How Embarrassing

I like Senators Klobuchar and Shaheen and its a damn shame that the Democratic Senate leadership trotted them out to cover Joe Lieberman's ass like this. I hope they realize that nobody is buying this bullshit, especially not any liberals or progressives. I guess you gotta do what you gotta do but talk about drawing the short straw. SMDH

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

All Hail President Lieberman

I gotta say, this is some straight up coward shit right here. And I MEAN that!

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

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

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

Had To Be Said

Make no mistake about it, the real obstacles to getting health care reform passed at the moment are a handful of asshole Democrats. Still watching Senate Republicans lie through their effing teeth every day all day about the bill is really damn irritating. Made even worse so by their enablers in the media who never call them out.

Well Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown has no such qualms about calling a spade a spade.



Fiscal conservative? GTFOH wit dat!

They Don't Want It With Stuart Smally

Al Franken just keeps kicking Republicans in the ass and its hilarious because you can tell they aren't used to be called out on their bullshit. Can we get more Senators like him for Christmas? Pretty please?!



It made it all the funnier when John Thune, the number #4 in GOP leadership and a wingnut idol, had to run and get his big brother John McCain to try to fight his battle. Too bad the war was already lost....

Taken To The Woodshed

Somehow I doubt Charles Lane will be trying to attack Ezra Klein again any time soon.

Punks jump up to get beatdown!

Cue The Wingnut Freakout And The Cheney's On TV

The Obama administration will announce today that they will be transferring GITMO prisoners to a prison in Illinois.


I think I am going to turn off the TV and unplug for the rest of the week.

A Health Care Compromise That I Might Support

Josh over at TPM seems to think that at this point since Joe LIEberman is showing his ass that the best thing to do would be for the Democratic Leadership in the Senate to court Olympia Snowe again and instead try to get her vote. I don't necessarily disagree. I think its apparent at this point that Lieberman is just bullshitting and that he has no plans whatsoever to vote for cloture on a health care reform bill no matter what. Of course he said at the beginning of the process that he didn't think we needed health care reform so this really shouldn't surprise anyone.

But here is MY thing. If the Democrats want to put a trigger on a public option then I won't like it but under one circumstance I will hold my nose and support it. The public humiliation Joe Lieberman by stripping him of all his chairmanships and seniority at a very public press conference.

Not only would this be good policy, but good politics for the Democrats. Nobody can accuse them of banishing him because of purity tests. Remember he isn't actually a Democrat anyway AND he campaigned heavily for the Republican candidate for President last year. I was outraged from the get go that he was allowed to keep his chairmanships after all that and had no problem saying so. But at the time some good folks on the left kept telling me that it was all some great chess move by President Obama that would pay off in the long run.

Yeah, score one for me.

And I can promise you this much, liberals and progressives will not support a health care reform bill without a robust public option BUT kicking Lieberman's ass to the curb is very likely to fire up the base. Its time to drop the dead weight that is fucking up all our legislation. And overtly it can be a warning to the other jack asses in the me first caucus like Ben Nelson. Being a Democrat doesn't mean somebody has to agree with every single piece of legislation, but they for damn sure better not be standing in the way of up and down votes on legislation that has been on the Democratic platform for decades.

So Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel, and the rest of you jackasses getting ready to sell the farm on health care reform for one Republican vote, just know that axing LIEberman, publicly and in a humiliating fashion just might soften the blow. Speaking strictly for myself of course.

Ezra Klein Has Done It Again

I did a post about the flame war between Matt Taibbi and Tim Fernholz over Taibbi's new Rolling Stone article over the weekend. Well for my money Ezra Klein has just ended the debate. I know there are people who will defend Taibbi's article because they like him. Hell, I usually like his work too. But its going to be hard as hell for them to try to defend him again Klein's post. I would have thought Fernholz had made a strong case but evidently some folks reflexively dismissed it because of their affinity for Taibbi and also because Fernholz only highlighted a few problems with the piece. But Ezra pretty much takes it apart piece by piece. I have no doubt that there will still be some Taibbi fans who disagree, but their arguments are almost by necessity are going to have to be disingenuous. Hell everybody makes mistakes or puts out bad product at times, this time it was Taibbi.

Deal with it.

More Evidence That What Democrats Need To Do Politically Is Just Stay Out Of The Way

When it comes to going after incumbent Republicans or races where the seat is up for grabs, please please please Democratic establishment, just let them eat their own and then sweep in to take the seat. The only way we can fuck up the election next year is if we make ourselves targets of both the establishment GOP and the wingnut/teabagger factions. Otherwise they will beat themselves into oblivion and whomever emerges will be so far to the right as to scare average people. We dont need do anything other than watch, maybe giggle a little, and let nature take its course...

TAMPA - An increasingly fractious challenge to the Republican Party from its own conservative base could relegate the party to indefinite minority status, some Republicans fear.

It's showing up in the form of conservative primary challengers against candidates blessed by the party establishment - a strange phenomenon in a party known for tightly controlled, wait-your-turn politics.

Some Republicans fear the divisive primaries could leave GOP voters divided and dispirited, or push to the party so far right it alienates mainstream voters.

"If you tried to devise a strategy for destroying the Republican Party in Florida, you couldn't do much better than this," said retired University of South Florida political scientist Darryl Paulson, a Republican and a former Heritage Foundation fellow.

"The kind of narrow appeal they're offering would almost guarantee Republicans would become the minority party in Florida," Paulson said.

Flame War

It all started when a writer I like a lot, Matt Taibbi, wrote this piece for the Rolling Stone entitled "Obama's Big Sellout"

Which drew this response about percieved or real inaccuracies in the piece from Tim Fernholz entitled "The Errors Of Matt Taibbi"

Which then, of course, drew this response from Matt Taibbi entiteled "On Obama's Sellout"

Now I encourage you to read all 3 pieces in their entirety and come to your own conclusions and decide for yourself who you think is more right or more wrong. But I will say this, while I like both Taibbi and Fernholz generally, it does seem like Taibbi had an agenda with his article in the Rolling Stone, especially after reading his response to Fernholz. Basically in his response he makes it seem as if they both have the same facts but he interpreted them differently from Fernholz. That is all fine and good but did he express any of that balance in his piece? Balance that he himself in his response admits is basically valid even though he doesn't agree?

I didn't see any.

Basically while Fernholz points out that many of the things Taibbi takes issue with President Obama over happened during President Bush's tenure, Taibbi still feels without any explanation that Obama should be held responsible for it because of the advisors that were chosen for his economic team. Again, its ok for him to have that opinion, but that's just what it is, an opinion. His article for me was ok as an op-ed but definitely not ok as a piece or actual reporting.

And here is my last major point in all of this. Fernholz takes Taibbi to task for flogging yet again the $23 Trillion dollar worst case scenario number for the bailout. Here is the graph where it appears in Rolling Stone:

But whatever jobs the stimulus has created or preserved so far — 640,329, according to an absurdly precise and already debunked calculation by the White House — the aid that Obama has provided to real people has been dwarfed in size and scope by the taxpayer money that has been handed over to America's financial giants. "They spent $75 billion on mortgage relief, but come on — look at how much they gave Wall Street," says a leading Democratic strategist. Neil Barofsky, the inspector general charged with overseeing TARP, estimates that the total cost of the Wall Street bailouts could eventually reach $23.7 trillion. And while the government continues to dole out big money to big banks, Obama and his team of Rubinites have done almost nothing to reform the warped financial system responsible for imploding the global economy in the first place.

Here is how Fernholz addressed it:

"Neil Barofsky, the inspector general charged with overseeing TARP, estimates that the total cost of the Wall Street bailouts could eventually reach $23.7 trillion." It could, if every single loan guaranteed by the Federal government failed at once and all of the assets bought with those loans were destroyed -- and many of those loans are to homeowners, including low-income homeowners, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or to small businesses. Some of that money went to Chrysler and GM in what was primarily a job saving move. TARP's actual outlays are only $518 billion (still nothing to sneeze at), including foreclosure relief for homeowners. More money has been actually allocated so far on fiscal stimulus, including funds to reinforce the social safety net, than on the bank bailouts.

Here is Taibbi's response to Ferholz:

First of all, Barofsky did use that number, so let’s get that out of the way — there’s no factual issue with the passage I wrote. The Prospect writer wants to take issue with Barofsky’s number and imply that the use of it is misleading. Obviously Barofsky’s number is a worst-case scenario. But let’s cut the bullshit about the bailouts being intended to help ordinary homeowners and save auto workers. We could have paid off every subprime mortgage in America for about $1.4 trillion and instead shelled out at least ten times that to Wall Street, primarily to pay off derivative bets made by bankers on those assets.

The writer notes that the total TARP outlay was only $518 billion, and implies that this is the entire outlay for the bailouts when in fact the TARP is just one small slice of the bailout package — most of the bailout monies went out through little-known Fed programs like the TALF, the TLGP, the TIP, the PPI, and the Maiden Lanes. The number my friend Nomi Prins is using now for the bailouts is about $14 trillion in total outlays, and just as Barofsky pointed out, that number could rise. But to imply that the bailout outlay is not only comparable to the $700 billion stimulus but smaller than it is totally disingenuous.

The bailouts have been a massive boon to Wall Street, not so much to the rest of us (again, see Nomi’s report on that). Most of the bailouts came in the form of very cheap money lent out to the same banks that caused the crisis, who then took that money and lent it out at market rates, pocketing the difference.

That’s where all these billions in bonuses for the major banks are coming from this year; it’s almost impossible to not make mountains of money when you’re borrowing your money from the government basically for free. Moreover we issued government guarantees for all the least responsible banks in the country — so while you and I have to keep our same old shitty credit scores, all the people who leveraged themselves to the hilt and bet the farm on subprime mortgages that we ended up bailing out now get squeaky clean, brand-new AAA credit ratings to borrow from. The cost of credit for them plummeted thanks to these guarantees, while we’re paying the same old rates to borrow our money.

This, again, is perfectly in line with the basic premise of the article. Geithner and Ben Bernanke continued a bailout policy that rewarded the very people who were most responsible for the crisis. The rest of the population did not see those same benefits. We can argue about the motives behind Obama’s bailout decision, but the numbers are not really a factual issue.

Now I pasted the whole response to be as fair as possible to Taibbi but its really his response at the beginning that is the tell.

First of all, Barofsky did use that number, so let’s get that out of the way — there’s no factual issue with the passage I wrote. The Prospect writer wants to take issue with Barofsky’s number and imply that the use of it is misleading. Obviously Barofsky’s number is a worst-case scenario. But let’s cut the bullshit about the bailouts being intended to help ordinary homeowners and save auto workers.

Let's cut the bullshit indeed. First of all, I don't know how anybody reads Taibbi's article and gets that its "obviously...a worst case scenario". In point of fact anybody reading the article probably thinks its highly likely or at least reasonable to assume that the number WILL reach $23 Trillion. Time and time again Taibbi has flogged this number as a kind of gotcha moment in his articles and when he has had TV interviews. At no point have I personally seen or heard or heard of him caveating it as a worst case scenario. And when confronted on it by Fernholz his reaction is not to admit he should have caveated it this time, but to say it was "obvious".

Really?

Because I can guarantee you that there are folks on both side of the political spectrum who quote that $23 Trillion dollar figure as if it were gospel. It definitely doesn't seem so "obvious" to them. And again I have to point out that the article isn't "Bush and Obama's Big Sellout", its "Obama's Big Sellout" as if he were President when TARP was signed into law anyway.

And just look at the rest of Taibbi's response which is constructed of all manner of strawmen. Fernholz isn't holding the bailouts out as to being meant to help "ordinary homeowners" or "save autoworkers". In point of fact TARP WASN'T about helping anybody but Wall Street from its inception and when you REALLY sit down to think about it, the fact that President Obama and his team broadened the scope of TARP to help homeowners and help the auto industry doesn't that kinda, you know, kick Taibbi's point on the matter squarely in the junk?

Just sayin...

Now I know there are some folks that believe President Obama should never be criticized, and there are others who think he should always be criticized and anybody who criticizes the people who level that criticism of him from the left are "apologists". I think if you go through my posts in this blog its clear that I fall into neither category. When Obama is fucking up I say so. When people on the left are full of shit in their criticism of him, I say that too. It is what it is.

But I have to say that for me, in this particular situation, Fernholz carries more weight. Matt Taibbi set out to write an article bashing President Obama essentially as guilty by association because of the economic advisors he chose and where he chose to put them. Again that's fine and dandy by me. But the problem for me comes in when he tried to mask it as actual reporting on President Obama's record since being, you know, President. When those facts are lined up against his opinion then his article becomes what it should have been, an op-ed.

But do the people reading the article realize that?

Somehow I highly doubt it because just like that $23 Trillion number, I just don't think its that "obvious".

"The Referees Are Back On The Field"

The House passed a sweeping Wall Street reform bill yesterday including the formation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The vote was along party lines with zero Republicans voting to reform the very sector that damn near brought this country to its knees last year. And joining the Republicans were 27 bought and paid for Democrats including Dan Boren who I would just LOVE to see tossed out on his ass this year, even if its by a Republican.

Next step of course is for it to get eviscerated in the Senate as Harry Reid "negotiates" with the bought and paid for Democrats there....

Pressure Busts Pipes

The only journalist I have really seen hitting hard over the Ugandan "Kill The Gays" legislation has been Rachel Maddow. But evidently she struck a chord because now she has leading anti gay figures in this country running for the hills and running away from their own influence on that legislation. Funny, because at first none of them thought they needed to say a word about it. I am beginning to put Rick Warren in the same category as Sarah Palin.

Seriously.

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

How Much They Paid You Dawg???

I wonder if all of Glenn Beck's fans realize he is simply using them to sell gold.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Beck - Not So Mellow Gold
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Funny thing is, they have convinced themselves that he is some kind of truth sayer so now I would imagine none of them will even believe the truth right in front of them. To do so would be to admit they would duped by a common sharlatan and we know the problems wingnuts have with admitting their own faults.

President Obama's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

And This Is Why You Can't Take Them Seriously

President Obama had a bipartisan meeting yesterday on the Hill about job creation. During the course of the conversation resident House GOP golden boy Eric Cantor had this to say.

"The president said he would look at some of our proposals,'' Representative Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, told reporters after the session. But, he added, "there is a stark contrast between what the president is proposing and our no-cost jobs plan.''

And what exactly is their "no-cost jobs plan"?

TAX CUTSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Of course.

But here is the thing, tax cuts actually, you know, cost money. Any cuts in revenue will have a negative effect on our deficit. Now sometimes that is necessary, like now, when you have an economy that is faltering. But make no mistake about it, when the CBO scores any tax cuts that are proposed and or are eventually implemented, it will affect our bottom line and add to our deficit. That the GOP is still classifying tax cuts as "no-cost" tells you everything you need to know about their mindset. Not only did they learn nothing about how the economy over the previous 8 years of big tax cuts to the wealthy, they seem to know absolutely nothing about what adds to the deficit.

Now again, in this case some targeted tax cuts will probably be beneficial in the short term to get our economy back on track. But to try to say that they will be free is just another sign of how dumb the GOP's leading figures really are. It ain't rocket science. Hell even a high school economics student would recognize that tax cuts cost money.

But this is your Republican Party these days, and that's why there is no reason to really take them seriously.

It is what it is.