DOWNLOADS: (459)

PLAYS: (1167)

Embed

Have any of your friends ever invited you over to his or her house to discuss "a wonderful opportunity", and it turned out they wanted you to sell Amway? First, they try to win you over with sheer enthusiasm. When that doesn't work, they tell you how their products protect the environment - and then, if that doesn't work, you begin to see a delicate sheen of sweat on their upper lip and there's a growing edge of desperation to all that cheer. See, because their upline manager told them if they can't sell the product, and then sell their friends on selling the product themselves, the problem is with them, and not with their overpriced, heavily-hyped product line. It's because their faith is not pure.

That's what yesterday's AmericaSpeaks event reminded me of. (That, and a game show, with personable hosts with really good teeth, great special effects and Fabulous Prizes!)

For the first time in a long time, I might have some faith in America. Because no matter how many times the facilitators of this event (which was funded heavily by Pete Peterson, the conservative billionaire who wants to cut Social Security) tried to steer us toward cutting Social Security and Medicare, the 3500 or so people who took part in this national town hall weren't buying it. Sure, there were Fox News junkies here and there, and some cautious, low-information voters who kinda-sorta disagreed, but the majority who attended seemed to have their own ideas about how to solve the deficit "problem."

You know what most of them wanted to do? Soak the rich -- and cut defense spending. (Are you listening, President Obama?)

I thought maybe it was just my table, but when they tabulated the results, it was pretty much the same throughout the crowded ballroom of several hundred attendees. (Whew!)

And although the lead facilitator told us we couldn't expect the opinions from a Northeast city to be reflected in the national results, the tabulation from the 19 cities across the country showed pretty similiar sentiments. In fact, the only places in which it varied from a progressive agenda were on more complex, less familiar topics like the tax deductions businesses take to keep jobs in this country. ("They leave anyway!" my tablemates exclaimed.)

That, in spite of an ultra-sophisticated, full-scale marketing push. When you arrived, you were given a glossy information packet and asked to fill out a questionnaire about core values. Now, clearly this approach had been focus-grouped, because the common theme quickly seized on by the moderators was our desire to leave a better world for the next generation. (Apparently they thought this would translate to a spirit of self-sacrifice. Hah! Guess they haven't noticed we have nothing left.)

When we talked about the economic recovery, I said the deficit had nothing to do with it. "It's only a 'crisis' when the GOP is out of power and they want to cut entitlements," I said. "The top economists are all saying you don't worry about the deficit in a major recession, so why would we even accept this premise?" (I think I made our facilitator nervous. So did the guy who said he was worried about a double-dip recession.)

It was also a happy moment when we pointed out that they forgot to include the possibility of cutting the estate tax in their budget estimates. That, and the loud snickers sprinkled throughout the room when our hosts showed a video starring Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg. Oh, and via Twitter, I learned that the L.A. crowd booed the Peterson Foundation rep.)

Even more heartening, though, was how carefully everyone looked at the questions. You know what else they said? They'd rather see no cuts at all in any social programs than give Congress the go-ahead to slash them. They don't trust them to look out for the interests of the vulnerable over the corporate interests. (Hell, one guy at my table even quoted Karl Marx! "Shouldn't matter who said it if it's a good idea," he said.)

You know what everyone said they supported instead of Medicare cuts? Medicare for all! In fact, people wanted to spend more money on all social programs!

Continue reading »

(audio courtesy of Media Matters)

Rush Limbaugh has never hidden his bigoted beliefs, and on Tuesday he went on a racist rant about a highly disturbing incident on a school bus where a black student attacked a white student while other children cheered on. As Ben Frumin at TPM puts it, Limbaugh acts as though this is all the fault of President Obama:

Rush Limbaugh weighed in today on this video of a 17-year-old white Illinois student beaten up by two black classmates. Shockingly, his analysis doesn't reveal an even-handed understanding of our country's complicated racial history. In fact, not only does Limbaugh imply that this high school scuffle is racially-motivated -- but that somehow, it's the fault of President Obama.

"In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on," Limbaugh said. I wonder if Obama's going to come to come to the defense of the assailants the way he did his friend Skip Gates up there at Harvard." Read on...

At some point, the hatred coming from the right and their mouthpieces on the radio will hit critical mass in this country. I'm all for free speech, but entertainers like Rush and Glenn Beck are walking perilously close to "yelling fire in a movie theater."

Journalists are often surprised when they see themselves criticized because they think that they are above it all, but when you see something like this come up in print it makes you just shake your head. Howard Kurtz' newest column portrays Paul Krugman as an Obama cheerleader now being lost over his handling of the health care debate.

A president is going to be smacked around from the moment he takes office and the uplifting rhetoric of campaign rallies meets the gritty reality of governing.

But the criticism of Barack Obama has turned strikingly personal as some of his liberal media allies have gone wobbly on him. After playing a cheer-leading role during the campaign, some are bluntly questioning whether he's up to the job.

If Obama is losing Paul Krugman, can the rest of the left be far behind?

Really, this is who he picks as a cheerleader? Paul Krugman has been analyzing President Obama's choices ever since the primaries began and he was often critical of the then Senator all the way through to his winning the election. Krugman took a lot of heat when he criticized Obama's initial health care plan and he's been outspoken ever since on all issues economic including writing that he thought the stimulus wasn't big enough, but Howard makes it seem like Krugman was an Obama cheerleader right from the start.

Dean Baker caught this earlier today.

Those of you who remember Paul Krugman's often harsh criticisms of Obama during the election campaign might be surprised to read Howard Kurtz's media column which puts him first among the disappointed former Obama cheerleaders. Krugman has certainly been critical of Obama's performance in office, but this is only news for Kurtz, not people familiar with Krugman's writings.

All Villagers aren't wrong in everything they write obviously, certainly not Kurtz, but this latest error is laughable. I can understand if it was a matter of interpretation, but come on Howard, this one wasn't even close to being on the mark. (h/t Atrios)

Bob Morris of Politics in the Zeros here, with more blog links for you.

The philanthropic arm of Google just announced they will fund hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D into renewable energy with a goal of making it cheaper than coal. Bravo! (standing up and applauding)

Let's see. I'll package thousands of mortgages together, slice them into risk levels creating debt instruments called CDOs, then sell them to "investors" who buy them with borrowed money while leveraged to the eyeballs. Who could ever have conceived this would lead to problems?

Former gang member Luis Rodriguez works quietly and effectively with gang youth both in the US and Latin America, and blogs eloquently about it.

The Freeway Blogger was busy over the Thanksgiving holiday spreading his anti-war anti-Bush cheer far and wide on southern California freeways.

Tankwoman wishes she'd saved those Canadian pennies.

Send tips to bob (at) polizeros (dot) com

Peggy Noonan, who seemed to effectively give up on Bush’s presidency six weeks ago, during the immigration debate, wrote one of her less-annoying columns today.

In fact, she raises a good point about the president’s demeanor.

As I watched the news conference, it occurred to me that one of the things that might leave people feeling somewhat disoriented is the president’s seemingly effortless high spirits. He’s in a good mood. There was the usual teasing, the partly aggressive, partly joshing humor, the certitude. He doesn’t seem to be suffering, which is jarring. Presidents in great enterprises that are going badly suffer: Lincoln, LBJ with his head in his hands. Why doesn’t Mr. Bush? Every major domestic initiative of his second term has been ill thought through and ended in failure. His Iraq leadership has failed. His standing is lower than any previous president’s since polling began. He’s in a good mood. Discuss.

Is it defiance? Denial? Is it that he’s right and you’re wrong, which is your problem? Is he faking a certain steely good cheer to show his foes from Washington to Baghdad that the American president is neither beaten nor bowed? Fair enough: Presidents can’t sit around and moan. But it doesn’t look like an act. People would feel better to know his lack of success sometimes gets to him. It gets to them.

You know, that’s true. This president has had more calamities, of greater consequence, than any president should be allowed. And yet, he brags about how well he sleeps, he takes more vacation time than any president in history, and he’s constantly smirking, as if he hasn’t a care in the world.

The president has the weight of the world on his shoulders. How about showing some signs of stress?

Driftglass makes an astute observation about the Malkin/AP story disaster:

If the AP has been clowning with information from Iraq, we need to know it. Period. And investigations need to be held. And I would loudly cheer on such an effort...after we have a full and thoroughgoing account {emphasis mine} of the crimes, lies and war profiteering of the Bush Administration.

As soon as we hold to merciless account those who blew 9/11, who lied us into Iraq and blew that too, who let New Orleans die, who have tried to convert their lethal failures into quick cash for their cronies and political hay for themselves...after all of that then let's definitely find out if AP got some of the details of its reporting of George Bush's Iraqi debacle wrong...read on

I may not be as cool as Amato to be wined and dined by CNN, but the party here at the AFL-CIO is lots of fun. There was just a nah nah nah nah cheer when Santorum gave his concession speech. Good luck finding that special man on dog you seek my friend.

In terms of races, Chris Murphy is projected to beat Nancy Johnson in Connecticut. So Lieberman has not completely screwed things in the Nutmeg State. If that is accurate, 4 down, 11 to go....

FDL:

"I've been quick to kick the WaPo for shitty, partisan reporting so when someone has the courage to speak out and tell the truth I wanna cheer and cheer loud, in this case for EJ Dionne ...read on

A little Holiday cheer from Maureen Dowd to BushCo. She appeared on Hardball with Andrea Mitchell, and had some choice words for Cheney and the administration.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT coming

Dowd: Cheney has a dark, loony paranoid vision. Bush wanted to be Reagan II, but Cheney and Rummy are like Nixon II.

Dowd: This whole attitude that warrants are so 20th century. I mean you've got to go by the law. You just have to-- first Cheney and Bush shredded the Atlantic alliance, then they shredded the Geneva convention, and now they are shredding the bill of rights. You just can't do that.

McCain the "big kahuna" in the group of fourteen said (rush transcript)

...because of his credentials, because of his service, because of his extraordinary qualifications and again I only speak for myself...I think that judge Roberts deserves an up or down vote. I hope the other members of the group agree with me.

You better not pout. You better not cry. You better not filibuster and I'm telling you why. (a little Christmas cheer)

Armando has a great diary posted: It's Not Just Fairness, It's Smart Politics

The Moderate Voice has a huge round-up on the Roberts nomination.