DOWNLOADS: (171)

PLAYS: (2871)

Embed

It is disappointing after just posting a clip of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman pointing out a foreign policy success of the president, that he would then go off the rails just a few minutes later and say something this stupid and offensive.

Friedman tells The Gregory that (in his opinion) the Obama Campaign must worry that there are a lot of people who only voted for Obama in order to elect "the first black president", but that it didn't work out and therefore are now ready to "try something new."

New? New?

Like a rich white Republican male? Yeah, that would be a real change of pace. /snark.

Few things on this Earth annoy me more than pseudo-Conservatives like Friedman... not just assuming that the election of Barack Obama wasn't an unequivocal rejection of George Bush and the policies of the GOP... but the impatience of these people that expected that just because he wasn't able to undo all the damage of the previous administration in the face of unprecedented obstruction and a Party that made his defeat their "#1 priority" (changed to "political" priority only after criticism) in just four short years, means America is ready to rush back into the GOP's waiting arms (which was the goal of all that obstruction.)

Can we PLEASE give the American people more credit than that?

We talk about the Villagers a lot on C&L, and you'll hear the term used in many progressive blogs as well. Tom Friedman is a high ranking beltway Villager and Rick Santelli is a free market CNBC/wingnut Villager. Remember, he did his rebel yell that helped kick off the tea party by blaming homeowners for the mortgage crisis instead of his Wall street pals who actually created it. However, Santelli told us that the economy was healthy right before the meltdown. Anyway, this is what you get when you put two Villagers together on one screen. The debate was about Social Security. Rick Perry, the new tea party favorite calls it a Ponzi scheme. Obviously Santelli wants to privatize it so he and his CEO pals can make tons of cash off of the backs of the middle class again and put their retirements at risk.

They'll attack it from any angle, even if it's an insane one. I hadn't heard that Social Security is like a chain letter before, have you?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry stuck to his claim during last night’s presidential debate that Social Security is “a Ponzi scheme.” The media are getting a lot of mileage out of that sound bite, and the Ponzi-scheme debate is very much alive this morning. On Thursday’s “Squawk Box” on CNBC, CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli, known to some as the father of the tea party movement, challenged New York Times columnist and Rick Perry critic Thomas Friedman on that claim. “I’d just like to know — you know, I was watching that debate last night, although it really wasn't a debate,” Santelli said. “It was like a weird press conference. But I would like to know — does Mr. Friedman think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?”

That led to a heated back-and-forth between Friedman and Santelli:

FRIEDMAN: No, I don’t think it’s a Ponzi scheme.

SANTELLI: Earlier in the show you said that we’re putting a burden on our kids that’s unsustainable. What’s the definition of a Ponzi scheme?

FRIEDMAN: It’s a program that made promises that it cannot keep in full and it needs to be fixed and reformed.

SANTELLI: Isn’t that exactly what a Ponzi pyramid is?

FRIEDMAN: I don’t think it is a Ponzi scheme as a criminal endeavor.

SANTELLI: No, no — forget the criminal side. You need more people to perpetuate a myth because if the people stop the myth is known to all. That’s my definition of a Ponzi scheme. Let’s call at it chain letter, a pyramid scheme. Isn’t that by definition what Social Security is? Take the legalities and fraud out.

STEVE LIESMAN: Why is it a Ponzi scheme, Rick?

FRIEDMAN: It is pay as we go. Ronald Reagan fixed it. Why can’t we fix it?

SANTELLI: What does Ronald Reagan have to do with my question?

FRIEDMAN: What does your question have to do with reality?

MICHELLE CARUSO CABRERA: We brought it up.

Continue reading »

(h/t Think Progress)

He's at it again. Backtracking from his promise in 2007 that he'd call for no more "Friedman Units", Mr. "The World is Flat" suggests that Obama's stated timeline-- one that is advocated by the Iraq government -- for withdrawal from Iraq would be improved by another Friedman Unit to "win" the war.

I think everything that we believe — there was a great piece in The Washington Post today by Bill Emmott, former editor of The Economist who was basically sort of examining all the sort of conventional wisdom about what will happen next, you know that America will become weaker, not stronger and what not. And I think he was on to something. I think everything we believe could be wrong. That is Iraq could turn out — that Osama — sorry, not searching for Osama bin Laden could be not the biggest issue for Obama. I think you could actually find out that Obama can win the Iraq war and he will want to actually continue our presence in Iraq for — until 2011.

When host George Stephanopoulos points out that even Gen. Petraeus admits that there is no "victory" in Iraq, Friedman back pedals slightly, but still stubbornly holds on to the notion that there is something achievable by our continuing presence in Iraq.

Josh Marshall blogs on Militarism and Anti-Democracy...coming to a country near you! And in related news, George W Bush hitches his wagon to revisionist dreams of Vietnam? Um, Driftglass offers him a refresher course in reality.

The White House decides that the Office of Administration is exempt from FOIA, since they might just know the disposition of those missing millions of federal prosecutor scandal emails. And speaking of secrecy, turns out you can't even get a straight answer from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Halfway There exposes Paul Greenberg's exposure of the Evil ! Atheist ! Agenda ! in the tragic story of Erasmus.

Agents provocateurs in Canada, helping Bush smooth the way for the Security and Prosperity Partnership? Sure looks that way...

Atrios tries to gag Tom Friedman (with a spoon) and all he gets is this lousy t-shirt.

And finally, the best little [fake] Brownback blog on the web. Hat tip to BG.

Guest blogged by Mark Hoback. Send tips to mhoback AT verizon Dot net.

(Photo of soy latte art via tonx.)

The Sunday Talking Head line-up is ready for reading. It looks like all Iraq, alla time, based on the scheduled guests: Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general, Iraq; Tom Friedman of The New York Times; Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Lee Hamilton, co-chairman, Iraq Study Group; Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zabari; Seymour Hersh; and so on.

Hint: Iraq? Not going well.

Do yourself a favor, and take a peek at the political cartoons Bob Geiger has gathered together this weekend. Everyone needs a Sunday morning laugh. So, what's catching your eye on the blogs or the news this morning?

Russert Watch from the Round Table

Arianna checks into Russert and finds that he doesn't quite question Tom Friedman like he does Aaron Broussard.

Download | play -WMP

Download | play -QT

In any case, if Tom feared Tim might pull up a few of his past columns about Iraq that have turned out to be embarrassingly wrong, well, Tom needn't have worried. But there were no challenging questions. Just Friedman, again and again, driving the discussion into cul-de-sacs of cute little phrases ("drive-by politics") and cute little theories...read on