John Aravosis with a great story about how Mitt Romney's lower-middle-class home in Paris was actually a palace, and until recently was the home of the embassy for the United Arab Emirates:

To hear Mitt Romney tell it, his two and a half years as a Mormon missionary in France in the late 1960s were tough times. The places he was staying often had no working toilet, and certainly no baths or showers, he said just this past Sunday (in an effort to divert attention from the $10,000 bet he made Rick Perry). He lived, he said, just like lower-middle income Frenchmen lived.

The truth is slightly different. According to the Telegraph, for nearly a year during his time in France, Romney lived in a "palace" in Paris' richest neighborhood, known as "the 16th."

Although he spent time in other French cities, for most of 1968, Mr Romney lived in the Mission Home, a 19th century neoclassical building in the French capital’s chic 16th arrondissement. “It was a house built by and for rich people,” said Richard Anderson, the son of the mission president at the time of Mr Romney’s stay. “I would describe it as a palace”.

It had chandeliers, stained glass windows, its own art collection and servants. I found a photo of one of the windows, via the Mormon Paris mission's Web site:

Until just recently the building housed the embassy of the United Arab Emirates, a government known for its impoverished lower-middle class lifestyle.

[...]Oh, but the Telegraph has more:

In his remarks this week, Mr Romney said of his French lodgings: “I don’t recall any of them having a refrigerator. We shopped before every meal”. Mr Anderson said that as well as a refrigerator, the mansion had “a Spanish chef called Pardo and a house boy, who prepared lunch and supper five days a week”.

The home in fact had several baths and showers.

You get the picture.

OK, guys, here's the deal. The House yesterday passed an extension of the middle-class tax cuts and only the middle class tax cuts. Lookit:

The House on Thursday passed a bill that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts only to the middle class, a mostly symbolic measure that nonetheless allows Democrats to draw a contrast with Republicans on the issue.

The bill passed by a 234-to-188 vote, with 20 Democrats bucking their party to oppose the measure and three Republicans voting in favor. The proposal would extend the Bush-era tax cuts only to individuals earning $200,000 or less per year and families earning $250,000 or less.

[...]

The bill stands little chance of passing in the Senate, where Republican leaders have vowed a filibuster.

"Regardless of what the majority forces House Republicans to do, it's not going to go anywhere," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Wednesday night. "We are going to extend the current tax rates; we're not going to raise taxes on anybody. The only thing we're discussing now is just how long that extension will be."

OK, now here's where the tricky part comes in. You guys have the GOP right where you want them. If they want to filibuster, you need to say, "Go ahead." And once they do, you blanket the airwaves and repeat, non-stop, the following message: "The House has already voted to keep taxes low for 98% of Americans. Senate Democrats are eager to pass this extension as well because the last thing we want to do is raise taxes on 98% of the country in this economy. But the Republicans won't give us an up-or-down vote. They would rather see everyone's taxes go up if it means that Paris Hilton and LeBron James might not be able to buy their ninth houses."

Or even more simply: "The GOP is holding your tax cuts hostage because they want Paris Hilton to be able to afford another pool."

Guys, this is a layup. I'm begging, begging, begging you to not eff this up. The GOP will eventually cave on this as they don't want to be responsible for everyone's taxes increasing in January. This is your chance to make these guys eat a giant crap sandwich and come out of it on top. Please, please, please do the right thing. Demand an up or down vote on the middle class tax cut extension.

That is all.

UPDATE: Just after I typed up this post last night, I came across this:

The White House isn’t overly impressed with Nancy Pelosi’s rapid passage of a measure permanently extending tax cuts only for middle-class earners – or by reports that a deal with the GOP on the cuts is imminent.

In a statement seemingly intended to douse the entire Hill in cold water, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs faintly praised Democrats’ passage of the extension for families making $250,000: “The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension.”

He quickly added: “But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won’t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward. Those discussions started just yesterday and are continuing this afternoon.”

Hill Democrats were unimpressed and said Gibbs’s statement only served to reinforce their fear that the administration had already given up the idea of challenging the GOP to vote for the middle-class cuts – or let all of them expire by the end of the year.

But if a deal is really in the offing, Gibbs warned that it would come later rather than sooner.

That does it. Obama needs to face a strong primary challenger. And no, I don't care if it costs the Democrats the White House in 2012. Obama had a golden opportunity to have an actual victory -- the first he's had since he killed that fly back in 2009 -- and he's flushing it down the crapper. We cannot have this guy representing us anymore. He is too weak to lead.

Economist Joe Stiglitz told Bloomberg that Wall Street is hyping up the economy to sell stock:

Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz said investors are “talking up” signs of a global economic recovery in a bid to boost equities.

“Wall Street is talking up the recovery because it would like to sell stocks,” Stiglitz told reporters at a conference in Paris today.

The MSCI World Index of stocks has surged 73 percent since its low of last March even while the economies of advanced nations grow below their potential rates following the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Stocks are rallying because interest rates are low and companies have been cutting costs by reducing payrolls, factors that suggest economies remain weak, said Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York.

“Whenever rates are low, stock markets are often high,” he said. By contrast, economists are “almost universally pessimistic.”

[...] He recommended a tax be introduced on financial speculation as a way of generating revenue and forcing investors to focus on the longer-term.

Pruning Shears: Steny Hoyer - Worst Democrat Alive, or Ever?

Beggars Cant Be Choosers: An American Progressive in Paris

MyDD: A Garlic Milkshake Recipe for John Boehner

Just An Earth-Bound Misfit: It may be too early yet

Home of the Urban Chameleon: How one black man defeated the Ku Klux Klan

Grits for Breakfast: World Prison Population List: All nations incarcerate at a lower rate than Texas

Cajun Boy: It's sad to think McCain has more houses that I have open tabs in Firefox. Diamond John McCain also owns more homes than Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton combined. (sorry for that visual.) But maybe he didn't hear right and thought they were asking about his combs.

Submitted to a Candid World: Elitism: Cultural or Financial?

His Vorpal Sword: The Democratic Nominee and the Republican Ignominy

Threading Water: Terrorist Alert!!!

Hosted by Blue Gal who continues to serve the revolution while Mike is staying here, ahem. But I'm the lucky one who gets to go to a little sumpin' sumpin' in Springfield, Illinois this afternoon...

We’re well past the point at which congressional Republicans have jumped the shark, but let’s pause to appreciate the fact that at least one leading GOP lawmaker is now looking to a fake ad by a 27-year-old heiress/reality-show star as a serious source of public policy.

The lines between celebrity and politician blurred into a haze Thursday at a Republican news conference, as one congressman began pushing Paris Hilton’s “plan” on energy.

“Let’s bring up the Paris Hilton plan,” goaded Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas. [...] “Even Paris Hilton had an energy plan that she’s talking about,” said Burgess, seizing a chance to make Democrats look lackluster on the issue.

The Texas congressman tried to put Hilton in the Republican camp, claiming her words mirrored current GOP legislation known as the “No More Excuses Energy Act”. But, while that proposal does allow offshore drilling, a congressional summary shows it does not contain tax credits to encourage new automobile technology.

For crying out loud, Paris Hilton is not a policy expert. She wasn’t seriously offering an energy proposal for members of Congress to embrace as an actual solution.

For that matter, Hilton’s fake ad talked about using expanded coastal drilling to “carry us until the new technologies kick in,” which doesn’t make any sense, since even the Bush administration and McCain’s policy aides concede that we’re about a decade away from new coastal drilling having any kind of effect on the marketplace. And even then, we’re talking about pennies on the gallon. There’s nothing to actually “carry us” at all.

And yet, we actually have an elected member of Congress announcing, “Let’s bring up the Paris Hilton plan.”

It’s as if Republicans are going out of their way to appear ridiculous. On purpose.

Our Future: Seventeen months ago, Rick Perlstein wrote an essay predicting exactly how the 2008 campaign would go down. Turns out the only thing he didn't predict was the Paris Hilton reference.

Tomgram: Thomas Frank on Washington's Lords of Creation

collateral: The next crisis to hit our sinking ship of state may be a pension fund debacle that, had we stuck to a sensible tax policy, could have been avoided.

Mock, Paper, Scissors: The MPS Guide to GOP vice presidential candidates. In a handy print-out and keep format for further reference, it brings you the Pro, the Con, and the Baggage for each of the whispered candidates!

earthfamilyalpha: Change I Can Believe In

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Morning Martini, Conservative Truths, Montreal Simon, WTF Is It Now?!?

Scott Horton: Inside the Pakistan-Taliban relationship: Six questions for Ahmed Rashid, author of "Descent Into Chaos."

Things Younger Than John McCain: The Top 25 Posts

Street Prophets: Religious progressives say the darndest things

Helena Cobban: Defining 'winning'

David E's Fablog: In which he explains why Barack Obama is more like Keanu Reeves than Paris Hilton and why John McCain is So F*cking Pathetic.

The Satirical Political Report: Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' finally achieved: Iraq in Better Shape Than US

I did a podcast at Skewz.com recently. We discussed MBRU and the tired myth of the 'liberal media.' Also, congratulations to "Mad" Kane, winner of the 2008 Robert Benchley Society Award for Humor Award

A couple of weeks ago, as most of the political world knows by now, “Saturday Night Live” did a skit mocking the perception that news outlets were tougher on Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. The Clinton campaign loved the skit, promoted it heavily, and Clinton began referencing it frequently, including in a nationally televised debate.

But could one skit — which, if ratings are any indication, was watched live by a small percentage of the population — really have a significant impact? Apparently, so. The NYT reported today that this one comedic bit put journalists on the defensive.

I think TNR’s Michelle Cottle response was exactly right.

Seriously? Can this possibly be true? I fear it is, and it makes me wonder why journalists are such pathetic dogs. Scold us, and we immediately go into a shame-faced crouch, start lashing ourselves like medieval monks, and become desperate to win back your approval. You are absolutely right: we were too soft on Bush in 2000; we got suckered into backing the Iraq war; we fixate on the horse-race aspects of elections instead of delivering you hours and hours and pages and pages of insightful policy analysis; every last one of us is a card-caring liberal; we care nothing for the truth and will repeat any old rumor that comes down the pipeline without regard to whether there’s any reason to believe it’s true; and, given our druthers, we would print nothing but naked pictures of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, preferably wrestling one another in a pit of chocolate pudding. For all this and much, much more, we are so very very sorry. Just please stop being mean to us. We’ll do anything. Seriously. We only want to be loved.

Gag. Hating the media is a great American pastime — like hating lawyers and politicians.... Forget snuggling up to Obama. If the media can’t take some gentle late-night ribbing without going all to pieces, that is the real embarrassment.

DKos:

It's a fact: Media conglomerates' labor practices are harming the quality of TV and radio news.

A CBS television newswriter says: "We take a lot of stuff from 'Entertainment Tonight.' We watch it at 6:30 and decide what to use."

Most Americans still get their news from "old media" like newspapers, TV and radio. There's concern about how Rupert Murdoch will gut the Wall St. Journal when he gets his hands on it. MSNBC Anchor Mika Brzezinski recently tried to burn a script on air in frustration over being asked to lead the day's news with a story about Paris Hilton rather than Richard Lugar's declaration that Bush's Iraq strategy is failing. Who can we trust to tell us what's really going on? Now, a new study of broadcast journalists from the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) gives an inside look at how the media conglomerates are destroying broadcast news quality with the same tactics other big companies are using against their workers.

The AFL-CIO has more...including a copy of the WGAE report. Take the time to read it; it confirms what we've been saying for years about the decline of journalism.