn't this sound like Sarah? "A narcissist is someone who has an unrealistic sense of self-importance, a lack of empathy, and a 'conviction of being different and special and entitled that is so profound that they feel it’s only natural people will admire them'."

A graphic depicting the $3 trillion (with a "T") Iraq War. Funny how the Tea Baggers never mention GW/Cheney's war when they complain about our worsening deficit. Most telling. Oh, and one reason Obama's deficit figures look worse than GW's is not just because of the Great Recession, but also because Obama decided to finally put both this war and the Afghanistan war on the books. GW made things look better thanks to accounting tricks; Obama said enough.

Top-brass business executives have had their feelings hurt and dislike liberals so much they are more than willing to punish the country by stock-piling cash, avoiding much-needed hiring. Really? Apparently this is what David Gergen would have us believe.

This is long overdue, "As the rates of learning disabilities, autism and related conditions rise, the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to release a roster of the pollutants likely to contribute to these or other neurological disorders." Theodore Slotkin, a pharmacology professor at Duke University Medical Center: "What we've been doing the past 30 years is a failure. They [industry] can produce these chemicals faster than we can test them." And a truly shocking reality: "[U]nder current law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA permits companies to put many chemicals on the market without first proving they are safe. Then, if evidence mounts that a particular chemical, such as bisphenol A, or metal, such as lead, could harm people who are exposed to the substances in varying situations, the agency has to play catch-up." Incredible. The EPA acts only after the fact. And what about the many chemicals that could be doing harm but are much more subtle when inflicting their damage, thus staying under-the-radar and escaping the attention of regulators...?

A group of organic food giants surrender to Monsanto. Sadly, why does this seem like it was inevitable?

A conservation group may sink a very promising renewable energy project. Look, at some point choices have to be made -- in this case, the future of the planet versus question marks surrounding migrating birds. If we don't look to replace coal plants with cleaner burning alternatives, and fast, then the risk to turtles and cacti will be the least of our problems!

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.