In the first House vote of the 112th Congress, the new Republican majority voted to take away the small pittance vote given to Washington DC, Guam, the North Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico. There's some populist policy for you right there. Is it any surprise that the people in these territories are, by a large margin, people of color?

Louise Slaughter has some things to say about the new rules. She was pretty blunt about it, too.

Actually, my head is somewhat spinning because not 20 minutes ago the new Speaker of the House of Representatives stood where you are and said he's going to be listening to people but the first order of business before the House came from the delegates who this rule disenfranchises, not only the delegate of the District of Columbia but of all the territories, they didn't get to say a word, so my head is spinning at that point. And we hope they can get unanimous consent so they can get some message into the record.

The talk about deficit reduction is simply thrown out the window so they can free themselves and hand out more tax credits for their friends and corporations. Under these proposed rules, notes The Washington Post, tax cuts of the wealthiest are helpful but those at the other end of the income spectrum, forget about it.

What is crystal clear to me is that they have double downed. Dick Cheney responded to the 2002 mid-term elections by advocating more than $2 trillion in tax cuts. Quote, deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections. This is our due. End quote, said the Vice President. The other side now wants to adopt the posture of budget cutters. They want to make sweetheart deals without having to pay for them.

And just this week, Republican new members ushered in the new Congress with a $2,500 fundraiser at the W Hotel in downtown Washington. And lobbyists and political action committee members and other exclusive guests were treated to a night of drinks and singing by country singer Leann Rimes. Those who donated up to $50,000 were treated to a VIP suite at the W, along with the rest of the night's entertainment.

Last month, the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services committee offered his own assessment of Republican oversight. He told Birmingham News in Alabama, in Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated. My view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks, end quote.

And according to Politico, the incoming House Government Oversight and Government Reform Committee, big oil, big pharma and big health. Instead of all this business as usual and we are headed right back into where we were before 2006.

What I’d like to see is an honest attempt to create a set of rules that provide for openness, transparency and good government. This set of rules is not that document. And I hope the other side, although I believe have good intentions, will join us in supporting this effort and I reserve the balance of my time.”

As I write this, I am listening to David Dreier spew nonsense all over the House floor about the wisdom of the new "cutgo" rules and how 'bipartisan they are'. Oh pulease. Give us a little credit, even if way too many of the people in this country are influenced by FOX News. It's disgusting to think that the House of Representatives is wholly owned by lobbyists, bankers and insurance companies, and even with that, they couldn't allow these representatives from the territories to even have a small voice in legislation or the budget.

Robert Gibbs announced his departure as White House press secretary today. As one who is not really a fan of how he has handled the press for the past two years (or the message), I wish him well and hope the next Press Secretary masters communications better. This would include a focus on aiming at the right wing and leaving the left alone.

Here are some excerpts from his press conference today:

Q Can you tell us a bit more -- in a bit more detail about what you're going to be doing next? You're not going to be lobbying or consulting. How would you define your next job?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me start by saying a few things, Ben. It is -- and you all know this because you do this as well, and that is it is an honor and a privilege to stand here, to work inside this building, to serve your country, to work for a President that I admire as much as President Barack Obama.

I've been a member of his staff for almost seven years, and it’s -- again, it’s a remarkable privilege. It is in many ways the opportunity of a lifetime, one that I will be forever thankful and grateful for.

What I'm going to do next is step back a little bit, recharge some. We've been going at this pace for at least four years. I will have an opportunity I hope to give some speeches. I will continue to provide advice and counsel to this building and to this President. And I look forward to continuing to do that.

Q In terms of advocacy for the President, are you looking forward to the potential freedom that will come with speaking for him and not being behind that podium?

MR. GIBBS: No, look, we -- we're in a very different political environment than we've been in a number of years in this country and I think whoever stands here or whoever goes on television to make the case for this administration should be an advocate of the decisions and the policies that are coming from this building. You certainly have to play that role.

I'm not going in order to be freed up to say a series of things that I might not otherwise say. I've enjoyed every time I've come out here and even on days when you -- even every day, even when you wake up at 4:00 a.m. and pick up the paper and groan that you have a sense of what the first several questions might be. But I think it’s important for this country and for an administration to come out here and advocate on behalf of and -- on behalf of its policies and answer your questions.

Q And you’ve talked about how long you’ve been next to now President Obama. Can you talk about the impact that you think your leaving will have in concert with David Axelrod and already Rahm Emanuel?

MR. GIBBS: I will say this. One of the things you learn very quickly as you walk into this building each day, you’re struck by the sense that -- of the history of this place, and you realize that whatever your length of service here, it is temporary in the long and wonderful history of our country. And I think it does an administration good -- and I think it will do this administration good -- to have people like David Plouffe and others come into an administration who haven’t been here, who have been able to watch a little bit from the outside.

We all admit there’s -- you have to admit there’s a bubble in here, to some degree. So I think having new voices and having fresh voices, some of those voices that are coming back from having taken a couple of years off, are an important part of this process. I think they will serve the President well, even as people like David Axelrod and I go outside of the building and have a chance to talk to the President and people here with a slightly different perspective of not driving in here each morning.

So I think it’s unique. I think it’s -- but the truth is you walk around here and you see the history and such, and I'd just reiterate again, you realize that for however long you’re here, it’s temporary. But what endures is our government. What endures is the great experiment of democracy that’s proved to be such a wonderful thing for the world.

Suggestion for the next Press Secretary: Bring someone in from the outside who has watched the travesty unfold for the last two years. And make sure they've got sharp teeth and a sharper tongue.

In a remarkable exchange on Lawrence O'Donnell's The Last Word, Tennessee Rep. Phil Roe says he supports the repeal of ObamaCare and the Congressional health care plan, which he doesn't use because he's on Medicare now.

It was amazing and surreal all the way around. Mark Meckler, Tea Party Whore Extraordinaire, was on claiming that the "American People" supported repeal on a 2:1 basis. Adam Green of Bold Progressives did a great job challenging Phil Roe to allow them to conduct a poll of progressive versus conservative ideas, which I think Roe agreed to. Green also corrected Meckler's misstatement about people's attitude toward the health care bill, pointing out that most people think it didn't go far enough.

I don't have a transcript available of the entire exchange, but it's worth the time to watch it, if for nothing more than the big laugh at the end when Roe says "repeal it all because he's on Medicare."

Digby's take on the repeal effort nails it:

I suspect that the health care reform will be the Republicans' most valuable hostage in the next two years. Indeed, it will be the one thing that both the administration and the Senate will fight to the death to preserve --- it is Obama's most important legacy and the Democrats spilled a lot of blood to get it through. It remains to be seen what the Republicans will extract from them in the negotiations.

The repeal vote will be purely symbolic, as O'Donnell points out. But there will be a budget battle royale over funding the exchanges, the subsidies, and other provisions. That's where Republicans will begin to unwind the hairball that is ObamaCare.

I am writing this after seeing young progressives I respect parrot conservative lies told about Social Security. It appears that the press has done a bang-up job of NOT reporting the truth about Social Security and allowing specious conservative lies to take deep root. So deep that intelligent young liberals even believe the spew, not to mention conservatives who have a vested interest in believing and spreading it.

My career, pre-blogging, was as third-party administrator of employer-provided retirement plans. For years I was a certified practitioner, and I watched as private pensions were systematically dismantled, underfunded, and ultiimately converted to 401k plans subject to the whims of the market and unsophisticated investors. While owners might -- MIGHT -- have retired with adequate funds, workers almost never did. The one single thing that every worker could always count on at retirement was (and is) Social Security.

Yet it seems that conservative lies have taken hold to the extent that the truth is called a lie, while lies are called the truth. Once upon a time, that only happened in fiction. Now it's real. So let's talk about Social Security, what it is, and why you shouldn't believe everything conservatives and their minions in the press tell you.

Lie #1: Baby Boomers Will Bankrupt Social Security

Baby Boomers were already planned for during the reforms undertaken under Ronald Reagan's administration. Here's a chart with the inflows and outflows of the trust fund since 1958. As you can see, there has been positive cash flow since adjustments were made to the assumptions, tax rates and SSRAs. Even in 2009, cash flow was positive, leaving a $2.5 trillion surplus in the fund.

Lie #2: There is no Social Security trust fund. It's all smoke and mirrors and accounting lies.

From the SSA.gov FAQ:

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Not only are they the safest investment, they're the only permissible investment under current law, because they are the safest investment.

Social Security is probably the best-functioning and most solvent government program there is. The fact-twisting that yields the idea that surpluses invested in Treasury bonds makes the fund insolvent or non-existent is an infuriating product of right-wing nonsense spin.

Think on this: The entire debate about raising the debt ceiling centers on the stability of the full faith and credit of the US Government. The fact that Social Security surpluses are invested in Treasury securities does not mean there are no surpluses. It means that excess dollars paid to Social Security are invested in the single available investment vehicle which carries a high level of security. China thinks they're a great investment. So did lots of parents who saved for their kids' college educations, until they discovered mutual funds and lost their shirts. If US Treasuries were a vapor investment, would they be sought after and bought by foreign investors? Do those investors think our treasury bonds are vapor? Of course they don't and neither should we. The trust fund and the Treasury are two separate entities. They happen to fall under the auspices of the federal government, but they are not two pockets on the same pair of pants and shouldn't be considered such.

But what about the interest on those bonds, you ask? Isn't that an obligation of the US Treasury and therefore contributory to our federal deficit? No. Because if they weren't purchased by Social Security, they'd be sold to someone else, and the interest would still be paid.

Lie #3: Means-testing benefits does no harm to Social Security

There's a movement afoot among Young Conservative Idiots to means-test Social Security benefits, which also appears to be embraced by some young progressives. Such a move would undermine the fundamentals of the program, because Social Security was established as an insurance program, not a welfare benefit. Because it is a contract between individual workers and the United States government, it cannot be contingent on need.

It is a straightforward quid pro quo: workers and employers contribute throughout their working lives and benefits are paid upon attainment of Social Security retirement age, death or disability. Because contributions and benefits are tied to the Social Security Wage Base (wages subject to the OASDI tax), it doesn't matter if a claimant is a billionaire or a pauper. Means-testing would remove that objectivity and open the door for the contract to be breached on a number of different levels.

Eligibility for benefits must be based upon covered quarters and earnings taxed in those quarters, regardless of whether there might be excess earnings. Means-testing moves it from an objective standard to a subjective standard, leaving the door open for further erosion.

For more factual information about Social Security, I highly recommend Nancy Altman's book "The Battle For Social Security". Altman is a tireless advocate for Social Security, was mentored by Robert Ball, and has a firm grasp on the history of the program as well as the law. It's a fascinating read, especially the part where she reviews what it took to get the program passed in the form we know today. If you're especially wonky, the 2010 Trustees' Report (PDF) is also worth reading.

In a press conference earlier today, House Democratic leaders unloaded on House Republicans for their hypocrisy on their effort to repeal health care reform. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) was almost sneering when she made her remarks:

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, addressing reporters at a news conference with other House Democratic leaders Tuesday, called the GOP move "disingenuous" and "nothing but political theater."

"It is a Kabuki dance," she said. "The fact of the matter is we're not going to repeal health care. It is not going to happen."

Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, cited projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noting that the Democrats' overhaul will lower the federal deficit over the long term.
As a result, she argued, a GOP-led health care reform repeal would "do very serious violence to the national debt" -- undermining a central Republican pledge of fiscal responsibility.

The Republicans "will employ budget gimmicks" and "Enron-type accounting" to make the claim that a repeal of health care reform won't increase the debt, predicted Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland. "That kind of flim-flam" is what people came to expect of Republicans the last time they ran Congress, he said.

Of course it's theater. They've got to play to the base, after all and hold a symbolic vote on a symbolic bill which will never go anywhere. The repeal bill uses the term "job-killing" at least 5 times according to Dave Weigel, and of course, it's named the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act", after all.

That title and this little act of foot-stomping on the part of Republicans makes me want to tell them all that it's nap time in Washington, hand out their pacifiers and blankies and turn out the lights.

Who will win the framing war on this one? Will it be the GOP, with their "job-killing" frame, or the Dems with their "Enron-type accounting" frame? GOP has long held that the health reform law is a 'job-killing' bill, but never put any statistics up to support that.

Also, as DeLauro notes, somewhere between the campaign and the draft of this bill, the word "replace" was forgotten. Repeal, yes. Replace? Not so much.

Yesterday marked a historic day in California as Jerry Brown took the reins as California's governor, 30 years after his first time at the helm. Although his plans for the state haven't been unveiled yet, he gave hints in his inaugural speech. It looks like he will take an approach of cutting where possible and extending sales, income and vehicle tax increases in effect already. It won't be pretty, but it's a start toward keeping California above water.

Brown is known for setting an example of thrift. His entire inaugural cost $100,000. Contrast that with Rick Scott's inaugural in Florida -- a two-day extravaganza expected to cost $2.5 million. But fear not, Florida, because Scott has many high-powered donors kicking in $25,000 apiece. Everyone from insurance companies to lawyers to growers and nursing homes has ponied up for the big party, which began Monday and finishes up on Tuesday.

But for Scott, the real party begins when he starts slashing everything from Medicaid to property taxes. From a recent interview with the Herald-Tribune, some classic Scott-isms:

Continue reading »

House Democrats are not going to be passive and silent while Republicans endeavor to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Now that the GOP has set January 12th as the day to bring back pre-existing conditions, Democrats are stepping up to force them to own the consequences of their effort.

Greg Sargent has details on their strategy.

In an interview with me just now, Dem Rep. Anthony Weiner, who is one of the best there is at framing liberal arguments in pugnacious terms, said Dems are leaning towards seeing this fight as an opportunity, and appear to be eschewing their typical "fetal position" on health reform.

Separately, in another development, Dem Rep. Peter Welch -- last seen leading the charge on behalf of House liberals against the Obama tax cut deal -- is circulating a letter among Dems vowing to introduce amendments to the GOP's repeal bill forcing votes directly on the Affordable Care Act's most popular provisions.

Weiner told me this afternoon that he's urging fellow Democrats to see the GOP's repeal push as a chance to do what they failed to do last year in the runup to the midterms: Aggressively make the case for the individual provisions in health reform that the public likes.

"This gives us a chance to unmake the mistake that we made in 2010 -- we shied away from the challenge of explaining exactly what's in the bill," Weiner said. "Polls show that parts of health reform are very popular. That argues for talking more about what's actually in it."

I am looking forward to seeing Republicans argue for repealing the donut hole closure for seniors, and for allowing people to be excluded for pre-existing conditions. I'm especially looking forward to their arguments for repealing the tort reform provisions contained in the bill, too.

Senate Democrats have already fired their shot across the bow in a letter to Speaker-elect Boehner signed by Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Dick Durbin and Patty Murray.

If House Republicans move forward with a repeal of the health care law that threatens consumer benefits like the "donut hole" fix, we will block it in the Senate. This proposal deserves a chance to work. It is too important to be treated as collateral damage in a partisan mission to repeal health care.

I'm looking forward to seeing them trip over themselves to explain to those seniors who were at the town hall meetings in the summer of 2009 why they're taking away their drug benefit. Or explaining to the parents of college kids why they can't be on their group policy any more. It should be lots of fun. (A full list of provisions taking effect in 2011 can be found here)

Lead on, Boehner, lead on.

Late update: After 2 years of GOP whining about hearings and lack of bipartisanship, this repeal effort will be brought to the floor without even one hearing in any committee.

Memo to NBC: If your top DC pundit guy can't be bothered with facts, perhaps you should replace him with someone who can. Rachel Maddow would never have let Lindsey Graham get away with the fiction in this clip from Meet the Press yesterday without correcting him. But Gregory just lets Graham go on with the nonsense and never once corrects him. Not even a small offer to clear the record:

DAVID GREGORY:
Okay.  Lemme move on to health care, which you also raised.  Is there a chance for actual health care repeal?  Or do you see room for compromise?  All this talk about the individual mandate, making individuals buy insurance.
 
SENATOR GRAHAM:
Right.
 
DAVID GREGORY:
You had talked about compromise on that--
 
SENATOR GRAHAM:
Right.
 
DAVID GREGORY:
--early on.  Do you disagree that it's unconstitutional?  A lot of Republicans believe that.
 
SENATOR GRAHAM:
I think the problem with the individual mandate is that everybody's gonna be in a government-run plan.  I was with several Republicans and seven Democrats that required everybody to be covered.  You did away with employer deductions, and you allowed individuals to buy health care in the private sector across state lines.  And it was revenue-neutral.
 
I think you're gonna see the fight on Obama-Care across the board in the House and the Senate to try to de-fund the Obama-Care bill and to start over.  One thing I'm gonna do with Senator Barrasso is allow states to opt out of the individual mandate, the employer mandate, in expansion of Medicaid.  The expansion of Medicare under the Obama Health Care bill is gonna bankrupt South Carolina.  So I think this fight's gonna continue to 2012, and it's gonna move from Washington to the states.  It will be one big fight over the role of health care and should Obama Health Care be-- be in existence in 2012 the way it is today.

Lie #1: Everybody's gonna be in a government-run plan

There's only one scenario where this would be true. If Republicans succeed in bankrupting the middle class and throwing us all under the poverty line making them Medicaid-eligible, while rich people are all over age 65 and eligible for Medicare.

In any other reality-based scenario, it's just a lie. We all know this. Listen up, David and Lindsey: Private insurers are NOT in any way, shape or form government-run. In fact, some of us argue they run over government routinely.

Lie #2: Buying health insurance across state lines is revenue-neutral and therefore good.

Sure, if you think that Premiere credit card you got with 79.9% interest is a deal. Then yeah, it's just grand. Otherwise it's a fancy way of saying they'd push insurers to the state with the least regulation and everyone could buy their health insurance there. Of course, it wouldn't insure anything, and it certainly wouldn't solve the problem of access to health care, or rationing like Arizona's experiencing now (under THEIR government-run health plan, by the way).

It's also not revenue-neutral. It sounds pretty to say that, but when more people declare bankruptcy because of medical bills it simply vaults the economy into another recession and possibly depression, which means the government then has to spend in order to stabilize it and re-start it.

Lie #3: The expansion of Medicare (Medicaid) will bankrupt the states

Again, just simply not true, because at the same time Medicaid is expanded, federal Medicaid subsidies increase to states so that the federal government is covering 90% of Medicaid costs. Of course, I'm assuming Senator Graham mistakenly referred to Medicare instead of Medicaid, since the states do not contribute to Medicare.But it IS a Federal government-run health care plan that everyone loves, at least.

We can argue about whether or not changes should be made to the Affordable Care Act that make it more efficient, but let's at least get the facts right before undertaking the argument. I noticed today that all the new Republicans are chafing at the bit to have their "ObamaCare" repeal vote, and they're all very, very serious about that "entitlement reform" as proposed by the Catfood...um...Deficit Commission, but only to the extent that cuts are involved. If they were really serious, they'd take the whole package of reforms proposed which included a public option.

And as much as I respect Rep. Dennis Kucinich, I think he's dreaming if he thinks repealing the Affordable Care Act would somehow advance the cause for single payer health care, because the truth is as plain as the sh*t-eating grin on Graham's face: They don't care if we die. They're totally ok with large groups of us dying and "decreasing the surplus population."

Death, bankruptcy, begging in the streets. None of it bothers these douchebags one bit. All hail the power of commerce and the almighty market, while David Gregory stands by the lies, smiling all the while.

Back in the day, I was one of the kids who spent the week between Christmas and New Years' Day gluing flowers onto Tournament of Roses floats. The best place to be in those days was near the Dr. Pepper float, because they served hot Dr. Pepper with lemon to keep us warm in the decorating caverns. The flowers were locally grown from various farms around California, and the glue for them could get you high as a kite in about an hours' time.

Growing up in Glendale meant you knew at least one Rose Princess in your lifetime and considered the spectacle in next-door neighbor Pasadena to be as much yours as theirs. I've camped out overnight on Colorado Blvd, marched in the bicentennial parade, and never, ever miss it.

It has always been a huge corporate event. Even back when I worked on those floats it was the province of big corporations with a smattering of ingenuity from schools like Cal Poly. Though it was corporate, it was also local. Flowers came from local growers. Float decorators worked for local charities and youth groups. It was very much a California event.

Today, not so much. In a LA Times report about Honda being the first to use a hybrid motor to power their float, they note that today's Tournament of Roses is neither green nor local.

Leading Saturday's 122nd Tournament of Roses will be a 35-foot fairy tale castle called "A World of Dreams," the first float to be powered by fuel-efficient hybrid technology. And the pace car will be the fuel-sipping Honda CR-Z.

But behind the World of Dreams will be a whirl of planet-warming emissions: 46 floats powered by V-8 engines, some supplemented with gasoline-powered motors for moving parts, that are expected to burn through about 800 gallons of gasoline by the time they finish their 2.5-mph cruise along the 5.5-mile route. Mixed in are 80 auxiliary trucks, 145 fleet cars and dozens of law enforcement vehicles — all of them powered solely by old-fashioned fossil fuels.

Festooned to the floats are an estimated 20 million flowers transported from around the world in aircraft and trucks: orchids from Asia; dried everlasts from Africa; roses from Colombia and other South American countries; and tulips from Holland.

The reason for the foreign-grown flowers? Trade agreements, of course.

The exact "carbon footprint" of the parade and related festivities is difficult to calculate. But California growers are quick to point out that their home-grown ingredients have been forsaken for energy-intensive but still less expensive imports. Those flowers became increasingly available after 1991, when the United States struck a trade agreement with Colombia and Ecuador in an effort to curtail cultivation and processing of coca for cocaine. That gave cut-flower farmers and floral exporters duty-free access to the U.S. market, where 70% of flowers sold now hail from Colombia, according to the California Cut Flower Commission.

I don't think anyone could take all of the magic away from the Tournament of Roses for me. It's too much a part of my New Year's Day tradition, and always will be. But I live in a small city sandwiched between strawberry and flower farms and know what a price they pay when flowers are exported from other countries. That, and parade organizers' reluctance to make the shift to hybrid motor technology to power the floats makes the whole spectacle a little less impressive.

C'mon, Tournament organizers. Set the trends, don't buck 'em.

Frank Luntz stopped by and left a comment on my post yesterday about his Social Security memo. Here is my response, point by point:

You would be much more effective protecting Social Security if you focus on stopping all the waste in Washington rather than complaining about my memos. You're all hyped up about my words when it's the policy that matters.

Indeed. Policy is all that matters. You argue for a harmful policy; that is, taking Social Security contributions and investing them privately, or forcing back Social Security Retirement Age to 70, or both. I view those ideas as extremely bad policy.

When Social Security was "reformed" in the Reagan years, Boomers were taken into consideration. Yet you continue to argue for a policy which double-slams them because it would layer on another cut to the one they've already taken. The only way you can sell this policy to the public is to foment fear. Hence, the argument that Social Security is "bankrupt" (it's not), and that people should control their contributions and be permitted to invest them in Wall Street investments.

One look at 401k performance over the past 4 years should be all the illustration anyone needs to know Wall Street is a dangerous place for small investors who rely upon their retirement savings to survive.

As to waste in Washington, on that point we agree. We only disagree on where money is being wasted. I could point to the incredibly duplicative "national security complex" as a complete waste of money. I could point to the two wars we put on the national credit card, too. One of those wars was fought under false pretenses while the other one was put on the back burner. Both carry immeasurable human and monetary prices which did not have to be paid.

There's a reason why Republicans won more seats in the House than in any election in decades and more local and state elections than at any time in 80 years! The reason? You.

Instead of yelling, listen. Instead of condemining the language, focus on the policy. I don't rant and rave. I pay attention to what people say, how they think, and what they want. It's a much more effective approach.

Republicans won more seats in the House because they had an efficient money machine and the anti-incumbent advantage. This isn't about me, or policy, or me trashing the way you twist the policy debate. They won because they had a stoked-up anger machine behind them pushing the narrative forward, and a whole lot of money to inject themselves into everyone's frontal lobe via television, radio and internet ads. It didn't hurt to have an entire 24/7 media machine reinforcing the message, either.

I'll give Republicans this: they understand the value of a consistent and simple message, even if it's not true. Democrats tend to go wonky and in different directions. Message discipline is not a liberal strong point. Yet.

I realize it makes you feel good to trash someone anonymously, but what have you really accomplished? Tonight I have spent 90 seconds responding to you all, and shortly I will spend two hours writing a memo that will reach millions of people and change thousands of minds.

And one final thought: there's a lot more that we all agree on than you realize. From genuinely helping those in need to fixing the education system to finding a fairer tax code, we're often on the same side. If you ever want help on these issues -- if you ever want to be constructive in your approach -- just let me know via this blog.

This is my name. I am not at all anonymous, so let's just leave that behind. As to our commenters here on C&L, they run the gamut. There's nothing wrong with speaking anonymously, and minimizing their arguments because they aren't putting their name on them is just wrong. But for now, let's deal with your final point, which is your memos, your framing, and why it matters.

My post yesterday highlighted something people need to address; namely, that mainstream media sources take your frames and echo them. You know this as well as I do: Say something often enough and it becomes fact.

Continue reading »