John Brennan was on MTP Sunday to talk about our national security and really took some shots at the Republicans who haven't found an issue they can turn into a game of politics.

He called out Kit Bond and other GOPers when he said that they were briefed fully and now they are crying like morons (my words) and acting like political hacks who do not have the best interests of protecting America. Politicizing the "Underwear Bomber" like they have only emboldens terrorists.

JOHN BRENNAN: Whether they be U.S. Citizens or non-U.S. Citizens. Richard Reid, Ahmed Razam (PH)-- Amari (PH) and others. They were brought into custody by law enforcement officials and then treated accordingly. So, there was no distinction. And in fact, the F.B.I.'s-- guidelines that they used, the F.B.I. domestic investigations and operations guide, was the implementation of the Attorney General guidelines that were finalized by Attorney General Casey in the last Administration. In December of 2008.



--
JOHN BRENNAN: And quite frankly, I'm tiring of politicians using national security issues such as-- terrorism as a political football. They are going out there. They're-- they're unknowing of the facts. And they're making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality.

-
JOHN BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of-- senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond. I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra . I explained to them that he was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in F.B.I. custody means that there's a process then you follow as far as mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.



None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we'd keep them informed. And that's what we did. So, there's been-- quite a bit of an outcry after the fact. Where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football. And are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.

Brennan also wrote a piece for USA TODAY called "We Need No Lectures," "bashing the GOP over their counterproductive behavior on our national security issues which is actually helping al-Qaeda in their efforts to create more fear in America..

Politics should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.
--

Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lack foundation. There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system — including high-profile terrorists such as Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarius Moussaoui.

This administration's efforts have disrupted dozens of terrorist plots against the homeland and been responsible for killing and capturing hundreds of hard-core terrorists, including senior leaders in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond — far more than in 2008. We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war.



Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.

Liberals are no fans of Brennan, but when he speaks like a serious person we'll listen. Peter King, Kit Bond and all his pals should stop the fearmongering. Do they love al-Qaeda that much? Instead they continue the assault on the President. They have been in campaign mode ever since he took office -- regardless of the consequences.

I saw this on CNN last night and cheered. I've been wanting the Dems to bring back Bush because he's responsible for the mess our country has been left with after he split the scene, man. The GOP knows it and that's why he's been off the national stage for so long. He didn't look too happy going out there in front of the cameras to help during the Haitian earthquake.

Americans are strange people when it comes to politics, and as we've seen with the polling of the mythical independent voters, the numbers go up and down all the time. The determining factor seems to me to be who is in power at the time when your life sucks. So this country is about to reelect the people who created our misery.

For many liberals President Obama hasn't handled these problems as the progressive we want him to be, but in his defense, he didn't initiate two wars in the Middle East after we were hit with a terrorist attack, and he didn't allow the global financial meltdown to happen right before his eyes. So if some people want to bring back BUSH for us, I'm all in.

Bob Collins says that nobody knows who actually bought the billboard that says" Miss Me Yet?"
Digby calls it Presidential Rehab, but I think this would be a blessing if he's trotted out there again. We can promote the theme of "Don't Get Fooled Again." We had eight long years that proved to all of America that Conservatism was and is a failure.

I'm sure you saw this piece in the Washington Post by Gerard Alexander titled, "Why are liberals so condescending?"

Jamison Foser busts the WaPo:

Well, this is interesting. Remember that "Why are liberals so condescending" piece by Gerard Alexander the Washington Post published last week? Turns out, the author didn't submit the piece the the Post -- the Post sought him out:

Bethesda, Md.: I thought that "Why are Liberals So Condescending" was the most intelligent article I've read in the Post in some time.

Do you think that this is the result of a decision by your editors to be more fair and balanced?

Also, I would appreciate your comments on the "All serious scientists agree that Global Warming is an enormous problem." school of thought. This matter has been positioned in exactly the same condescending manner.

Gerard Alexander: I can only tell you that the Post editor I dealt with searched me out, and were as encouraging as any editor could conceivably be.

I wonder when we'll find out that a Washington Post staffer is actively seeking out a similarly disparaging column about conservatives? After all, Howard Kurtz keeps telling us how liberal the Post's opinion operation is.

Meanwhile, Alexander spent the bulk of today's Washington Post online Q&A acknowledging that some conservatives are plenty condescending to liberals, but claiming that it just isn't very common. Or something. Alexander, for example, contends that "conservative magazines, elected officials, etc" don't accuse coastal liberals of being out of touch with heartland values -- and that if they did so, they'd be "run out of town."

What planet has Alexander been living on for the past thirty years? Conservatives are always so courteous. Why does the Post think we're so mean and nasty? I certainly don't remember conservatives calling us traitors, terrorist sympathizers, we hate our freedom, the troops and American values, do you?

Please email the Washington Post and tell them I sent you. Maybe they can answer your inquiry even if you are a condescending a-hole.

ombudsman@washpost.com

Or just use the phone and call here:

Phone 202.334.6000 | 800.627.1150

Here's their full contact page for more:

Dean Baker writes a fabulous new post on the skanky tactics of the Deficit Hawks.

Jingoism and the Budget Deficit: Using Any Tactic to Advance the Budget Cutting Agenda

The deficit hawks apparently believe that their case is so weak that they must resort to crass jingoism to push their agenda. NBC apparently intends to run a piece on the evening news on Tuesday that talks about the portion of the government debt that is owned foreigners, highlighting the role of China.

This is incredibly dishonest. The extent to which foreigners hold U.S. assets is determined by the trade deficit, not the budget deficit. (Actually, the causation largely goes the other way. The decision of foreign governments and/or investors to buy dollar assets raises the value of the dollar, leading to a larger trade deficit.) Insofar as there is an issue of U.S. indebtedness, it is the holding of U.S. assets in general by foreigners. This represents claims against future U.S. output that will be paid out to foreigners rather than being available for domestic consumption. Whether foreigners hold shares of General Electric and Microsoft or U.S. government bonds makes no difference, especially since one can be readily sold to buy the other any day of the week.

A serious discussion of this issue would focus on the value of the dollar. That is the relevant factor in the story of foreign indebtedness. Given the current value of the dollar, at the same level of GDP, we would be building up just as much foreign debt if the government were running a budget surplus rather than a $1.3 trillion deficit. Economists all know this.

However, the deficit hawks are not interested in a serious discussion. They are pushing their agenda of cutting Social Security and Medicare. And they are apparently willing to appeal to crude jingoism to make their case.

Can we ever have an honest debate in this country over such a serious topic as this? The College Republicans headed by Norquist, Reed and Abramoff in the '80s, along with the rise of Newt Gingrich in 1994, rendered the political environment in America toxic, and it has never recovered.

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'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.

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: (413)

PLAYS: (1501)

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.

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

DOWNLOADS: (433)

PLAYS: (1371)

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.

SNL mocks FOX News again which is always a good thing. This time they highlight the coverage of the possible repealing of DADT.

I love the "hot blonde chick" and Karl Rove characters. Teh odious Oliver North and Palin stalker, Greta are always welcome characters for a parody.

Oliver North, who illegally sold weapons to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua has become a resident military expert for FOX News and the Washington Times. He's basically a war criminal that got off on a technicality, but that's like getting a medal of honor from AEI. This crackpot attacked President Obama for asking the military to left DADT:

North: Obama is treating military "like lab rats in a radical social experiment." Oliver North, host of Fox News' War Stories, said on the February 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity that repealing "don't ask, don't tell" is a "stunning assault" on the military and that Obama "now intends to treat them like lab rats in a radical social experiment." He also said, "[T]his isn't about rights. This isn't about fairness. It's all about national security. And, apparently, Mr. Obama has forgotten it."

Later, North said of repealing "don't ask, don't tell": "Now, here's what's next. NAMBLA members, same-sex marriages. Are chaplains in the U.S. military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they get government housing?" North added that repealing DADT "affects readiness and recruiting and retention."

I think he forgot hermaphrodites too.

I just put her teabagger speech on and man it's tough to listen to her. Her voice has this weird off putting quality to it. Not quite like chalk against a blackboard, but just as annoying.

Take a drink every time she says "common sense," but don't drive.

I'd rather be watching the Rangers vs the Devils hockey game right now. Brodeur and The King is a great goalie match up, but it's my job on a Saturday night so here I am.

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

DOWNLOADS: (813)

PLAYS: (2542)

(Here's video of Shelby being called out about his lack of ethics during the Auto rescue Plan by Carl Levin with Chris Wallace.)

Sen. Richard Shelby does his part to block all things Obama:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

"While holds are frequent," CongressDaily's Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report (sub. req.), "Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal." The magazine reported aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the source of the news about Shelby's blanket hold.

Ms. McConnell didn't even know what Shelby was doing, but much of this is based on blocking business for Boeing. It's all about giving the business to a foreign corporation.

He just loves Airbus:

The key issue is that Shelby wants the Air Force to tweak an RFP for refueling tankers so that Airbus (partnered with Northrup Grumman) would win the bid again over Boeing. The contract had been awarded in 2008, but the GAO found that the Air Force had erred in calculating the award. After the Air Force wrote a new RFP in preparation to rebid the contract, Airbus calculated that it would not win the new bid, and started complaining. Now, Airbus is threatening to withdraw from the competition unless the specs in the RFP are revised.

If you remember, back in 2002, Shelby was the one who allegedly leaked NSA intercepts to Carl Cameron of FOX News and the media and then refused to take a lie detector test about it right after 9/11.

"A sharp disagreement ensued between the FBI and senior Justice Department officials overseeing the case, according to federal law enforcement officials. The FBI was convinced not only that Shelby leaked the information regarding the intercepts, but also that the senator might have misled the FBI when he was interviewed about his actions, according to sources. They advocated that Shelby be prosecuted." Read the whole article. Pat Roberts helps ruin the investigation.

He got off because Pat Roberts screwed up the investigation like he usually does. And he's the one on TV the most trying to force the auto industry to go belly up.

And we can't forget that he acted like Herbert Hoover during the Auto crisis by using a "filibuster."

CREDO has a petition going that says:

It's time for Democratic leadership to stand up to Republicans, starting with Sen. Shelby. Senate Majority Leader Reid should refuse to honor Shelby's "blanket hold" on more than 70 nominees. If Republicans want to block every single Obama appointee, they must filibuster them one-by-one and deal with the very public consequences of their obstructionism. Sen. Shelby should be ashamed -- but he is not.

Sign up if you can.

Paul Ryan is trying to actually say he and the GOP have ideas. Soon, the media will pick up on this and also say that the GOP and Ryan have really cool ideas to take care of that nasty federal deficit and curb health care costs by 2080. Yes, I'm not kidding. 2080 I guess it is an idea even if it's batshit crazy.

The Economist lays it out for you.

Barack Obama's visit with the Republicans last week, some members of the opposition were deeply upset. They bristled at the idea that they have not proposed any serious ideas and are simply the "Party of No". In fact, the accusation is not true: Republicans have proposed some serious ideas recently. I'm going to post on two of them. The first, put forward by Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the budget committee, is the "Roadmap for America's Future" budget proposal and it credibly claims to put America's federal budget in surplus by 2080. The CBO agrees. How does it do that?Simple, it slashes Medicare...top_paying_them">read on

He's shilling for Wall Street yet again as he usually does. He wants to privatize medicare and social security although he uses words like "vouchers" to mask what he's saying.

Crying John Boehner is running from it as fast as he can.

House Republicans are at pains to point out that a far-reaching budget roadmap unveiled by their top budget guy, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), isn't their budget, but when asked today at a press conference what about Ryan's budget he disagreed with, Minority Leader John Boehner couldn't name anything.

"Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you," Boehner said.

And as Howie Klein points out, he reminds teabaggers why they aren't going to like him.

And Paul Ryan's is one of Wall Street's most devoted partisans on Capitol Hill, a veritable lobbyist inside Congress for all of their interests. Teabaggers don't like politicians who voted for the irresponsible Bush bank bailouts? Ryan didn't only vote for it-- twice-- as a high ranking member of Ways and Means and Banking Committee, the he persuaded dozens of reluctant GOP colleagues to vote for it and after it failed the first time, is said to have been the key figure in passing it the second time a week later!

Blue America just set up a page called Stop Paul Ryan. While he's a spectacular conservative hack, he's still very dangerous. If you can throw a few bucks our way. We plan to target him. Remember, he is a conservative and Wall Street golden boy.