And The Media Can't Figure Out Why Nobody Watches?

Is MSNBC's Chris Matthews unable to discern what facts are? Apparently, the answer to that question is no. He is still using birther talking points by exclaiming yesterday on his show Hardball why doesn't Obama or his advisers doesn't request a copy of his birth certificate to clear this up?

Gee, Matthews did you ever want W, Clinton, or Carter whom he worked for, to produce their copy of their birth certificate?

I didn't think so. By mouthing Tea Party and Republican talking points, Matthews as a supposed mainstream news guy, just keeps this whole fake controversy alive by refusing to read and acknowledge the facts. The facts, in 2008 the Republican Governor of Hawaii produced a copy of the President's birth certificate. It was reprinted in papers and online.

I guess that Republican Governor is in on some great conspiracy to "hide" Obama's true birth place?

Watch this nonsense.

Republican Michelle Bachman: The 9/11 Responders Bill Is A New Entitlement

In the "say what" quote for today US Representative Michelle Bachman, R-MN, made an appearance on Fox News on 12/22/10, prior to the President's Press Conference on the lame duck session in Congress, where she proceeded to say that the 9/11 Responders Bill that was just passed in the lame duck session of Congress is a new entitlement program. This bill was created to help cover the medical expenses and to assist in providing medical coverage for the heroic responders that put their lives at risk to rescue survivors of the 9/11 attack. Bachman, however had no problems supporting the tax compromise that added an additional $700 billion plus to the deficit to primarily extend tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires the week prior. The original 9/11 Responders Bill cost an estimated $7 billion but was reduced to roughly $4.5 billion as a compromise to get the bill passed through Congress.

Watch.

Have A Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Punditry Nation readers!

Ground Zero Workers Visit Coburn's Office To Beg Him To Lift Hold On 9/11 Responders Bill

Republican Senator Tom Coburn still has a hold on the 9/11 Responders Bill, therefore preventing the bill from being voting on in the US Senate. Actual ground zero workers went to Coburn's office in Washington to plead their case. Unfortunately, it appears to have fallen on death ears. Odd that the television media has never once provided the real reason Senate Republicans are blocking this bill? Instead, the corporate media has merely gone with the Republican talking points of the cost of the bill as the reason for the obstruction. The real reason Republicans are blocking the bill is that the Senate Democrats are paying for the 9/11 Responders Bill in full by closing tax loopholes that currently allow US corporations, who are hiding their money offshore, to not be taxed on that money. Closing this loophole would mean the US corporations would have to pay taxes on the money they are currently hiding offshore.

Watch.

Why Are Senate Republicans Against The 9/11 Responders Bill?

Why are Republicans against the 9/11 Responders Bill? Senate Republicans have opposed the bill, also called the Zadroga Bill, first over concerns that it would take precedence over a plan to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. You know the "precious" tax cuts for the wealthy portion of that bill. And now they claim to have problems with the bill because, surprise, the cost of the bill.

The bill cost roughly $7.4 billion, but remember the Senate Republicans had no problem last week voting to add another $678 billion to the deficit for extending tax cuts to the wealthy which were unpaid for. So now with a straight face the exact same Senate Republicans are telling us they do not support the 9/11 Responders Bill because it cost slightly more than 10% of what it just cost to extend tax cuts to the wealthy?

The 9/11 Responders Bill would cover the medical bills of 9/11 emergency workers who have suffered from health complications following the inhalation of toxic chemicals at Ground Zero. You remember the 9/11 tragedy that Republicans have frequently invoked during campaigns the last decade since?

So why are the Republicans opposing common sense legislation? Answer: Because the Senate Democrats plan to pay for the 9/11 Responders Bill by closing current loopholes in place that provide tax advantages for American companies that ship American jobs overseas.

Oklahoma Republican Senator, Tom Coburn, has pledged to block this bill but support for the bill had apparently been growing before Coburn's announcement. Two of the bill's co-sponsors, Senators Schumer and Gillenbrand, claimed to finally have had the votes to pass the bill on Monday.

Here is former New York City Mayor, Republican Rudy Giuliani, take on the 9/11 Responders Bill.

Watch.

Weiner Vs Huckabee: Round 1

This video footage came from the recent debates on the Tax Compromise. Representative Anthony Weiner, D-NY, is forceful in his presentation when he appears on news programs. He represents what being a strong progressive can do when appearing against conservative counterparts. Watch.

US Senator Kay Hagen (D-NC) had her office in Greenville, North Carolina vandalized early last Thursday morning. Hagen's office had video surveillance. Watch the vandal paint swastikas on the walls of her office.

The President's Tax Cut Deal Analyzed

The Nation's editor Katrina vanden Heuvel talks about President Obama's Tax Cut Compromise in an interview with radio talk show host Thom Hartmann on his The Big Picture On RT program.

Watch.

Part 1





Part 2

Earmark Hypocrisy?

Senator Tom Cornyn, R-TX, appeared on Fox News with anchor Bill Hemmer. Hemmer asked the Senator about the spending bill being proposed by Democrats. Hemmer the proceeded to continuously grill Senator Cornyn about his own $16, 000, 000 earmark in this same bill. Watch.

This Tax Compromise Is A Big Deal

The Tax Compromise the President hammered out with congressional republicans last week is a big deal on many fronts. The White House appears to have put all of their eggs in this basket. Remember the Stimulus Bill cost around $787 billion dollars (roughly $10,000 per family) and because the economy under President Bush was worst than what had been reported, most of President Obama's Stimulus Bill was spent saving the jobs of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and the like, instead of creating and adding brand new jobs to our economy. The administration had forecasted that if this bill was passed the unemployment rate should be contained at 8%. The current unemployment rate is 9.3% according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. You also have to keep in mind that during the Thanksgiving-Christmas holidays, retailers always hire tens of thousands of extra temporary employees to help with holiday shoppers. These temporary jobs are figured into this current unemployment report. Once the holidays are officially over, the rate will likely go up somewhat again.

Now fast forward to the Tax Compromise which is estimated by the CBO (non-partisan Congressional Budget Office) to cost roughly $860 billion. That's roughly $1.5 trillion between these two bills that is supposedly going to stimulate our economy. With our country already trillions in debt, there will not be any appetite in Washington to add more money to future bills for job creation. What is truly alarming is that if this Tax Compromise does not create and add a significant number of jobs to our economy, you will have many Americans facing years of unemployment. What will happen to them and their families? More American homes going to foreclosures? More Americans applying for social programs like Welfare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps, further fraying the stability of those programs with a flood of new recipients being added to the roles?

Another possible fallout from this compromise if it does not actually create the new jobs as being advertised is the democratic party could actually lose the large advantage politically they have always had for decades over republicans on the issue of the economy because you now will have a democratic President, regardless of his protestations in speeches or press conferences, who will be signing onto the republican economic plan that cutting taxes for the wealthy will create substantial numbers of jobs. To urge fellow democrats in congress to vote for this bill, the White House has been using over the last week, what had previously been, republican talking points. If this bill does not succeed, this albatross will be hung around the necks of the democratic party because the President signing this bill into law is a democrat. The waters will possibly be muddied for democrats on this issues for a generation.

As we have seen during the recent Midterm elections, with the big republican megaphone on the airwaves and the corporate media's refusal to actually expose the falsehoods peddled by republicans and the media's willingness to often times use republican narratives when explaining issues like health care reform, tax cuts, etc., it will take a long hard push from the democrats to overcome all of this.

Furthermore, it will be very difficult if this does not work for the POTUS to say to the American people in 2012 that I did not believe in cutting taxes for the wealthy in a severe recession but I had no choice but to sign on to this in exchange to give a quarter of America's laid off workers unemployment extensions. That's going to be an extremely tough sell for the President.

What could the POTUS have done to avoid this? 1) After getting sworn into office, explain to the public the extreme problems this economy has, 2) Explain to the public that all available resources in America will have to be used to save and fix our economy, 3) Explain to the public that it may take many years to recover, and 4) Hire a few million unemployed American workers directly, like FDR did, in a two months span for much needed infrastructure programs around the country, more FDA inspectors, more workers to monitor when visas expire, etc 5) Explain to the public that the majority of these jobs are temporary until the private sector problems are fixed and are creating large numbers of private sector jobs. Once the private sector issues have been fixed, many of these government jobs will be fazed out. If the President or White House were worried that creating such a program would allow their opponents to label them as socialist? Guess what Mr. President, they already are and you have never voiced support for such a program but at least a few more million Americans would have been off the unemployment line.

Another Bargaining Chip Given Away By Democrats?

I watched Representative Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, who is the former Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Committee on Fox News Sunday do what it appears President Obama did recently. What is that you ask? Trading away your "bargaining" chip before coming to the table. Van Hollen basically stated on the program that the House this week will do whatever they can to bring up a separate vote on the estate tax part of the Tax Compromise because this is another portion of this compromise that many House democrats find objectionable. But he also stated that the House democrats, however, will at the end of the day not block this bill. My question is then this. If you have stated on air that the House has no intention of holding up this tax compromise bill, then why would the White House or republicans listen to your objections over the estate tax? Hello, Chris Van Hollen, you have just given up what leverage you may have had by informing the people you wish to negotiate with that you will not hold up a bill they are tyring to pass. What reason now do they have to negotiate with you?

*For whatever reason the embed code is not working for the video clip from Fox News Sunday so here is a link instead.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4456314/reps-ryan-van-hollen-on-fns/

Corporate Media Propaganda?

I noticed this summer that on every cable news network there was a "herd" mentality when it came to providing tax cuts for to the wealthy. While the right often slams MSNBC for being a liberal network, this bias toward giving tax cuts to top earners was just as pervasive during the morning and afternoon hours on MSNBC as it was on FOX and CNN. The corporate media has portrayed anyone who objects to this position as liberal. The majority of polling data from all polling companies shows that a plurality of Americans believe tax cuts for top earners should be abolished. But the corporate media and pundits continue to paint this issues as a liberal versus conservative debate. The question is why?

A Bloomberg National Poll was just conducted on December 4, 2010-December 7,2010. 59% of the respondents said that tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be eliminated. What Gallup Polling did in their polling on December 3, 2010-December 6, 2010 was not to specifically ask respondents about whether tax cuts for the wealthy should be extended or eliminated. But rather they asked should tax cuts be extended to all Americans. 66% of respondents said yes. Pew Research Center asked the question differently to their respondents than Gallup Polling. They asked respondents on December 1, 2010-December 5, 2010 "Which comes closer to your view about what President Obama and the Congress should do? Keep all the tax cuts in place? Or keep the tax cuts in place only for those with income below $250,000, but end the tax cuts for income above that?" Only 33% agreed all tax cuts should be kept in place while 47% agreed to keep only those tax cuts for incomes below $250,000 and 11% said in all tax cuts. 9% were unsure. There are other polling data out there that supports this data but you would not know it when you turn and listen to the cable news chatter.

Since President Obama made a tax compromise with the republicans, the corporate media and majority of pundits have kicked into full gear extolling the virtues of this tax compromise and painted any opposition as liberal. But why? Today's group think in Washington says giving top earners tax cuts in the middle of a depressed economy and two wars is the right thing to do. This narrative has been conveyed for months since the debate started over the Bush Tax Cuts. In my opinion the media is attempting to say that all opposition for extending tax cuts for the wealthy are just the base of the democratic party so that they can marginalize this opposition so that they can easily dismiss it. Am I right?

Chattering Class "Wisdom"

David Gergen personifies the "inside the beltway" conventional wisdom that is totally divorced from main street America. Here is a clip of a segment that Gergen did on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 on yesterday.

Jon Stewart's Take On The Tax Cut Compromise

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart does a funny take on the Tax Cut Compromise. Here is the video.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Supercuts
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

A Filibuster On Tax Compromise?

Senator Bernie Sanders, I-VT, threatens to filibuster President Obama's tax deal with Republicans. Here is the video of his interview on MSNBC last night.

Preserving Our Nation

I have written quite a few posts lately that are critical of this President and his administration. I have written these posts because as a working class American I feel our nation is fundamentally on the wrong track and is in great danger of a permanent downturn that we may not ever recover from. In other moments in our nation's history where our nation was in peril, we had a leader that was not afraid to take on the "fight" to preserve this great nation and it's people. It was this "fighting" spirit in these past leaders that allow us to still exist today as a nation. Who were some of these leaders? Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson to name a few.

These Presidents were good at recognizing the peril faced and how best to triumph through these perils. They also recognized one single important thing, in order to move the nation forward to a strong and prosperous path, you will have to "fight" those agents who would be taking the nation to its peril.

Repeatedly, the President's I have referenced, did exactly that many times over. President Abraham Lincoln was an outspoken opponent of the expansion of slavery in the United States. As President he sought to reunify the nation after the secession of eleven states. He used unprecedented war powers, including the arrest and detention of thousands, without trial, of thousands of suspected secessionists. He issued his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and promoted the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, abolishing slavery.

As the leader of the moderate faction of the Republican Party, he was under constant attack from all sides. Lincoln fought back with patronage, by pitting his opponents against each other, and by appealing to the American people with his powers of oratory. For example, his Gettysburg Address in 1863, which became the most quoted speech by an American President, he emphasized America's dedication to the principles of nationalism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt became President in 1933, the United States was as the nadir of the worst depression of its history. About twenty-five percent of Americans were unemployed. Two million were homeless. Industrial production had fallen by more than half. At the time of his inauguration, 32 of the 48 states has closed all of its banks. Roosevelt immediately went to "battle" taking on the entities (bankers, financiers, and their greed) that caused the destruction of the United States during his inaugural address. He immediately recognized the urgency of the plight of America.

Historians categorized Roosevelt's programs as "relief, recovery, reform." Relief was urgently need by tens of millions of unemployed Americans. Recovery meant boosting the economy back to normal. Reform long-term fixes of what caused the problems, especially with the financial and banking systems. Roosevelt's series of radios talks, fireside chats, presented his proposals directly to the American public.

Lyndon Baines Johnson took office after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. He overcame the longest filibuster in history, overcame southern resistance and convinced Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation, and the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in voting. Johnson believed that it was morally wrong to discriminate. This belief led Johnson to "fight" for what he believed to be the right thing to do. By doing this, making his strong case for this belief to this nation and to the United States Congress, making some deals with a few Congressmen to sway some votes, he was able to succeed.

Johnson also made his case about the need to fight and conquer poverty in America, thus creating a program that has been called the Great Society. This program gave aid to education, Medicare, Medicaid, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale "fight" against poverty, control and prevention of crime, and an attack on disease. With Johnson's leadership, Congress enacted many of his recommendations.

President Obama is at a similar crossroads for the preservation of this nation and its people. If he does not do what others before him which is to recognize the problems, lead, and overcome the opposition who are taking this nation to its peril, this nation will be be potentially put on a downward path of which it may not be able to reverse. Fight President Obama, that is what we elected you to do!

The Democrats Problems Are Not Just The White House

There is the United States Senate and the arcane rules that Republicans, over the recent years, have used to block good legislation that would have benefited average Americans. The rules of the Senate have been so misused that having the majority of Senators supporting a piece of legislation is no longer enough to get it past. Now thanks to how Republicans have used misused Senate rules, a super majority (60 votes), is now needed to pass every single piece of legislation. What's worse is just one Senator can block an entire piece of legislation. The Senate has become a place where good legislation "goes to die."

Yet, how many times have we heard repeated in the corporate media how the democrats can do what they like legislatively? That never was a correct assessment because of the "big tent" in philosophy that exists within the democratic party. Look no farther than Saturday's vote on tax cuts for the middle class only. Five members of the Senate that caucus with the democrats voted against each of the two bills for whatever reasons. On one of those bills the members were Joe Manchin ( WV), Webb (VA), Lieberman (CT), Fiengold (WI), and Nelson (NE).

Because of the sixty votes required to pass every single bill the Republicans put into place, all it takes is just one person to sabotage a bill. This is the very reason why strong leadership is needed in the White House to be able to deal with that reality. How does any POTUS overcome this? Employ the same or similar strategy that LBJ utilized to pass major legislation like the Voting Rights Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Bill which ended the longest filibuster in history. How did LBJ do this? First, he was convinced that discrimination was morally wrong and wanted change to lead to economic, political, and spiritual reintegration of the South within the nation. This belief lead LBJ to fight for what he believed was morally right and by doing this, making his strong case for this belief to this nation and to the United States Congress, and making some deals with a few Congressmen to sway some votes, he was able to end the longest filibuster in history and win passage of important bills.

The ability to publicly fight and make a case for what you believe to the American people and to the United States Congress cannot be underestimated and is what I believe are the qualities that are missing from this current administration right now in these legislative battles that occurring right now. In LBJ's case he did not have the majority of the general public on his side on these issues, yet he was still able to get them passed by sheer conviction, a little "horse trading", and by exhibiting strong leadership skills.

Today the POTUS, unlike LBJ, on countless issues have had the majority of the general public on his side on the issues and yet they are unnecessarily losing legislative battles like this tax cut debate. Why? The inability to lead based on your convictions for what you believe is right for this nation and to draw a line in the sand on things you will not compromise on. A current example of this are the republicans on the issue of tax cut extensions for the wealthy. They have been unified and their message, even though it is wrong, has been unyielding in the face of democrats who are presenting splintering views amongst themselves on the subject.

If the White House can recognize that the strategy they have been employing is ineffective and not working for them, they have a chance to correct the course and reclaim control of policy debates that critically effect our nation. Only if the White House starts providing clear messaging and strong leadership, can they start to effect the votes of congress men and women the way LBJ was able to successfully do. If they adopt this approach they have a chance to recapture the public's support and win re-election in 2012.

The Case For Not Extending Tax Cuts For The Wealthy

Senator Bernie Sanders, I-VT, gave a great impassioned speech for not extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Wouldn't it be great if we could get our President, US Senate Leader, and US House Leader to give this same exact speech?

The Ensuing War In The Democratic Party

I was doing my morning reading and came across an article in the National Journal about Congressman Artur Davis ( D-AL). The article stated that Davis had some parting shots for the democrats. Davis lost his re-election bid during the 2010 Midterm elections. Davis has been touted as representing a new generation of political leadership in the democratic party. Even though he has generally taken a centrist path since getting elected to the House in 2002, he still generally voted with the democrats until he ran a recent campaign for governor of Alabama, where after which he split with his party more often and started voting with blue dog democrats. Davis split with the democrats on some key votes, for example on health care reform and on tax cuts where he was one of only twenty democrats to vote against cutting taxes for the middle class only. Artur Davis epitomizes what I perceive as the coming ensuing battle between populist and centrist factions within the democratic party.

A populist is one who advocates for the rights and powers of the common people with their struggle with the privileged elite. The populist faction represents working class Americans and advocate for policies like those advocated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. A centrist is a person who takes a position in the political center. They often times make compromises that benefit the already well connected and big business.

We have seen this dynamic play out repeatedly with this White House and a handful of blue dog democrats in the US Senate versus the US House of Representatives during the entire last two years. The White House and handful of blue dogs are repeatedly making deals with the wealthy and big business interests and advocating for what a majority of Americans are opposed to. For example, eliminating the public option, not allowing Americans to get cheaper drugs in other countries (re importation of prescription drugs), and withdrawing troops from Iraq. The President just announced on this past Monday a freeze in federal worker salaries because of deficit concerns. By yesterday (Thursday) this White House is advocating as a compromise on the tax cut issue, to extend tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires that would add another $700 billion to the deficit. Does this make any sense? How will the POTUS explain this to working class Americans?

On many of these issues the corporate media has falsely portrayed those in support of the public option, the elimination of tax cuts for the wealthy, or those in support of withdrawing troops from war, as those in the President's liberal base. This is simply not true. In the majority of polling (we know how much pundits, corporate media, and politicians repeat polling data ad nauseum) the majority of Americans support the public option, re importation of prescription drugs, not extending tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, and withdrawing troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet this White House, instead of running with majority sentiment, makes deals with wealthy and big business interest continually that run counter to the sentiments of the majority of Americans.

The only positive light over the last two years has been the US House of Representatives where they have passed bills that represented generally what the vast majority of Americans wanted on the dire issues facing us today. For example, their health care reform bill originally included the public option and yesterday they passed a tax cut bill for the middle class only.

By constantly adopting republican policies, it is a clear illustration that proves that a strategy of centrism does not work. It seems the Obama White House are "knee deep" in centrism. This is why the democrats suffered those massive losses during the midterms last month. If you consistently approve legislation that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to, how is that a winning strategy? At every turn this President and handful of blue dog democrats in the senate and house are disarming their own party from being able to effectively fight the republican opposition. What will be Obama's case for re-election to draw voters? As a person who shed tears of joy on the election night of November 4, 2008, this has been astonishing to watch.

Job Outsourcers Deny The Unemployed Benefits?

How ironic it is that the very politicians who helped make it easier regulation wise for US businesses to ship American jobs overseas are now the same politicians denying the extension of unemployment benefits to jobless Americans. What's wrong with this picture?

These are the same politicians constantly advocating for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and proclaiming this $700 billion dollar give away does not need to be paid for. For every attempt at shoring up or creating a new program that will help average Americans survive, these individuals jump to say we cannot afford it and do not want to pass debt on to our grandchildren. These politicians have not seen a giveaway to the wealthy and big business that they have not liked while fighting any attempt to help the average American.

These politicians almost unilaterally will say they are "pro family". But what does that mean? If they are really "pro family" as they say, would they not be against American companies shipping jobs overseas at the very expense of American families. Yet at every turn, these politicians bend over backwards to support laws and legislation that aid American businesses to do just that. If Americans do not have jobs, how can they feed, clothe, and provide shelter for themselves and their families? How can one "pull themselves up by their own boot straps" if there are no jobs?

If they are really "pro family" would they not be for American workers getting paid living wages so that they can feed and clothe their families? Why then, do these same politicians at every turn fight against American workers having living wages? Would they not support the opportunity for every American worker to be able to have bargaining power with their employer for better wages?

If they are really "pro family" would they not want all American to have access to affordable health care? Would they not want every American to be able to visit a doctor? Apparently not, "christian" Liberty University waged a lawsuit in Virginia against the health care reform act that was designed to give the uninsured health care coverage. The university lost this battle yesterday.

It is very clear upon a closer examination of these so called "pro family" politicians and what they actually vote for that they are really not for the family at all, at least not the average American family. They shill for the already well connected. Strange, I never read in the Bible or heard in my baptist church that God intended for us to help the already privilege but there is a scripture that does say we should help the least among us.

A Winning Strategy For This President

If this President has any plans on being re-elected here are the things he must do immediately to change the current momentum. Never since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt have the dynamics existed within the economy where there is a clear "war" going on against working class Americans by the "robber barons" of today. The President thus far has not shown clear and constant leadership on any of the major issues we are facing as a nation. Here is how this White House can turn things around.

1. Engage the public on critical issues and make a call for action. For example, on unemployment extensions the President has publicly been missing in action. It is not enough to reference this issue on the weekly Saturday radio address. How many Americans ever really listen to the weekly address? When the vote failed recently in the House of Representatives, the POTUS should have taken to the airwaves that same night at 8 o'clock to urge Americans to contact their elected officials to implore them to support the extension. Congress today, unfortunately, will generally not act in the best interest of the average American unless they are sadly made to.

2. Start taking on the protectors of the wealthy and corporations. There is a coalition in the US Senate that consists generally of all forty republicans and four to six or so democrats that will regularly vote together in a block on every domestic issue so that even common sense matters like not giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires during a "depression like" economy with two wars is not the prevailing logic legislatively. This should have been addressed by this White House from day one. Shine the spotlight on these individuals so that they are made uncomfortable when they vote against the best interest of average Americans and this nation. The majority of American do not watch C-SPAN and are unaware of the individuals who are voting against their interest in favor of protecting the wealthy and corporations.

3. Have White House advisers have regular meetings with leaders of the groups and organizations that represents your base constituents. Remember the lists of tens of millions of Americans that were on Obama for President's list? What ever happened to them? After Obama was elected, it seemed that he and his advisers went to the White House and closed the doors shut. Having regular contact with these leaders should have been done immediately so that you keep your base actively engaged in what is going on politically so that if you, the President, need backup to get certain legislation passed through the Congress, you can call on these"foot soldiers" to bombard opponents of particular legislation with calls and emails to their offices to put pressure on them to reconsider their stance. This and money are the few things that seemed to move many members of Congress nowadays.

4. When introducing issues to the public, always put your opponents on the defensive right away by having a clear and concise strategy and a correct framing of issues which will result in clear messaging. There is nothing that has sank the democrats more in the last two years than an appearance of having no message at all on major issues facing the country. Whether it's tax cuts, health care, or jobs, the democrats have been all over the map with their messages. The republicans have been in lock step unison ninety nine percent of the time from one issue to the next. This has given them the appearance of strength even if what they are advocating is totally wrong for the country.

A Political Narrative Needed?

A political narrative is an idea or a set linked ideas that lies behind what elected official says when they are interviewed by media. These narratives are not necessarily fact-based. On a number of recent issues this has played out to the democrat's peril.

Case in point, the Republican Party have stated that it is urgent for our government to extend tax cuts for top income earners so that they will create jobs. Fact, in 2001 and 2003 the Bush administration lowered taxes for top income earners. Where are the jobs these tax cuts created? That's a good question. After cutting taxes for top income earners, there was still zero net new job creation during the Bush administration. In other words, the number of new jobs created equaled the number of jobs that were lost.

But astonishingly, the democrats have not yet put forward any consistent counter narrative to offset the bogus claim made by republicans. And now as we sit on the eve of the congressional debate on the Bush Tax Cuts, the republicans have been hammering from one interview to the next and from one elected official after the other, the same narrative: "Cut taxes for all. Taxes must be lowered on top income earners in order to have more job creation." What has been the democratic response? To simply respond to these false assertions made by republicans. But is that a strategy?

Senator elect Mark Kirk from Illinois was interviewed today about the Bush Tax Cuts and extending Unemployment Benefits. Here is an example of using narratives that are completley false to advance an agenda.

Is it impossible for the democrats to come up with a coherent narrative to effectively go on offense against these type of republican "talking points" that are full of falsehoods?

On another recent debate on health care, the democrats asserted that savings could be found if the way that Medicare payments were structured to physicians were changed. The republicans in turn put out the false narrative" Democrats are cutting Medicare" and it worked. During the recent Midterm elections, seniors overwhelmingly voted republican. Astonishing, when you think of the fact that democrats have been the one party consistently trying to save and protect Medicare while republicans, over the years, have tried at every turn to actually diminish this program. But, this is what happens when you are operating in a political environment with no narrative or story to tell while your opposition is hammering away at you with their false narratives daily.

The narrative tells the public what it is they are doing and why it is important these things be done in order to benefit the public. When will democrats learn the importance of creating narratives to communicate their agenda to the public? Democrats used to be very good at doing this. Franklin Roosevelt's administration was a case study in how you appeal to working class Americans and keep them on your side by utilizing narratives even through the most troubled economy in this history of this nation. By democrats not understanding the need to utilize naratives in their communication with the general public, republicans will continuely win these "message wars." The democrats operate at their own peril if they do not figure this out in 2010.

President Reagan's Budget Director Says " GOP Has Abandoned Fiscal Responsibility By Adopting Theology Of Tax Cuts"

David Stockman, former Reagan Budget Director, appeared on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS. He stated that "We need a higher tax burden on the upper income." Stockman also says that after 1985, " the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits do not matter." Here is the interview.

Happy Thanksgiving!

To the readers of Punditry Nation, have a Happy Thanksgiving!

How The Democrats Can Get Back On Offense And Stay There

Have the Washington Democrats learned the main lessons from the 2010 Midterms? I'm afraid it does not appear that many of them have. I've listened to countless democratic lawmakers and strategists on the airwaves since the midterm election defeats. They've spoken about the poor economy and not getting out their message of the good things they've done the past two years. And this is partly true, but the one large point that I think is being overlooked is what is causing the messaging problems?

In short it is the absence of real leadership on issue after issue from this President. Without this key ingredient, it is difficult to frame a coherent message for democrats in leadership positions and democratic strategists who appear on the airwaves to make their case to the public. With this brings individual democratic elected officials on the airwaves all saying different things on key issues of the day. There is no unified messaging as a result. For example, you may have 5 democrats appearing on the Sunday Talk Shows and they are all asked about a given issue of the day. What happens? You get five different answers on what should be done on that one given issue. I think it's safe to say over the last two years, we have all seen this repeatedly.

The way to fix this? The White house needs to create an over-arching narrative to what it is they are trying to do for this country. If they do this, virtually every piece of legislation before the Congress can be framed utilizing this narrative. For example, a "rebuilding the middle class"or "protecting the middle class" narrative would have allowed the White house and Democratic leaders to create a clear and concise message they could have taken to the public to clearly state their case for the need for specific legislation and how it is important in completing the objective of the aforementioned narrative.

Issues like health care reform, wall street reform, the GM bailout, jobs bill, and now the Bush Tax Cuts, could have been all easily framed through this middle class narrative. Furthermore, you then "box in" your opponents on all these issues right from the very outset, whether they be republicans, independents or blue dog democrats, as being protectors of big corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the middle class if they are opposed to these pieces of legislation. This one strategy was the main reason for FDR's success and election to four terms as POTUS. If FDR got opposition on one of his initiatives to strengthen the middle and working classes, he was immediately able to go on offense using this middle class narrative, branding his opposition as protectors of the wealthy and big corporations; which they were just like in today's political environment. Because this narrative made it clear who was protecting the wealthy and big corporations, he was able to keep the American public on his side through a worst economy than what President Obama has inherited.

Because of a lack of a narrative, President Obama and this White house have struggled mightily to present their case to the public on the majority of issues even though it is crystal clear where republicans and blue dog democrats were doing nothing other than shilling to protect the wealthy and multi nationals interests at the expense of the rest of the nation.

Unemployment And Red Staters

Red states are states with predominately Republican voters who may vote democratic on a state and local level, but generally not on a national level. The 2008 Presidential election of Barack Obama however had flipped several of these states to the blue column nationally. The origins of Red State America first noticeably arose from southern states like Alabama and Mississippi, but has expanded to Midwestern states like Wyoming. With the failure of the US House of Representatives last week to extend unemployment compensation, I was curious to see just how many Americans were actually unemployed in these so-called Red States since the representatives they voted for all unanimously voted against the extension. Here is what I discovered.

1. Alabama - 189, 358

2. Alaska - 28, 808

3. Arkansas - 104, 833

4. Arizona - 302, 832

5. Florida - 1, 096, 165

6. Georgia - 459, 098

7. Idaho - 69, 079

8. Indiana - 309, 637

9. Kansas - 100, 200

10. Kentucky - 208, 658

11. Louisiana - 170, 543

12. Michigan - 618, 787

13. Mississippi - 126, 720

14. Missouri - 279, 884

15. Montana - 36, 280

16. Nebraska - 45, 296

17. North Carolina - 427, 091

18. North Dakota - 13, 864

19. Ohio - 587, 638

20. Oklahoma - 121, 512

21. Pennsylvania -560, 118

22. South Carolina - 230, 603

23. South Dakota - 19, 737

24. Tennessee - 286, 529

25. Texas - 982, 477

26. Utah - 102, 416

27. Virginia - 283, 011

28. West Virginia - 72, 274

29. Wyoming - 19, 636

This data was taken from departmentofnumbers.com. Data from October 2010.

These numbers are simply overwhelming. After looking at these types of numbers, how will voting for politicians who do not support extending unemployment benefits when your state has large numbers of unemployed help? This is what is called voting against your economic interest 101. Amazing!

The Nations Katrina vanden Heuvel On Media Flaws

Katrina vanden Heuvel talks about problems in the corporate media coverage of politics and how they incorrectly frame our political debates in an interview on Grit tv.

What Are They Not Telling Us?

I turned on the news this morning and they were doing a "piece" on Sarah Palin. My response is why? She no longer holds elected office. Does anybody remember she resigned only two years into her term as Governor of Alaska? The corporate media has given Sarah Palin countless untold hours of precious airtime covering her every syllable and I still cannot figure out why? In a country of 350 million citizens, her reality show has gotten only 5 million viewers and yet the "talking heads" and pundits claimed "there is a huge following for the show". Say what?

Okay math geeks let's get out our calculators. 5 million is what percentage of 350 million? Answer, about 1.5% or so. So only about 1.5% of Americans have watched Palin's new reality show but the corporate media and pundits claim mass viewership? Palin has not given any substantive answers to any of the grave problems facing this country today. What she has done is to take pot shots and barbs at elected leaders deemed to be her "opponents". And charged any journalists who actually attempts to do their job when interviewing her by asking strong questions, as being the so-called "liberal media elites." Yet, there is endless chatter on Palin in the corporate media from esteemed Sunday talk shows to cable network programs.

I began to think, what stories are the news media not reporting on that are really important for us to know when they are obsessing over the airwaves over Palin, Prince William and Kate Middleton's impending marriage or some other "story" that does not make a dimes bit of difference to ordinary Americans and our plight?

Hey corporate media, do you think if you regularly reported on actual things that matter to average Americans like what industries are shipping or starting to ship jobs overseas so that countless Americans would not waist untold thousands of dollars in getting certifications and college degrees that are basically meaningless because the jobs in those professions have been outsourced and no longer exist in America? Hey, corporate media do you think if you had done regular reporting on the manufacturing problems that Toyota had been having the last few decades that maybe a few more Americans lives would have been spared and not lost to automobile wrecks due to these defects?

If people are not informed about the important things going on in their own nation, then how can they make informed decisions?

A Strong Advocate For The Middle Class

Lansing, Michigan Mayor Virg Bernero in every interview continues to forcefully advocate for a strong manufacturing base in America. We need more elected officials in this country like him that advocates for a strong middle class. Here was an interview he gave to CNN about GM creating new jobs in Michigan.

Chomsky On Post-Midterm America

This is a good interview from Chomsky with The Real News network. Chomsky discusses post-midterm politics in America.

Math Anyone?

On MSNBC's Morning Joe today Joe Scarborough made the statement about the house vote on unemployment extensions yesterday "why would Nancy Pelosi blame the republicans for the failure to pass unemployment extension?" Scarborough implied that it was utterly ridiculous that republicans should get the blame for the bill not passing since the democrats still have the majority until the end of this year in the house. On he face of it, you may think Joe has a point. In the current congress there are 256 democrats, 178 republicans, and 1 vacant seat in the state of Florida. But when you actually look at the vote tally from yesterday, you may get a different picture?

This is how the house democrats voted on the unemployment extension:

237 - Yes votes 11 - No votes 7 - Non votes

This is how the house republicans voted on the unemployment extension:

21 - Yes votes 143 - No votes 15 - Non votes

Looking at these numbers, even if Math was not your favorite subject, Pelosi clearly has a valid point. When you review the vote totals, the overwhelming majority of democrats voted to extend unemployment benefits ( 237 Yes, 18 No), whereas the overwhelming majority of republicans voted against extending unemployment benefits ( 21 Yes, 158 No). I included for both parties the non votes totals with the no vote totals.

This is the game that the corporate media and pundits have been playing for two years now in regards to congressional legislation. Democrats will overwhelmingly vote for a bill ( with one or two defectors, ie blue dog democrats) and republicans will 100% vote against a bill and the question that will get asked by mainstream media and pundits will be "Why couldn't the democrats pass the bill, they are in the majority?" The valid question should be "Why are republicans 100% of the time voting against things, even things that they have championed for years?"

This question will apparently never be asked by corporate media?

Fox News Pundits Unaffraid To Attack Palin Off-Air

On Fox News's new program The Fox News Watch, pundits were not afraid to speak negatively about Sarah Palin during the commercial break. Watch this!

US Autoworkers Make Too Much?

With all the news the last few days about GM and it's new successes, it unfortunately reminded me of the debate back in 2008 in the corporate media about whether or not this industry should be saved? The news media did segment after segment talking about the collapse of this industry and the possible bailout. But to my amazement, 99.9% of those interviewed for these news segments were not current autoworkers, former autoworkers, or even union leaders, but instead representatives of think tanks and business types with historical anti-union biases were ushered around on every network.

False claims from "anchors" and pundits claiming $70 per hour wages for autoworkers raged on for the first few months of the debate. Proclamations that autoworkers should take pay cuts were spouted on virtually every network when in fact autoworkers had already in recent years taken cuts in both pay and benefits. Aren't claims of high wages coming from "inside the beltway" elites a little ridiculous? Does anyone really think television anchors and pundits make less than $100,000 a year? Odd that the corporate media rarely makes this assertion about their own profession or other "white collar" professions?

Without good paying jobs at places like GM, who will pay the taxes needed for the maintenance and construction of roads, bridges, and schools? Without good paying jobs, how many parents will be able to afford to send children to college? Do we really want America to be a place of low wage jobs where the majority are unable to support themselves let alone a family? Do we want an America where the majority are receiving government assistance?

These days it seems like the majority of the corporate media and it's "talking heads" will not be happy until the majority of American workers are making third world wages.

Where Is John Or Jane Q Public?

I was watching MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning during another conversation on the Bush Tax Cuts. As usual the pundit's round table consisted of millionaires and "inside the beltway" elites. One of the pundits, a millionaire businessman who once hosted his own show on sister network CNBC, spouted the usual "conventional wisdom" that there is no other choice for the President but to compromise to a couple year extension for the tax cuts for the wealthy. Another on the panel asked "what about the President's base?" The businessman responded by saying "This will not be a problem. Where else will the base go?"

My first thought was did he not just observe the midterm elections two weeks ago? Nineteen million Obama voters who cast a ballot in 2008 sat this election out. My fear is that this is the typical psychology that is more than likely the prevailing wisdom among the President's White House advisers. How ironic it is that multi-millionaires are routinely asked to give their opinion on whether they should be given additional tax cuts in spite of large deficits and a "depression like" economy? Would it not be interesting if for once the corporate media had a round table that included average Americans giving their opinions on the issues of the day? After all people like Joe Scarborough continue to tout their "blue collar" backgrounds regularly so why not let them at least get one seat and have a voice at the table?

Another point, the majority of Americans do not favor tax cut extensions for the wealthy according to polls. You know the beloved polls that are quoted endlessly on air day end and day out. Strange that you do not hear the corporate media and their pundits touting polling data on this issue? Whether looking at polling from Gallup, CBS News, CNN, or others, the majority of Americans think that tax cuts for the wealthy should expire. This is why the corporate media are not quoting polling on this issue. It does not favor their position on this tax issue at all.

Gone are the days where the majority of American businessmen and millionaires have any allegiance to this country. During The Great Depression, the tax rates were raised from 25% to 63% on top earners to pay for necessary items to keep this country running. By 1945 during World War II, tax rates on top earners were 91%. The rates fell and stayed at 88% until 1963 when it was then lowered to 70%. US tax rates today are 35% for top earners.

Today, however, the majority of businessmen and millionaires are content with shipping American jobs overseas, hiding a portion of their income overseas, not paying corporate taxes at all (60% of all US corporations pay no taxes) by having their business addresses listed overseas or through finding tax loopholes and right offs, and then demanding that tax rates for top earners and corporations be lowered. Their loyalty and allegiance is no longer to this great country, but to their money as personified by the commentary and attitudes of the pundit this morning.

Political Messaging For Dummies

One of the main problems Washington democrats have had the last two years has been a total lack of messaging. Messaging is usually a short communication transmitted by words and signals, from one person or group to another. When was the last time you were watching television news and saw two democrats being interviewed convey exactly the same message on any given issue? During the last two days several democrats have been interviewed on various news and cable programs on the issue of the Bush Tax Cuts. Surprise, not one of them gave the same messaging on the tax issue. Here is a sample of some of the things stated.

New York US Senator Chuck Schumer on CBS's Face The Nation stated that there should be no tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. The income level for tax cuts should be moved from $250,000 (couple) to under $1,000,000. As I noted yesterday, I thought his plan has some merit to it because you make republicans/and or blue dog democrats have to publicly advocate for another vote on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Schumer made a very strong and definitive case on the program.

Virginia US Senator Mark Warner appearing on Bloomberg Television's Fast Forward proposed allowing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse and use the additional revenue for targeted business tax cuts to encourage companies to hire more workers.

California US Representative Loretta Sanchez appearing on MSNBC's Hardball while advocating for keeping middle class tax cuts in place, however, then proposes that capital gains tax should be kept at 15%.

See the different muddled messaging here? Yes, they all do advocate for keeping middle class tax cuts but then they digress from that simple message and then wade into their own specifics of what should be done further. Do you ever generally see republicans giving specifics? They sure never did leading up to the midterms elections the other week and won in a landslide. The correct messaging for democrats should be to focus only on the extension of middle class tax cuts only in their interviews.

Republicans, on the other hand, from every corner of the US appear on any given program and all say the exact same thing: "Cut taxes for all. This will create jobs and grow the economy."

By having a unified message, even if it is wrong, the republicans seem clear on what their principles are and a plan of action. Democrats, however, by presenting muddled messages appear to not have core principles or a clear plan of action. This difference allows republicans to win the message war every single time.

Inside The Beltway Tax Talk

In the corporate media's coverage of the expiring Bush Tax Cuts, there always seems to be a focus on the portion of the tax cuts for the wealthy. They suggest there is only one possible option for the White House and the democratic controlled Congress for resolving the issue. That one option is for the tax cuts for the wealthy to be temporarily extended.

However, US Senator Chuck Schumer of New York made an appearance on CBS's Face The Nation yesterday and suggested another way that I have not heard advocated before. He suggested the compromise should be to let everyone earning less than 1 million dollars to have a permanent tax cut and those making more than 1 million dollars would not receive any tax cut, temporary or otherwise. In my opinion, individuals earning several hundred thousand dollars annually should still be considered wealthy, but I can live with this compromise because millionaires and billionaires would not be receiving a single penny in tax cuts.

This is a brilliant strategy that would box the republicans and handful of corporate democrats into either voting for tax cuts for the middle class only or be forced instead to argue for tax cuts for the wealthy. No matter how many of these pols are tools for the wealthy and corporations, can you really imagine them facing the American people and having to explain to them why they are advocating for tax cuts for people like Bill Gates, Meg Whitman, Oprah, and Mayor Bloomberg, during a "depression like" economy and in a time where these same republicans and blue dog democrats have talked non-stop about getting our deficit under control?

Senator Chuck Schumer on Face The Nation

Here is the interview that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer had this morning on Face The Nation. He talks about middle class tax cuts and a hosts of other important issues.

Political Cartoons

More great laughs on political issues of the day from Mark Fiore.

Political Cartoons

More poltical cartoons by Mark Fiore.

Political Cartoons

More political cartoons by Mark Fiore.

Political Cartoons

I came across a great cartoonist named Mark Foire. He does great political cartoons about the issues. This is a sample of his work.

Is The American Worker Their Own Worse Enemy?

I was watching C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning and the subject was the salaries of federal employees. The host referenced an article stating that the average federal salary was $129, 000 annually. Having been an individual myself who has searched the federal jobs website a few times, that figure did not match up to what I had seen as salaries listed for federal jobs.

Remember how Parade Magazine lists national salaries every year for certain occupations? I'm pretty sure, like me, most Americans would skim the article looking for their profession's average salary only to wound up looking in disgust as you make no where near what the magazine is listing as the average pay. For example the magazine will say " The average US teacher salary is $59,000", but when you actually look at teacher salaries by state, you will see that the majority of states in America does not pay a teacher salary even approaching that figure. Even in my home state of Virginia the average salary is $43, 823. That is quite a difference. I sometimes wonder if when organizations are computing average salaries for specific companies or professions, if they don't actually include everyone in the company or profession, from managers on down to arrive at the numbers they get?

But, what I immediately noticed from one call to the next, from republican, democratic, and independent callers alike was the same response. The callers stated outrage at theses exorbitant salaries while their private sector jobs did not pay anywhere near that amount. My thought was regardless of some article the host had quoted written in a corporate media newspaper, do these callers really think all or the majority of federal employees make $129,000? They couldn't be that gullible could they?

In my search through federal job listings, the only federal occupations that paid those types of salaries were chemists, dentists, doctors, and advanced engineering. But nonetheless this article brought out the anti government sentiments that the right wing have so aptly played upon for the last thirty years.

The real question should be why have the wages for the private sector stayed flat the last thirty years? Why have private sector wages even declined in real dollars while corporate profits have skyrocketed? If you've been recently unemployed, how many times have you applied for a job that had a long laundry lists of skill sets and education requirements, only to find out during the interview the salary was $9 or $10 per hour?

As long as corporate elites can get average Americans to aim their "fire" at other places instead of them, they've got it made. They will continue to pay CEO's millions of dollars, outsource jobs overseas, replace full time jobs with part time jobs, cut wages and benefits, and hire non citizens because they know Americans will never understand who the real culprits are in this economy.

Why Not A Means Test?

A means test is a determination of whether an individual or family is eligible from help from the government. This term is usually used in connection with referencing Social Security benefits. Instead of the President's Obama's bipartisan deficit commission proposing across the board cuts, why not first utilize means testing in programs like Social Security and Medicare first to provide additional savings there to strengthen those programs first? Does Donald Trump, Michael Bloomberg, surviving Walton family siblings, and the like, need those benefits when they are worth billions? When this issue is discussed in the media there is always an implication that means testing would be politically a dangerous thing to do for politicians. How so if you are only means testing retirees who are in the top income brackets? I don't get it? This should be a no brainer regardless of what the corporate media says. How would this not be a winner politically for either side? I have yet to hear one valid reason why it would not be. Have the top earners now become so filled with pure greed that they are no longer willing to give up, what would be minuscule benefits considering their wealth, to help others less fortunate in this nation stay afloat in a "depression like" economy?

Great Debate: Part 2

MSNBC's Larry O'Donnell and Glen Greenwald debate again about the merits of "blue dogs" in the democratic party.

Elitism?

I was watching MSNBC's Morning Joe. Joe Scarborough made the same nonsensical statement again this morning on his program. He stated that President Obama and his administration was having trouble working with Republicans. He suggest the reason for that is because "liberals" like Obama go to fancy prep schools and Ivy League universities and because of this Obama has had very little contact with republicans and therefore does not know how to work with them like President Clinton did. Huh?

I was thinking is he really serious? But I guess for Joe Scarborough why let facts get in the way of a meme and false narrative of "elitism" that he has been pushing for some time now on his program? What about Bush 41 and 43? What about Eisenhower?

Here are the facts about the education of some of our previous presidents.

President John Adams: Harvard College

President James Madison: Princeton University

President John Q. Adams: Harvard College

President William Henry Harrison: University Pennsylvania

President Rutherford B. Hayes: Harvard College

President Theodore Roosevelt: Harvard College and Columbia University

President William Howard Taft: Yale University

President Woodrow Wilson: Princeton University

President Herbert Hoover: Stanford University

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: Harvard College and Columbia University

President John F. Kennedy: Harvard College

President George H.W. Bush: Yale University

President William Jefferson Clinton: Yale University

President George W. Bush: Yale University

If I can do a quick google search and find this information about other previous presidents why can't Joe with all the resources he must have being the host of a show on a cable news network? The baseless assertion of liberal elitism because one possesses and Ivy League degree is the same meme right wingers have been using on democrats for the last thirty years or so. The facts do not support Scarborough or the other right wingers. Under their definition, Bush Sr and Bush Jr. should also be characterized as liberal elites based upon the schools they both attended.