Steve Clemons reacts to a close look inside the Obama White House, written by Financial Times Washington bureau chief Edward Luce. Go read the whole thing, Steven's comments are enlightening:

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: "A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again."

Just over a year into his tenure, America's 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington's ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons - from Mr Obama's decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president's inability to convince voters he can "feel their [economic] pain", to the apparent ungovernability of today's Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis - and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

[...] An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process – two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations – without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”

Again, close allies of the president attribute the problem to the campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.”

(This reinforces what I recently wrote about Obama's lack of executive skills. Seems like I'm not the only person who noticed.)

Clemons calls the piece a "vital" and "brave" article, noting that most of the insider media isn't mentioning it at all:

But one thing essential to understand is that the kind of policy that smart strategists -- including by people like National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other advisers like Denis McDonough, Tom Donilon, James Steinberg, William Burns, (previously Gregory Craig) -- would be putting forward is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang's tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.

President Obama needs to take stock quickly. Read the Luce piece. Be honest about what is happening. Read Plouffe's smart book again. Send Rahm Emanuel back to the House in a senior role. Make Valerie Jarrett an important Ambassador. Keep Axelrod -- but balance him with someone like Plouffe, and get back to putting good policy before short term politics.

Set up a Team B with diverse political and national security observers like Tom Daschle, John Podesta, Brent Scowcroft, Arianna Huffington, Fareed Zakaria, Katrina vanden Heuvel, John Harris, James Fallows, Chuck Hagel, Strobe Talbott, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others to give you a no-nonsense picture of what is going on.

And take action to fix the dysfunction of your office.

Otherwise, the Obama brand will be totally bust in the very near term.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (102)

PLAYS: (160)

I tell you, it's hard to watch this stuff and not want to just beat your head against the wall. After playing some of Sister Sarah's fearmongering and playing the terrorism card during her speech to the Tea Baggers the other night, the panel on CNN's State of the Union discuss how the Democrats have been reacting to the Republicans deciding to try to scare the bejesus out of everyone with the trial of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab possibly being held in New York and with the newly elected Senator Scott Brown deciding to play the fear card as part of his campaign rhetoric.

Jane Mayer who has a new article at the New Yorker out on the subject and the fear mongering over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being tried in New York as well points out how completely ridiculous all of this is and that that AG Eric Holder is "up against two big myths right now. One myth is that what the Obama administration is doing is any different than what the Bush administration did in terms of prosecuting terrorism".

Of course as Dana Bash points out, having the truth on their side never seems to be enough to keep the Democrats from running like scared sheep instead of standing up to the Republicans since they're afraid the terrorism issue is going to hurt them at the polls. But even Chris Cillizza realizes that they're behind the curve with the public actually caring about terrorism. They're more worried about the economy.

I'm just tired of all of them treating the American people like the scared sheep the Democrats seem to be when it comes to getting reelected and any of them, no matter what party, playing the fear card. It's tiresome. It's extremely tiresome watching the Democrats cave to the likes of Sarah Palin, or Scott Brown or any of them when they go out there throwing flames. Of course sadly our media is happy to carry those torches for them, especially at ClusterFox as they hurl the flames and hope to keep the public as misinformed and afraid as possible.

Transcipt below the fold via CNN.

Continue reading »

I saw President Obama talking to Katie Couric before the Super Bowl, and I didn't breathe for a few minutes as I took in what he was proposing. I guess they are spooked by the losses of the mythical independent voters in recent polling, but even if that's the case, it's a horrible idea from my perspective.

President Obama said Sunday that he would convene a half-day bipartisan health-care session at the White House to be televised live this month, a high-profile gambit that will allow Americans to watch as Democrats and Republicans try to break their political impasse.

Mr. Obama made the announcement in an interview on CBS during the Super Bowl pre-game show, capitalizing on a vast television audience. He set out a plan that would put Republicans on the spot to offer their own ideas on health care and show whether both sides are willing to work together.

“I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.

Mr. Obama challenged Republicans to attend the meeting with their plans for lowering the cost of health insurance and expanding coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Republican leaders said they welcomed the opportunity and called on Democrats to start the debate from scratch, which the president said he would not do.

I understand the strategy behind them doing this, but the country is too polarized at this point to really turn perceptions enough to make any difference.

This will accomplish nothing except to possibly empower Republican obstructionists even more. They will tell us what wonderful new ideas they have and that if only Obama opened up competition in all the states, it would solve all the problems in health care. Here's Crying Boehner's response:

"The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access. The House Republican alternative, which would lower premiums by up to 10 percent while increasing access for Americans without health insurance, would be a solid starting point. I look forward to discussing these issues with the Democratic Leadership and the President."

America didn't elect President Obama so that Republicans could rule the legislative process, but through the guidance of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, that's what's happening now. There is no way Republicans will sign on to anything at this point unless the president gives in to all of their demands.

Funny thing how Obama keeps reaching out to the other side instead of his own. I'd much rather have a liberal blogger meeting with President Obama instead of having to endure this.

Digby also adds a lot to this discussion and brings a really smart observation to the discussion. Much sharper than what you'd hear from the MSM.

It's fascinating, of course, because it's gossip and because some in the White House and others close to the administration have decided to try to dethrone these four. The courtiers are rebelling...read on

UPDATE: And here comes the reinforcements. There's and article in FT.com that says the Chicago team is hurting the Obama White House and I can't disagree on that one.

Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief Edward Luce has written a granularly informed insider account about those who hold the keys to the inner most sanctum of Obama Land -- Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.

--
The article goes on to document how people like Health Secretary and former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius were kept off television -- along with others like Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Add to this others that Luce does not name -- including important voices like Paul Volcker and Austan Goolsbee on Obama's economic team, who saw their public voices choked off by a media-dominating Lawrencean Summers with support from Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel.

I've been complaining about the lack of surrogate speakers to go out and sell his ideas and the lack of a cohesive legislative strategy and that's been a huge problem also. Read the piece---it's very good. Oh, and Obama is the president and isn't a child so he still has the ultimate say.

I am so pleased this is finally happening. Haiti has been burdened by its national debt for a long time and this will help speed their recovery from the massive earthquake:

The world's leading industrialised nations have pledged to write off the debts that Haiti owes them, following a devastating earthquake last month.

Canada's finance minister announced at a summit in Iqaluit, northern Canada, that Group of Seven countries planned to cancel Haiti's bilateral debts.

Jim Flaherty said he would encourage international lenders to do the same.

Some $1.2bn (£800m) of Haiti's debts to countries and international lending bodies has already been cancelled.

"We are committed in the G7 to the forgiveness of debt, in fact all bilateral debt has been forgiven by G7 countries vis-a-vis Haiti," Mr Flaherty said at the end of the two day gathering of finance ministers.

(I'm posting this only because I smell something rotten in Denmark, or rather, on CBS.)

Did you see the Tim Tebow ad that actually aired during the Super Bowl yesterday? The only one I saw was much different than what CBS told us was going to air during the game and which drew a ton of controversy all across the blogosphere and throughout the pro-choice movement. What I saw was not controversial and didn't even talk about the abortion issues that were supposed to be aired. The LA Times said: Tebow ad falls short of the hype

Here's some CBS reporting which helped get the controversy going on January 26th and then the 27th.

The 30-second commercial is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987. After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child.

She later gave birth to Tim, who won the 2007 Heisman Trophy and helped the Florida Gators win two BCS championships.

CBS said Tuesday that the decision to air the Tebow ad reflected a change in its policies toward advocacy spots that has evolved over the past several years.

"We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms," said spokesman Dana McClintock. "In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time."

These ads had nothing to do with advocacy on the abortion issue. I think either CBS or Focus on the Family (or both) pulled a fast one on America and they should be called out on it. Not only that they should be panned roundly by the media for providing false journalism and advertising to drum up buzz for the commercial. Shameful, just shameful.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (205)

PLAYS: (249)

From CNN:

(CNN) -- Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a longtime fixture on the House subcommittee that oversees Pentagon spending, has died following complications from gallbladder surgery, according to his office. He was 77.

The veteran Democratic congressman recently underwent scheduled laparoscopic surgery to remove his gallbladder.

Murtha was hospitalized in December and had to postpone a hearing with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the administration's strategy in Afghanistan. The congressman returned to work after a few days in the hospital and helped oversee final passage of the 2010 defense appropriations bill.

Murtha represented Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district in the House since 1974, making him the chamber's eighth most senior member. According to his biography on the House Web site, Murtha was the first Vietnam War combat veteran elected to Congress.

He was considered one of "the kings of pork" on Capitol Hill by taxpayer watchdog groups for requesting tens of millions of dollars in earmarks.

On his House Web site, Murtha strongly defended earmarks, saying, "I believe that elected representatives of the people understand their constituents and districts best." Supporters said his efforts have helped bring thousands of jobs to western Pennsylvania.

Other controversies dogged Murtha's career. Critics alleged he steered Pentagon contracts to businesses that hired his brother as a lobbyist, but Murtha insisted his brother was treated like everyone else.

The Fox anchors were restrained this morning in announcing the news. The right wingers have had Murtha in their sights for a long time. So you can count on the "opinion" crew to be licking its chops over the prospects of a Republican taking Murtha's seat this fall. Start your stopwatches.

(UPDATE: John Amato will be appearing on the Randi Rhodes Show at 1:35 pm PST to talk about this and other topics)

A C&Ler named mc sent in this very good e-mail about the causes of the financial meltdown we've just witnessed and the people who helped cause it.

I have almost 40 years of experience as a retail banker and financial services provider. I opened, managed and served as country head in Spain, Korea, Canada and the US. I would like to contribute comments and blogs.

It is not so difficult to find the people who should be held accountable for the financial meltdown of 2009. It seems, however, from 2001 until the present day nobody tries to find anyone responsible for anything.

There are 2 people in government that bear the bulk of the responsibility for our financial meltdown as well as the presidents of all banks that participated in the approval of mortgages with substandard credit criteria and the packaging and selling of such mortgages as asset backed securities. Additionally, all of these banks had, or should have had, senior risk asset management committees who were equally responsible. In each case they understood the risks and didn’t care as long they increased compensation for themselves and their company

As for the politicians, 2 of them bear the primary responsibility of these bankrupting financial policies. We need look no further than John McCain’s financial advisor Phil Gramm. Gramm, on Dec. 15, 2000, snuck into a congressional bill an act which prevents the government from regulating investment banks’ credit swaps. Gramm is the one who called Americans whiners and told us that the crisis was in our heads. McCain considered him for the position of Secretary of the Treasury.

Equally responsible for our economic crises was the SEC chairman (Christopher Cox), who changed a key regulation in 2004. Under pressure from those who wanted to please their campaign contributing Wall Street buddies the SEC approved a measure that let investment banks lend out 30 times the amount of capital they had backing up their loans. Before 2004 they could only lend out 12 times the amount of capital.

A solution to the banking meltdown that would prevent it from happening again would be:

1) Reinstate the regulation of CDSs and CDOs by the SEC (assumes increasing head count & improving the quality of staff).
2) Reinstate the 12 to 1 leverage ratio.
3) Require increased capital by product where the riskier assets require more capital reserves
4) Create a regulation that requires each sale of packaged assets by a bank or investment broker to provide some percentage of recourse to the purchaser.
5) Make the board of directors have fiduciary responsibly to stock holders and face fines and civil charges

There are others that share a lot of the blame too, like Bernanke, and no doubt he could name them too. But this is right on: The conservative mania for deregulation -- they like to call it "small government" -- is the root cause of our economic meltdown.

And Sarah and the Tea Partiers are still trying to sell us on the idea that more of the same is what we need. Because, you know, a nice PCB cocktail topped off with a cigar is just what you need to cure cancer.

When a conservative does something, it's OK, but not the same thing happens to a Democratic politician. It really doesn't matter what it is. Right now we're talking about rights for bombers, but it could be anything at all.

Liasson: ...don't forget Richard Reid, the shoe bomber was also mirandized and I don't remember a hue or a cry about that either. This is I think really unfortunate all around if you think that politics should stop at the water's edge, it should also stop at national security matters and alleged terrorists attacks.

Liasson reminds the Fox Crew that the shoe bomber was Mirandized the same way as the underwear bomber. Democrats on the Hill didn't immediately attack Bush after this, but let the process work. That's not part of the landscape now. Conservatives attack every second of every day, even when it compromises our national security. Why do they hate America so?

And apart from asking for a lap dance, why is Chris Wallace taking a political position on whether the underwear bomber is talking or not? I thought Fox's "news shows" didn't indulge in opinions ...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (327)

PLAYS: (1348)

Peggy Noonan thinks that President Obama just discovered bipartisanship now that his poll numbers are going down. Obviously she hasn't paid an ounce of attention to how he's actually governed for the last year. And when confronted with the rank partisanship from the Republicans and even the Senate's newest member, Scott Brown, who said the stimulus bill hasn't created a single job, Noonan dismisses it as just rhetoric he used to get elected. And George Will blames the President for having "an aggressive agenda" for the Republicans' bad behavior.

TAPPER: George, the administration and the president has said specifically that he was hoping for some bipartisanship support for some of the small-business tax cuts and credits he's pushing. There's an elimination of a capital gains tax for investments in small businesses, a tax credit for hiring, hoping for Republican support. I have yet to hear one Republican voice, one level of support for any of that.

If there's not bipartisan support for tax cuts, is there support -- is there possibility for any support for anything bipartisan?

WILL: Well, I'll volunteer. I subscribe to Milton Friedman's view that any tax cut of any shape at any time for any reason is to be supported. So I think probably they'll get some support on this.

But he has a very aggressive agenda from which he has retreated not one bit. I think you'd agree with that. And so when he extends his hand, he says, "I ask only one thing of Republicans, and that is that you quit being Republicans," and they respectfully decline.

If you have an aggressive agenda, you're going to have to push it aggressively in a partisan manner.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (307)

PLAYS: (1126)

If anyone now believes that the Tea Party movement is some third party movement based on frustration with our two-party political system, and that it will send candidates to oppose even the Republican Party, is a fool.

Sarah Palin made that plain in the Q&A after her Tea Party Convention speech:

Palin: The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible.

Without Fox News, the teabagger "revolution" would have been a minor blip on the conservative Richter scale, but because Roger Ailes saw a golden opportunity to lash out at a newly elected and highly likable black president in a hateful fashion he jumped in--feet first.

Knowing that the media are too lazy to properly put them in context, and being able to hide behind them to cover his ass, Ailes put his weight behind them. As disappointed as liberals and progressives are in the Obama administration, Fox News ginned up the Tea Party protesters and gave them a huge media platform to help wield the blade that issued a tiny cut at a time. Knowing the economy would not bounce back, it's not a surprise that Americans would not be happy with the Democratic party, but the level of vitriol and hatred helped to it initially began with a blog post from a republican voter who knew conservatives were in trouble of being a bad memory for a while.

The Bill Kristols of the right have always longed for a right-wing populist movement that could make headway in America, but they also have believed they could firmly control them. That's why Dick Armey was dispatched with boatloads of cash, along with other right-wing billionaires, to pump in the necessary cash to keep it percolating.

A.C. Kleinheider opines:

Beginning Of The End: Sarah Palin Hijacks The Tea Party Movement

The tea party movement is dead. The one I was familiar with anyway. Judson Phillips held it down and Sarah Palin drove a stake right through its heart live last night on C-Span in front of an unsuspecting audience.

Sarah Palin didn’t give a tea party speech last night. She gave a partisan Republican address. It was a purely political speech designed to position her for a presidential run in 2012 or 2016. Period. She wasn’t there to celebrate the organic nature of a movement she had nothing to do with creating. She was there to co-opt the name and claim the brand as hers. And she did.

The movement, that came to be officially recognized almost a year ago but whose roots go back further than that, has been snuffed out and replaced in the public mind. The movement that began as a people’s movement of angry independent, libertarians and conservatives will now be thought as the movement of people like Palin, Dick Armey, Judson Phillips, Mark Skoda, etc. Essentially, a wholly owned subsidiary of the “Official Conservative Movement” and the Republican Party.

Sarah Palin is no independent voice, but a GOP politician. The Republicans need to co-opt the movement completely in order to capitalize on them, because really most of the movement is based on the ideology of arch-conservatives who will never vote for anything that is progressive. Indeed, a lot of what drives them is the hatred of all things progressive. See Glenn Beck as only the most recent and glaring example of this.

Carl Cameron described the teabaggers on Fox yesterday as people who support the Constitution and conservative values. Yep, that's about right.

Bloggers on the left can try to align themselves with the Tea Partiers, but it will only happen on issues that will not otherwise endanger votes being taken away from conservatives. You won't see Grover Norquist do anything that would jeopardize his long-term strategy of "defunding the left" and turning every voter against progressive values. And he's more than happy to use progressives as props to achieve that. It's really that simple.

I suppose the president is doing this as political cover for the eventual use of reconciliation. But I suspect he really thinks he's going to change the way things work in Congress -- either he's crazy, or a genius. Personally, I wish he'd give up trying to be the Great Mediator and just ram through his agenda - the same way George Bush did with much less public support:

President Obama moved to jump-start the stalled health-care debate Sunday, inviting Republicans in Congress to participate in a bipartisan, half-day televised summit on the subject this month.

The president made the offer in an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric hours before the network televised the Super Bowl.

Obama challenged Republicans, who have been largely unified in opposing his proposals, to bring their best ideas for how to cover more Americans and fix the health insurance system to the public discussion.

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama said. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward."

The invitation to meet together on Feb. 25 -- and to do so live in front of the American public -- represents an effort by Obama to hit the reset button on the top domestic priority of his first year in office. It also reflects a recognition that he must have at least some Republican support if he hopes to see health-care reform pass.

[...] GOP leaders on Sunday said they welcomed the outreach but called it evidence that Obama knows he must start over if he wants to earn their support going forward.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (371)

PLAYS: (1137)

Arianna Huffington debated Hugh Hewitt over Beck's lunatic rantings when he and Roger Ailes lied about his usage of the word "slaughtered" with Howard Kurtz. We exposed that lie here already, but then we were treated to Hewitt's buffoonery about Andy Stern and the same old conservative line being used to defend psycho word talk by conservatives and that was entertaining by itself if you can stand it.

Hewie: If you talk for thirty hours a week, you're going to use the word slaughter and you're going to use it sometimes without knowing it and I don't think we outta focus on it.

No need to respond to that idiocy. But he does try to change the subject and ask why FOX is so popular. Because they have catered to conservatives their entire existence.

Kurtz: let me come back to this question of whether you apply the same standards. Rahm Emanuel, the WH chief of staff said at a private meeting some months ago and used the word "retarded," talking about a democratic idea..."blanking retarded"...he's nbow apologized. You were asked on MSNBC, you said this is political correctness, let's not talk about it. Why not apply the same standards to Rahm?

C&L has commented on the Rahm situation and although what he said was disgusting, it still was behind closed doors and not for public consumption.

What Beck does is totally different and Howard knows this.

In trying to find a comparable situation (which happens all the time by the media,) Kurtz used Rahm's behind closed doors slur. Glenn Beck said it to millions of people and continues to say crazed things on a daily basis to millions of people publicly. Rahm is not a public speaker or a radio or TV talk show host. Do we really have to discuss Glenn Beck or Limbaugh or O'Reilly in this silly way? Please stop it.

Arianna did a great job on the debate, but it needs to be expanded to the entire FOX News network. Beck is but one cog in their wheel. Yes, it's a very twisted wheel, but the debate should center around Roger Ailes and their entire network in the end.

From Democracy Now -- Robert McChesney and John Nichols on “The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again”:

University of Illinois Professor Robert McChesney and The Nation correspondent John Nichols, two leading advocates of the media reform movement, join us to talk about their new book, The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again. McChesney and Nichols argue that journalism should be seen as a public good and that the government should help save American journalism by granting more subsidies to newspapers and media outlets.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, 2009 was one of the bleakest years in memory for the news industry. One count found that 142 daily and weekly newspapers closed down, nearly triple the number in 2008.

Colorado’s oldest newspaper, the Rocky Mountain News, shut its doors last February. The nation’s oldest gay and lesbian newspaper, the Washington Blade, abruptly closed in November. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer scaled down to a web-only publication. The Christian Science Monitor became a weekly publication.

Many other news organizations slashed the size of their newsrooms. An estimated 90,000 workers lost their jobs last year in the newspaper, magazine and book publishing industry.

Our next guests argue that journalism should be seen as a public good, that the government should help save American journalism by granting more subsidies to newspapers and media outlets. Robert McChesney and John Nichols make their case in a book titled The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again. They argue that government subsides for journalism have a long history in the United States dating back to the founding of the country, when newspaper and journal publishers received large printing and postal subsidies.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert McChesney and John Nichols write, quote, “Like all public goods, we need the resources to get it produced. This is the role of the state and public policy. It will require a subsidy and should be regarded as similar to the education system or the military in that regard.”

Well, Bob McChesney and John Nichols join us here in New York. Robert McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois. John Nichols is the Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine. Together they helped found the media organization Free Press. Their new book is called The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again. Read on...

The Left Coaster: The Real Tea Partiers, and some perspective

ArmsControlWonk:: N. Korea: Deadly in a Snowball Fight

Open Left: Voter intimidation tactics still thrive in America

The Baseline Scenario: Is Tim Geithner paying attention to the global economy? (h/t Politics in the Zeros)

Citizen Energy: Who has Obama been talking to?

HOLY CRAP: Archbishop chides Blair...What Would Jesus Eat?...Inquiring minds...Breakfast with the Family...The Illuminati...Defending our Prophets against Whaleofascism...The evil of banality...Christians oppose bill aimed at child prostitution...Workaholic Pope... H-E-double hockey sticks...Atheists naughty and nice...Sodomy, American Style...

Sunday Funnies with a classic from the King of Comedy:

Open thread below