DOWNLOADS: (844)

PLAYS: (1250)

Embed

On This Week with Jake Tapper, David Axelrod points out that we already know what Republican ideology does to the economy. I hope they start pounding home that message, because voters really need that reminder:

TAPPER: So the president's popularity among independents is sinking. It's a real problem for him politically. One year ago, he was at 56 percent approval with independents. Now it's 38 percent. Why do you think independents are turning away from the president?

AXELROD: Well, first of all, there are all kinds of numbers out there, so this is one set of numbers. There are other sets of numbers.

But, look, I think I've said this to you before. When I -- when I sat down with the president and his economic advisers, a group of us in the middle of 2008, and they told us what was about to ensure and -- about the recession that we were well into at that point, I said to him, you know, we're going to -- your numbers are going to suffer here, and we're going to have a difficult election, because these are going to be difficult times for the country.

Our job is not, though, to worry about that, Jake. Our job is to worry about how we get people back to work, how we move this country forward, and if -- if we do our job, the rest will take care of itself.

And, remember, elections -- the presidential election is an eternity away. Elections are about choices, though. They're not referendums. And on the other side of the ballot in November will be a party that has an economic theory, and it was tested, and it led to catastrophe.

We lost 3 million jobs in the last six months of 2008. The financial market almost collapsed. They turned a $237 billion surplus that Bill Clinton left into a $1.3 trillion deficit. And they're running on the same policies.

I can't figure out Scott Brown. He's supposed to be against politics as usual, right? And yet he cuts a special deal to cut off debate for some mutual funds in his home state?

WASHINGTON – The Senate voted 59-39 late Thursday to pass a sweeping rewrite of financial-sector regulations.

The 1,500-page bill includes an array of curbs on banking and finance, aimed at creating new consumer protection rules, providing more scrutiny of big bank operations, and insulating taxpayers from future bailouts of financial companies. Opponents argued throughout lengthy debate that the measures will over-regulate the financial industry.

Democrats secured support from a handful of Republicans to win final passage. The measure is a major part of the domestic agenda of the Obama administration.

Lawmakers must now reconcile differences between the Senate bill and a similar measure that passed the House of Representatives in December.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) won the support of Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown Thursday for the vote to end debate, a key step in moving the bill forward.

Mr. Brown voted against shutting off debate Wednesday. But he supported the effort Thursday after winning assurances that major Massachusetts-based mutual-fund companies—including Fidelity Investments and State Street Corp.—would be shielded from trading limits the bill would impose on big banks.

Via Huffington Post, here's the real dirt:

The Senate passed the bill without the Merkley-Levin amendment, an addition that would have imposed stricter language on the "Volcker Rule." Named after Obama economic adviser Paul Volcker, the "Volcker Rule" bars commercial banks from using taxpayer-backed money to trade for their own gainw. Without the Merkley-Levin amendment, sponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Carl Levin (D-MI), regulators who were blamed for their lack of oversight preceding the financial crisis will be empowered to shape the "Volcker Rule" and possibly water it down.

Levin and Merkley's amendment was never debated on the Senate floor. Instead, "last-minute maneuvering" killed it. Levin said that it showed "the power of Wall Street," reports Reuters:

Last-minute maneuvering on the Senate floor killed two controversial amendments: one to tighten proposed restrictions on risky trading by banks, and another exempting car dealers that do not finance their own lending to auto buyers from oversight by a new federal consumer watchdog.

Republicans withdrew the auto-dealer amendment, offered by Senator Sam Brownback, so that the bank trading amendment, offered by Democrats Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin, would not come to a vote. It is firmly opposed by major financial firms.

Since Russ Feingold and Maria Cantwell didn't vote for it, I'm not doing the happy dance just yet.

I suspect this won't work without Republican contributors joining the effort, but at least they're trying:

A group of 27 major donors is vowing to withhold campaign cash from lawmakers who stand in the way of legislation that would allow for public funding of congressional campaigns. Over their careers, the donors have contributed millions to Democratic candidates -- and, on limited occasions, Republicans or independents -- but they say they've had it. And they don't mind if it means a lack of access.

Steve Kirsch kicked in roughly $10 million to try to elect Al Gore in 2000. "It is a trade off, because there are a lot of good things you can talk to them about, but most of the time they don't do anything about it anyway. Given the choice, I'd rather have campaign finance reform than access," said Kirsch, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and founder of Infoseek, among other companies.

The millions that the donors have given is just the beginning, and doesn't include the millions more they've funneled by organizing fundraisers or otherwise corralling contributions.

The 27 donors plan to lobby other rich folks to sign on, with a plan of passing the Fair Elections Now Act, which has 149 cosponsors, this year. The campaign's being run by Change Congress, co-founded by Lawrence Lessig and Joe Trippi, along with Common Cause and the Public Campaign Action Fund.

ChangeCongress, now that the effort is public, will be encouraging donors to pledge. Read the letter here.

It was kicked off by donors Alan Hassenfeld, the former chairman of Hasbro, and Arnold Hiatt, the former head of the Stride Rite Corporation. The pair wrote to friends and colleagues, urging them to stop giving.

"We're writing with a very unusual request -- that you pledge not to give any campaign contributions to any candidate for Congress until they have committed to support public funding for congressional elections," they wrote. "Once we have a critical mass of large contributors who have signed this pledge, the partner organizations will then launch an Internet-based campaign to get others to join as well. A pilot of this program was initiated last year. Very quickly, tens of thousands committed to the pledge. ChangeCongress.org's technology will enable us to estimate the value of their pledges, and whom it hits directly. The site will also make it easy for pledgers to lobby Senators and Representatives to join the bill."

The pair said they were sad to have to take the step. "If, 15 months into the Obama Administration, we were looking at a long list of accomplishments, with a long list of probable victories coming -- as many of us dreamed last November -- then we would not be asking you to take this step. But the picture is not nearly so promising because of the power of private money in the political system. We have all been part of that system. It is time for us to take the lead to change it," they wrote.

[...] Kirsch said that the access his money buys -- and the access he could lose -- is overrated. With so many donors with so many opinions, the best they can do is nod, offer to look into it, and put a donor in touch with a staff member. "In the meeting, they say they agree completely," said Kirsch. "'Let me do more research and thinking. Thanks for bringing to my attention.' There tends not to be a lot of follow through."

DOWNLOADS: (975)

PLAYS: (2979)

Embed

Things you might never have known if you did not watch last night's joint Sarah Palin-Michele Bachmann campaign appearance, hosted by Sean Hannity:

-- Forty percent of the Tea Party is "Democrats and independents." [Not!]

-- The Tea Partiers who favored Republicans' unremitting partisanship on health-care reform are actually "independents" who decry "excessive partisanship". ["Excessive partisanship" meaning "enacting any component of a liberal agenda."]

-- Tea Partiers are coming together and unifying behind the Republican Party. [Quelle surprise!]

-- International relations are just like school playgrounds.

-- And Obama's new policy of restricting the use of nuclear weapons is thus just like "getting out there on the playground, a bunch of kids getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not gonna retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'

-- Also, Michael Steele is an "independent outsider" who's done a fine job at the RNC.

Physicists observing the event reported that the sheer amount of stupidity involved here tore a hole in the time-space continuum and created a large black hole somewhere in suburban Minnesota, near the headquarters of PowerLine.

DOWNLOADS: (2950)

PLAYS: (1968)

Embed

The apologists for the Tea Party are out in force today, citing poll numbers in a lame attempt to make their case that, really, they're not an overwhelmingly white movement riddled with Obama-hating sore losers who refuse to accept the results of the 2008 election and are hoping to overturn them.

Gallup: Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics

The Hill: Survey: Four in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or independents

Myth-busting polls: Tea Party members are average Americans, 41% are Democrats, independents

Gallup's numbers are its own and really don't tell us much, except that the Tea Party has been wildly successful at drawing the bulk of its participants from the American mainstream, even though its leadership is from the extremist populist right.

But the really ludicrous headline is Malcolm's (and similarly The Hill's) because it conflates Independents with Democrats.

Hello? Have any of these idiots been paying attention to the Tea Party rhetoric, especially from their Uber-Leader, Glenn Beck? They specifically proclaim their independence from the Republican Party because it isn't far right-wing enough.

Look at the actual results from the poll they're citing (full PDF of data here):

Republican: 57

Democrat: 13

Independent: 28

Meanwhile, the Gallup poll notes that 70 percent of Tea Party followers identify as conservative, compared to only 40 percent of Americans generally.

Even more remarkable, perhaps, is the racial composition, as the same poll noted:

Yeah, that looks just like America to me.

Naturally, the Tea Partiers trot out their tiny handful of minority participants -- like Kevin Jackson, in the video above, being trotted out by Bill O'Reilly to somehow disprove the notion that the Tea Parties might be racist. It's reminiscent of the 2008 campaign, when every right-wing black person in America found themselves employed as a Fox political analyst.

At least The Hill notes:

The group also vehemently dislikes President Barack Obama – even more so than those who called themselves Republicans in the survey. Over 80 percent of Tea Party members disapprove of the job he’s doing as president, whereas 77 percent of Republican respondents said they disapprove of Obama. The Tea Party members are also strongly opposed to the Democrats’ healthcare plan, with 82 percent saying they oppose it -- only 48 percent of respondents overall were opposed.

Which brings up the point: Have any of you noticed that there is a simple question that is going unasked in all these polls? To wit:

Did you vote for Barack Obama for president in the 2008 election?

Because you know that the answer "No" will be in excess of 90 percent.

There are, after all, plenty of Democrats and Independents who did not vote for Obama.

I've attended a number of Tea Party events, and it's a question I consistently ask: "Did you vote for Obama?"

Uniformly and without fail, the answer has been: "No." Though some are quick to add that they have friends in the movement who voted for Obama. Probably all of them have the same five friends.

Then I ask them: "Then aren't you just being a sore loser? The majority of voters in this country approved of him and his programs when they voted for him. Aren't you just refusing to accept that verdict?"

Because it's increasingly clear that this is exactly what the Tea Party movement is: A movement of sore losers.

Usually, I get dirty looks or mumbling in response.

Greg Sargent and Steve Benen have more.

Conservatives have been claiming that there's no such thing as racism anymore. Right-wing op-eds abound claiming that racism is a myth.

Heck, this caller is just angry that black callers are getting through.

No racism there.

A caller to C-Span this morning, who identified himself as a Republican from North Carolina, accused the network of taking too many phone calls from black people.

"You have black folks calling in on the Republican line, independents. And you have so many of 'em I can't believe this is just an accident. If you keep on with the way you've been programming, you should change your name from C-Span to black-span," he said. "I know they have an opinion but I wish that they would be honest and call in on the right line."

Remember this Rush Limbaugh rant? Rush Limbaugh Attacks Black Katrina victims and praises Whites as the Floods hit.

Limbaugh: I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois---I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans. I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property...

I don't see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don't see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don't see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don't see a bunch of people doing everything they can...whining and moaning---where's FEMA, where's BUSH. I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.

The NRO's Jay Nordlinger wrote the most farcical claim that racism is dead that I've ever read.

The Poor Man Institute: Oops I killed you

Jed Report: Rep. Steve King to Conservatives: 'Implode' IRS offices

Majikthise: Anything For A Buck Dept: Pulitzer and Emmy winning writers hire out to Scientology Church to investigate reporters who wrote critical stories about the 'church'

OurFuture: Five former Treasury Secretaries endorse Volker Rule

Washington Monthly: Who broke America's jobs machine?

Democratic Strategist: The not-so-independents

At least there's some good news as far as messaging goes. As you know, I hated the Citizens United ruling, and it appears that most of America feels the same way.

Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.

The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.

Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strongly with the Tea Party’s positions on the issues – 14 percent of all adults – fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case.

I like the idea that the country is understanding that our legislative branch can try to overcome this problem even though it's not an easy task to accomplish. I think outside of the partisan right, most Americans understand that when corporations have the ability to pump in or threaten to pump in gobs of money to influence the political process, it's a distortion of that process -- and it just plain smells.

DOWNLOADS: (1122)

PLAYS: (2578)

Embed

Monica Crowley was eager to change the subject on The O'Reilly Factor last night when Alan Colmes brought up the naked racism of Tom Tancredo's Tea Party Convention speech, so she launched into a defense of the Tea Parties with facts and information seemingly taken straight from her posterior:

Crowley: Look, the Tea Party movement is a massive grass-roots movement. It is based on legitimate concerns about out-of-control spending, high taxes --

O'Reilly: But to address Colmes' point, that the way they presented themselves, in Colmes' opinion, helped President Obama.

Crowley: No, absolutely not. I'll tell you why. Um, President Obama doesn't seem to be listening to what the Tea Party -- and it's not just the Tea Party movement.

Remember, a big majority of the Tea Party movement are made up of conservatives. But you have a number of -- and a huge number of mainstream moderate Democrats in this movement, and a huge number of independents --

O'Reilly: Libertarians, OK. So you -- was it a neutral? Was the Tea Party neutral toward President Obama? Did it hurt him? Did it help him?

Crowley: Bill, I think -- no, no, actually, I think it hurts Obama. It hurts Obama because they've got the mainstream message. The majority of Americans now are siding with the Tea Party movement on the issues of spending deficits and debt.

A huge number of Democrats? I haven't seen any polls showing anything more than insignificant number of Democrats joining the Tea Parties -- in no small part because their rallies are endless and vicious rants against Democrats and liberals. It's possible Crowley has data to back up her claim, but count me among the doubters, given my experience at Tea Party events, which are uniformly right-wing affairs.

Crowley's claims about the Tea Parties' supposed popularity doesn't exactly match what voters actually think, according to a new Rasmussen poll:

Days after Sarah Palin headlined the nation's first Tea Party convention, a Rasmussen Reports poll released today shows that a generic "Tea Party candidate" would come in third in a theoretical three-way congressional contest.

The poll found that 36% of voters would support a Democratic candidate on a generic ballot, 25% would back the Republican and 17% would go for the Tea Party pick. Twenty-three percent of respondents are undecided.

In early December, the same poll showed the Tea Party in second place and the GOP in third. Unchanged between the polls, according to Rasmussen, is that 41% of voters have a favorable view of the conservative movement.

The poll of 1,000 likely voters was taken Feb. 7-8, just after the national Tea Party convention in Nashville. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

It's possible the public agrees with the Tea Partiers on a couple of issues. But overall the movement is turning them off, because it's not just full of nutcases, it's being led by them.

If the president's speech seemed full of vague generalities and not the inspirational partisan battle cry you might have wanted, that's because the speech wasn't really aimed at us, but at independents. And in that light, it was a resounding success.

From Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling firm:

Democracy Corps conducted dial testing of the speech with 50 independent and weak partisan voters in Nevada, followed by focus group discussions with voters who shifted toward approval of Obama’s performance in office. This difficult audience for Obama was a heavily Republican-leaning group (46 percent Republican, 20 percent Democratic) that split their votes in 2008 (52 percent Obama, 46 percent McCain) but had moved away from him over the past year, with majorities expressing disapproval with his job performance and unfavorable views of him on a personal level.

Obama saw a substantial, but not overwhelming, spike in his overall numbers with his personal favorability rating and job approval both increasing by 16 points. But his speech drove much bigger shifts among these initially skeptical swing voters on several key issues.

Most important, Obama managed to decisively reverse the view that he was too close to Wall Street. In a Democracy Corps survey from just before the Massachusetts election, we found that a 49 to 41 percent plurality said Obama and Democrats were more concerned with bailouts for Wall Street than creating jobs for regular Americans. Entering the evening, swing voters in this group agreed with a 48 to 16 percent plurality saying Obama “puts Wall Street ahead of the middle class.” But after the speech, the number disagreeing with that statement jumped a remarkable 50 points, to 66 percent. Moreover, Obama saw a 38-point increase in support for his banking reform plan and a 40-point increase in the percent saying that he “stands up to special interests.” Obama’s strong words for the banks clearly resonated and generated some of the strongest scores on our dials of the night from Democrats, Republicans and independents.

[...] For these voters whose attitudes shifted from disapproval to approval of Obama’s performance as president, one consistent question remained: can he deliver? Unlike most attributes that shifted during the speech, “promises things that sound good but won’t be able get them done” remained very high (78 percent pre-speech to 74 percent post-speech). The “shifters” in these post-speech focus groups are waiting for results, and they pointed specifically to passing health care reform and job creation initiatives as critical reforms that must be delivered. While they see the Republicans as obstructing every Obama initiative, they nonetheless expect Democrats to pass major legislation with their large majorities.

Among their findings:

* While everyone had a strong negative response to the banking bailout, the Democrats hated it even more.

* The strongest positive response was a 99 from both Democrats and independent on the idea of removing tax breaks for businesses who outsource jobs.

* There was an 80% positive response on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.