Gosh, I can't imagine who President Medvedev could have been talking about here, can you? At about 2 minutes in, George Stephanopoulis asks this question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've now met with President Obama many times. At least 15 meetings and phone calls.

MEDVEDEV: Sixteen times.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sixteen. Okay, I knew it was 15. I wasn't sure about the 16. What do you make of Barack Obama the man?

MEDVEDEV: He's very comfortable partner, it's very interesting to be with him. The most important thing that distinguishes him from many other people – I won't name anyone by name – he's a thinker, he thinks when he speaks. Which is already pretty good.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You had somebody in your mind, I think. (LAUGHS)

MEDVEDEV: Obviously I do have someone on my mind. I don't want to offend anyone. He's eager to listen to his partner, which is a pretty good quality for a politician. Because any politician is to a certain degree a mentor. They preach something. And the ability to listen to their partner is very important for the politician. And he is pretty deeply emerged in the subject, so he has a good knowledge of what he's talking about. There was no instance in our meetings with Mr. Obama where he wasn't well prepared for the questions. This is very good. And after all, he's simply a very pleasant man with whom it's a pleasure to deal with.

Who could President Medvedev have been talking about? Who could it be, who could it be...(written with my very best Church Lady voice)?

Surely not George W. Bush, that deep thinker?

The Villagers' favorite politician is making them all go back to their computers and rewrite their own stories that they've run for years, because in a Newsweek article about his recent campaign, he now refutes the idea that he was ever a Maverick at all.

Many of the GOP's most faithful, the kind who vote in primaries despite 115-degree heat, tired long ago of McCain the Maverick, the man who had crossed the aisle to work with Democrats on issues like immigration reform, global warming, and restricting campaign contributions. "Maverick" is a mantle McCain no longer claims; in fact, he now denies he ever was one. "I never considered myself a maverick," he told me. "I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities." Yet here was Palin, urging her fans four times in 15 minutes to send McCain the Maverick back to Washington.

Talk about political hackery. This ranks up there with the best of the best. Will the media start calling him Keating 5 McCain and be done with it?

The S&L scandal (The Keating 5) that he was involved with forced McCain to reinvent himself so he went the Mavericky route.

Steve Benen says it was a rebranding of McCain's image to the public because of how bad conservatives were viewed and I agree, but I believe he did this to survive politically in the eyes of the media after so many people lost their money and the government bailed out Lincoln's Savings to the tune of $2.8 billion.

Jonathan Alter made this point on Countdown during the general election:

ALTER: [Y]ou remember the Keating Five scandal that he was a part of, which, by the way, it's crazy but there's been very little about it in the press in the last few weeks. And McCain thinks he's getting a hard time, he's really getting a free ride on the fact that he was in the middle of the last great financial scandal in our country.

John "Keating 5" McCain is been kicked around by JD Hayworth and it's shown the depths politicians will sink in order to keep their power. But you know the media will keep booking him on their Sunday Talk Shows. They're addicted to the Maverick. They think they are being "balanced." Oy.

Episode 803 of Seinfeld: "The Bizarro Jerry"

Remember how "hope and change"-y we all felt a year ago?

Brand new president, full of feel-good soaring rhetoric. Nice big majorities in the House and Senate, it was time to feel good about the direction the country was going in again. Doesn't it feel like somewhere along the line in the last year, we've crossed over into Bizarro World?

We're told constantly that the President must stop governing from the left and embrace the center (as Chris Matthews & Co. ask again today) and yet, I'm still waiting for any politician--other than our stalwarts, like Dennis Kucinich or Anthony Weiner--to even acknowledge the left's values much less govern from them.

Meanwhile, the sleaziest person in the Bush White House--and the person acknowledged by the media as the one responsible for all matter of deception and dirty tricks--is feted once again on the Sunday shows. Karl "Turdblossom" Rove gets to offer us yet another round of "is waterboarding torture or not" on Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday, media outlets too disingenuous to remember that we've already had this discussion and decided that yes, in fact, waterboarding IS torture.

And finally, pending the vote for the weakest possible health care reform--one made pathetic by the obstructionism of Republicans and the spineless timidity of Democrats--the noisiest, whiniest, most dishonest Republicans (Graham, Boehner, Cantor) get to go on after WH adviser David Axelrod to keep telling the public that they don't want health care reform. Face the Nation adds insult to injury by also inviting the head of AHIP to complain about what little restrictions remain in the bill. But is there anyone from HCAN on to advocate for the people?

Surely, you jest. Not in Bizarro World.

ABC's "This Week" - White House senior adviser David Axelrod; Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - White House press secretary Robert Gibbs; Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.; Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Axelrod; Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Karl Rove, a former adviser to President George W. Bush.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Dan Rather, Katty Kay, Helene Cooper, Joe Klein. Topics: Obama's Road to Reelection: To the Left or To the Center? Mr. Universe: Why Is Obama's Popularity Abroad A Political Liability At Home? Meter Questions: Should Obama Move To the Center Instead of the Left As A Reelection Strategy? YES: 11 NO: 1;

Will "Repeal Health Care" Be A Winning Slogan For Republicans This Fall? YES: 5 No: 7.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Axelrod; House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Fox News Sunday" - Gibbs; Rove; Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.

So what is catching your eye this morning?

Here's a really good post on the deficit wars - and the myth of economic "recovery." [via Corrente]

For about 20 years now, I've been warning people that the continuing rise in home values was unsustainable - and bad for the economy. I can't stress this enough: Shelter is shelter, and not an investment. Speculating in residential real estate on the basis of constantly-increasing equity is a relatively recent development that drives a lot of bad economic and social consequences. (Don't even get me started on what a very bad idea it is to use property taxes to fund school systems.)

Using houses as ATM distorted many things in the economy, not the least of which was the parallel stagnation in wages. Think about this: since the 70s, we've seen a steady rise in women working outside the home, a rise in property values, and a monstrous increase in personal debt.

Yet wages never kept pace with any of that. (In fact, those of us who still have jobs are now working harder for less money than we earned in the 1970s.) But with a working spouse bringing in additional income and home equity loans, we could convince ourselves that increasing equity was the same as earning more.

It also kept things calm on the domestic political front, because we bought the illusion that the economy was rewarding us. (Which is one of the reasons why otherwise conservative Republicans were always so supportive of women going to work. It helped keep wages low.)

Even though I see great amounts of psychic pain in the transition, I believe that deflated housing prices are an ultimate good. Housing simply shouldn't cost this much when we aren't earning enough to pay for them; we shouldn't have to take out equity loans to get by.

Which is why I'd recommend that you read Jesse's entire article. He points out that the bulk of Obama's bailout funds and the thrust of his policies is aimed not at bailing out underwater mortgages for drowning homeowners, but to reinflate the value of the bad housing assets.

In other words, to continue the class war on behalf of the bankers.

Continue reading »

In a segment of a wide-ranging interview, available here, former New York Govenor Eliot Spitzer gives his impression of the effectiveness of Barack Obama's first year in office and advises the Democratic leadership in Congress that the key to the mid-term elections is to give voters a clear and unequivocable Democratic candidate to re-elect, rather than a frightened, ineffectual politician moving to the right for expediency's sake.

While Spitzer's shine has been tarnished by his peccadillos, his own clear-eyed view of the party and reform are difficult with which to argue. Sadly, inside the Beltway, I don't think this message is getting through, so I'm laying it out clearly now for our friends in DC to show their bosses.

Wouldn't you prefer an unapologetic defender of Democratic Party values (who does not get all the legislation passed due to the political gamesmanship) over someone who will get legislation passed, only by watering it down and capitulating to demands to accomodate the Right?

DOWNLOADS: (802)

PLAYS: (1207)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

Has there ever been a worse man running a political organization than Micheal Steele? I mean, I agree with his take here from the other day on Hannidate, but I doubt his RNC peeps do. They attacked him the following day which made him back off. I have to say he's been a really interesting character. He's stuck more shoes in his mouth than any politician that comes to memory since Kristol's boy named Dan Quayle. I do hope they don't fire him because he gives us so much material to work with.

HANNITY: Predictions for the election?

STEELE: Predictions for the election, I think that overall -- and we're beginning now to do the assessments on the various races. But I think overall, given what we know so far and what this administration's proclivities are, we're going to see, I think, nice pick-ups in the House. I think we're going to see nice...

HANNITY: More specific.

STEELE: Well, I can't give a number right yet. Because like I said, we're just now beginning to look at the races. And we have races where it hasn't been clear...

HANNITY: Do you think you can take over the House? Do you think Republicans...

STEELE: Not this year. And Sean, I would say honestly.

HANNITY: You don't think so?

STEELE: Well, I don't know yet, because all the candidates we still have vacancies that need to get filled. But then the question we need to ask ourselves is, if we do that, are we ready?

HANNITY: Are you?

STEELE: Are we...

HANNITY: Answer your own question. Are we -- do you think they're ready?

STEELE: I don't know. And that's what I'm assessing and evaluating right now. Those candidates that are looking to run have to be -- have to be anchored in these principles. They have to be -- they have to understand...

HANNITY: I'm agreeing with what you're saying. I think...

STEELE: They have to understand these steps, because if they don't, then they'll get to Washington, and they'll start drinking that Potomac River water. And they'll get drunk with power and...

Honesty is a deadly word when you're a conservative. The NRCC responded this way.

"The NRCC's goal - as the campaign arm of the House Republican Conference - has always been to recapture the majority in 2010. Independent political analysts and even liberal columnists have stated that Republicans have a very real shot at taking back the majority in 2010. Make no mistake about it, we are playing to win," said Ken Spain, NRCC Communications Director.

The conventional wisdom about the Stupak bill among the male-dominated media: Why won't the women just sit down, shut up and let the men folk do their political bidness? What is all this talk about "rights"?

Instead, ask yourself these questions: Why is it that the moderates conservatives always get their way - at the expense of liberals, and of alleged Democratic party values? Why is the compromise always on our end? Why aren't people like Bart Stupak being told to "put on their big boy pants" and swallow compromise to get health care reform?

And why isn't some progressive politician introducing a bill to cut off funding for special education or any other services at Catholic schools? After all, how is providing the services from a trailer at the far end of the school parking lot not an "accounting trick"? Why aren't liberals aggressively challenging the tax-exempt status of the Catholic church?

I was under the impression we had freedom of religion in this country. Apparently, I was wrong.

WORCESTER - Opening up a major fissure in the US Senate race, Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion.

Coakley, in her boldest gamble of the campaign, said that fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its aim of providing coverage for 36 million people, establishing a public insurance option, and prohibiting insurers from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions.

“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights," Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.

[...] Coakley’s opposition to the bill put her squarely at odds with her three rivals for the Democratic nomination, including US Representative Michael E. Capuano, who voted in favor of the plan and blasted Coakley’s stance yesterday, calling it “manna from heaven" for his campaign.

“I find it interesting and amazing, and she would have stood alone among all the prochoice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation," Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill."

He went on: “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against Medicare, the Civil Rights bill. . . . Realism is something you have to deal with in Washington."

Why is it that "realism" is always and inevitably at the expense of women, gays and minorities? Is that the new Democratic value?

UPDATE: Apparently Capuano has since changed his position, saying he'll vote against the bill if Stupak amendment stays.

Runnin' Scared: Hoffman concedes in NY 23, but the Tea Baggers are still eager to burn down the GOP pup tent

darrel plant: Populist campaigns are a barometer of how difficult the times are, and if you think things are bad now, wait until you hear a politician comparing himself (or herself) to Huey Long.

Wall St. Cheat Sheet: Cramer 'buy' recommendation goes bankrupt

his vorpal sword: The Secret Masters: Freedom Works and their Oregon franchises

AlterNet: Meet the 28 (male) anti-choice Dems who are stalling health care reform

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: The Daily Censored, Unemployed and Trying, The Immoral Minority, Mark Of The Beast

Talking Points Memo: New Ambassador Needed

First Draft: The last time you trusted a politician

Greg Palast: "Medical Loss Ratio" [MLR] is the fancy term used by health insurance companies for their slice, their take-out, their pound of flesh, their gross - very gross - profit.

The Plum Line: GOP Rep again accuses gay Obama advisor of covering up child abuse - even though his office was infromed the charge is false

Corrente: Leading Blue Dog suggests opening up Medicare for everyone

TheZoo: GOP blocks another attempt to extend unemployment benefits

DOWNLOADS: (1119)

PLAYS: (2734)

Embed

Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John Kerry (D-MA) talked about the process of health care reform on Sunday :

STEPHANOPOULOS: These insurance reforms, you can't be denied health care if you're sick. You can't get thrown out if you're sick.

A lot of Democrats, Republicans say that maybe we should have this individual mandate, to require people to buy insurance, to couple that with reforms.

Bill Bradley points out today, I think it was in The New York Times, that, you know, maybe they should include some malpractice reform as well. Are they -- those three things the building blocks of a deal?

HATCH: Yes, they really are. You know, Democrats have been unwilling to take on the personal injury lawyers. And look, there are cases that really deserve huge rewards, huge judgments.

We've got to find some way of getting rid of the frivolous cases, and most of them are. Most of them are brought...

KERRY: And that's doable, most definitely.

HATCH: Yes, and that's doable. Most of them are brought to -- you know, to get the defense costs. They know that once they bring them, the insurance companies are going to have to pay their defense costs rather than take a chance at a runaway jury.

But it's not just that. It's the other elements you've been talking about too. Those are three very important...

Let's just wait one minute here. Bill Bradley? Although he has a reputation as a liberal's liberal, Bradley has never met a tax cut he didn't like. And when he starts talking about malpractice reform in exchange for healthcare reform, what he's talking about once again is ordinary people giving up another degree of security and protection against powerful forces to meet some politician's ideal of centrist compromise.

When approximately five percent of all doctors are responsible for 95% of all medical malpractice, how is that a legal problem? I'll accept limitations on malpractice awards when we have a national health care system that pays for every service someone needs to deal with with the outcome of bad medicine. Until then, I'll keep my torts, thank you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And then if you add some subsidies to that that move towards covering more people...

KERRY: Yes, which I think we have some -- actually, I think we have some flexibility on as to sort of the rate and manner in which you do that. So I think that there are ways to do this, George.

As a member of the Finance Committee, I've been part of this discussion, though many of us would like to see it broadened in some ways. I'd like -- I mean, you know, my question to Orrin and to others is, you know, who is the Republican? Who are the Republicans, plural, who are prepared to step up and do as Ted Kennedy would have done here?

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were part of the negotiations earlier this year but then stepped away. Are you ready to come back?

HATCH: Sure. I've always been ready to do that. But look, you talk about an individual mandate. The problem with an individual mandate is that the people who are really hurt the most are those on the lower end of the wage spectrum.

They either lose their jobs, a cutback in pay, or the company goes overseas. Once you start doing that -- because the theory behind that is that you've penalized the company if they don't provide insurance for their people by having them have it surcharged.

And look, let's just be honest about it, it's a very difficult thing to do. There are some ways we could do this, none – both sides...

KERRY: Actually, Orrin...

HATCH: Both sides are arguing for insurance reform. That's not the issue. The issue is, how do we put all of these elements together?