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.

Will You Lead?

Does this administration have Stockholm Syndrome? Stockholm Syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims. I see a similar sort of weird analogy to how this administration has charted it's path through every complex and major issue facing our country today.

For example on the issue of health care reform, the bill eventually signed into law by the President ( not the original bill passed through the House of Representatives) will provide health insurance coverage over the next few years for 30 million currently uninsured Americans. However, without the public option in place or the antitrust exemption repealed (things included in the original house bill), the price of the health coverage will continue to escalate, as some who are already covered by private health plans can testify to, because there is no mechanism in place to keep cost down. Yes, I realize that 60 votes were not in the Senate for the public option but the votes were not there either for LBJ for the 1964 Civil Rights act initially. In my opinion, President Obama could have used his "bully pulpit" to really fight for the public option and gone to the airwaves to provide a list of all the US Senators in opposition to it and list the amount of money he or she had pocketed from the health insurance industry over the years. Instead what we got was there is not 60 votes there let's drop that from the bill and not have a fight there. I always found it interesting that politicians and the corporate media generally love polling data yet on the issue of the public option where poll after poll showed that a majority of Americans, including some republicans, supporting it, the White house and US Senate were so quick to just jettison it from the bill without a public fight for it at all. Did the White house and some in the democratic leadership make a deal with the private health insurance companies? I do not know the answer to that, but what I do know is that as a result Americans health insurance premiums will continue to escalate and the White house put the same private health insurance companies who are the cause of the health insurance crisis (unaffordable high premiums) in this country today right back fully in charge without the best mechanism to keep pricing down totally off the table and out of the bill. Yes, you will have more Americans covered, and that's a good thing, but premiums will continue to rise and become more and more unaffordable, that was the main problem the bill was supposed to address. The affordability problem. Does that make any sense?

Second, the bank bailout. The original bill that passed through the House of Representatives had some strings attached to the money. Of course as usual they were stripped out once the bill reached the US Senate. Once again, did the POTUS take to the air waves and use his "bully pulpit" to fight to have those strings put back into the Senate bill? No. Instead, he signed legislation that gave the banks the money, but with no strings attached to it, you wound up having individuals and small business owners who have outstanding credit scores still not be able to get loans and very few mortgages were modified. Essentially, trillions given away to the banks with no demands put on how some of the money would be utilized and you put the very banks who played a large role in the destruction of our US economy right back in the driver's seat with no strings attached. After the bailout had taken place, as more homeowners continued to lose their homes to foreclosures because banks would not modify their loans and as small business owners came forward and reported they still could not even get lines of credit to keep their businesses running, the POTUS was reduced to publicly begging the very banks that were bailed out to start loaning out money and modifying mortgages. If you look at how different the US auto industry's bailout was structured, there were specific strings and conditions put on the money. Since their bailout, they are now profitable and creating thousands of jobs in America and paying their loans back. The banks, on the other hand, are paying the money back but have not really changed practices and CEO's and other high ranking employees are continuing to receive millions in bonuses, foreclose on Americans homes across the country, and continue to deny small businesses lines of credit. Does that make any sense?

Lastly, the issue of job creation. The private sector, in particular the multi-nationals, are what have created this jobs crisis in the US by outsourcing jobs overseas and/or hiring non citizens to do jobs. The outsourcing crisis has been ongoing for 30 years now and continues without any abatement. This administration has given tax cuts ant tax incentives to businesses to create jobs and hire Americans and yet the majority of them still sit on the sidelines while this country collapses. Yet when the issue of the stimulus took place, I do not recall the option to have the government do large hirings (what FDR did to put Americans back to work after the "robber barons" would not) even being a part of any discussion. FDR's WPA program employed in just a few months, in it's maximum, 3.3 million Americans. The program was implemented as an emergency measure by FDR and was designed to last until the US economy recovered. Does anyone think today that the POTUS or others in the democratic leadership would ever have the wisdom to do something like this today? Your answer, no. They would be too worried about what the "chattering class" and right wingers would say about them. So the whole country continues to sink in abyss while the vast majority of the private sector continues to just watch on the sidelines. Does this make any sense? The economy has decline so much that lawyers and other with college degrees are not even able to find work. How long will Americans have to wait for jobs to return to this economy? Another two years, four, when? How much longer will the administration continue to wait and sit on the sidelines for the private sector to create the jobs? If the POTUS and the democratic leadership had undertaken a similar measure that FDR took do you think that we would be looking at a Speaker Boehner?

The common theme in the first two years of Obama's presidency has been a lack of real leadership on the major gut wrenching issues facing Americans today. Without this leadership, republicans will continue to fill that leadership vacuum, start and dominate the debates with more supply side type nonsense that have caused the destruction we see today.

Deficit Watch

Outside of the phrase repeal, the single most used phrase by republicans during the last year was deficits. Yet before the new 112th US Congress can even be sworn in, Republican US Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, was on a Sunday morning "chat show" (CBS Face The Nation) yesterday back-sliding on the issue of introducing an earmark ban before the new 112th Congress has even been sworn in. Earmarks are government funds that are allocated by a legislator for a particular "pet project", often without proper review. Remember other "pet projects" discovered in past legislation over the years that included things like the study of bees? McConnell proclaimed on the program that earmark bans do not save money.

Over the fiscal years 2008-2010, Mitch McConnell has put in over 158 earmarks totalling $927, 872,000. Earmarks he has done in partnership with other members, 75, total $608, 121, 325. Does this look like the profile of a fiscal conservative to you? It sure does not to me.

Will the corporate media hold the republicans accountable for reducing government spending and lowering the deficit as they have pledged so loudly that they would do if they were in power? Now the republicans have over a 30 plus seat advantage in the US House of Representatives. They cannot just retort and use great slogans like "cut government spending" or "we need to cut spending so we will not saddle our grandchildren with this deficit." They will actually have to cut popular items to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. With the responsibility of winning the majority in the house, they will have to actually now govern. And already it looks like this may be a challenging road ahead for them.

Earmark data from legistorm.com.

Reform Watch

For months on the campaign trail countless republican candidates running for the US Congress like Rand Paul preached the message of getting rid of "big government", warning of an intrusive and expansive federal government. We heard the phrase repeal used time after time in reference to taking down the health care reform bill that was just passed by the democratic congress.

My question is simply this? Will US Senator-elect Rand Paul and the many others elected to the upcoming 112th US Congress who ran on this anti-government rhetoric, opt not to take perks like generous government ran health insurance plan options offered to them and their families by being members of congress?

If Mr. Paul and the many others like him are honest about their stances of less government, less costly and more efficient government, they will opt out of accepting the many perks that US Congressmen receive that are paid for by US taxpayers? The vast majority of individuals serving in our Congress are multi millionaires. Surely these congressmen can afford to maintain their own private insurance plans they had prior getting elected to office? Surely, Mr. Paul, a doctor, can afford to maintain the same private health insurance plans that he and his family were presumably already on before he ran for that Kentucky senate seat?

We will see early on with matters like this whether these individuals really meant what they said or was it all just rhetoric used to just get elected to office? We have already seen from Mr. Paul that while in private practice he had no problem receiving those government subsidy checks for his Medicare patients and pocketing them.

Inside The Beltway Definition Problem

A great debate took place on MSNBC's Morning Joe the other morning. It is a prime example of how "inside the beltway" definitions and how the corporate media and it's pundits characterize individuals is totally devoid of actual facts. Glenn Greenwald of Salon Magazine and MSNBC's The Last Word host Larry O'Donnell debated whether liberals were relevant to our politics here in America and the effect the 2010 midterms has on this philosophy. In my opinion during this debate Larry O'Donnell epitomizes what is wrong with the thought process of pundits "inside the beltway". Here is a video link to this debate.

This debate further plays into my thought that the corporate media over the last few years have given a platform to individuals that would ordinarily be called extremist and given them a label of conservatism. With every extreme piece of rhetoric, the more corporate media has seemed to fawn and clamor to get the latest interview with these types of individuals. Who are examples of this extremism? Does the names Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Dick Armey ring a bell anyone? How many times have you turned on cable news and seen the same clip of some nonsense "palinism" played every hour on the hour?

Examples of their extreme rhetoric? Here are just a few.

Newt Gingrich: Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D'Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that "President Obama may follow a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview."

"The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument."

"The secular-socialist machine represents as a great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."

Sarah Palin: "Canada needs to dismantle it's public health-care system and allow private enterprise to get involved and turn a profit."

Palin denies global warming and opposed listing polar bears as an endangered species because it might prevent off-shore drilling. Sarah Palin is suing the US government over listing the polar bears as an endangered species.

Dick Armey: "Hillary Clinton bothers me a lot. I realized the other day that her thoughts sound a lot like Karl Marx. She hangs around a lot of Marxists. All her friends are Marxists.

Could anyone just a few years ago imagine that individuals that spout this type of rhetoric would routinely appear on programs like Meet The Press, Face The Nation, or ABC This Week? Yet they do. Because the corporate media having them on as guests on what were once highly regarded news shows, they have in effect "normalized" these extremist and their rhetoric.

When Is Staying On Defense A Good Political Strategy?

While watching the President's Midterm News Conference the other day all I saw was our leader reacting on every front. Since when is reacting to everything your political opponent throws your way a good political strategy? The sign of any strong leader or political party is that they stay on the offensive, they set the debates, and the parameters of the debate. They do not let their political opposition define and control the debates.

Ask yourself this question. When was the last time over the last two years has President Obama or the Democratic leadership in Congress defined and controlled a debate on any number of the numerous issues facing this country? Health care, the Bush Tax Cuts, Unemployment Extension, Job Creation, etc. Even an issue like unemployment extension, which should have been a gimme for democrats politically, the President and the democratic congressional leadership were generally missing in action every time the extensions came up for renewal. Can anyone imagine FDR missing in action on extending unemployment benefits in a depression like economy? Each time a vote came up in the Senate to extend unemployment benefits and it was blocked or failed to pass, the POTUS should have immediately taken to the airwaves in prime time and called out every politician who blocked or voted against the extension by name, party affiliation, state, and list the number of unemployed in each of those states. How long, once the light was shown on these individuals, do you think they would have been able to continue to obstruct against the extension? These individuals would have been bombarded by their constituents phone calls and emails. The obstruction would have probably lasted only a few days. But yet this strategy was never even attempted by Harry Reid or the POTUS. And so the last renewal of the extension dragged out for months, instead of just days. I wonder how many more Americans lost their houses during that time period?

Why doesn't this President and Congress (particularly the Senate) want to lead? Instead you have the POTUS talking about compromise with the very people who are trying to get him out of office.

Now on the issue of the Bush Tax Cuts you had White house Press Secretary Robert Gibbs signaling that the White house was open for compromise. Really? At a time of US deficits reaching in the trillions the White house is willing to negotiate with Republicans about trying to extend the tax cuts to people making over $250,000? According to an article written today in The American Prospect, the White house may agree to extending tax cuts for people making around $500,000, further adding more deficits for tax cuts for top income earners. Once again, the hapless President and Democrats in congress are making an issue that should be an easy issue to stand with working Americans on, tax cuts for the middle class versus tax cuts for the wealthy, another issue to cede away to Republicans.

At this rate, does any thinking Democrat see no way to avoid another slaughter at the polls in 2012 by deflating your base with more nonsense stances on what should be clear bread and butter issues on protecting the middle class?

Will The President Pass The Test?

The first big test coming for the White house and the democratic party is the Bush Tax Cut debate. The Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire this year. The big battle in this debate is whether upper income earners (those who make over $250,000 annually) should receive tax cuts during a "depression like" economy.If we look at history, in the worst economic times in the US (The Great Depression) marginal tax rates were raised on the top income earners so that basic services throughout the country could continue to be paid for. In fact tax rates on top income earners from 1932-1980 ranged fluctuated from 63% - 91%. When Reagan took office in 1980, US tax rates on the top earners was 80%. When Reagan left office after serving two terms, these rates had been reduced to 28%.

This tax debate is one of the most clear populist issues in recent history. The democrats had the chance to clearly side with the average American worker before the midterm elections. This was not only a major chance for the democrats in congress to show they side with American workers and do what is only fair in a time of major economic upheaval, they could have also given themselves a major campaign issue to hammer the corporate republicans with. Tax cuts for he middle class (democrats) versus tax cuts for the wealthy (republicans). But once again the democrats got derailed, like on so many other issues the last few years, by the handful of corporate democrats in both houses.

Since the midterm elections, once again the democrats have the opportunity to utilize common sense and do what is fair, help stabilize the economy like FDR did by raising tax rates on the wealthy, crystallize to the American people who is for the average American worker, and expose the republicans as only being interested in protecting the interest of the wealthy and multi-nationals, all in one issue. But will President Obama and the congressional democrats seize the issue? Will they pass this test?

This will be the most important test for President Obama and congressional democrats that will determine which party wins the White house in 2012. Will the democrats stand firm?

Already today in a briefing with White house Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, he signaled that the President was open to compromise on the Bush Tax Cuts. What in the heck are they thinking? It is this simple folks. If the President and or congressional democrats compromise and decide to extend tax cuts for the wealthy in a "depression like" economy furthering adding on to the deficit, it is curtains for them in 2012.

If cutting taxes for the wealthy was the correct strategy to create a robust economic recovery and for major job creation, why were there not tens of millions of jobs created after the Bush Tax Cuts originally passed in 2001 and 2003? In fact during President Bush's entire eight years in office only 1.08 million jobs were created. Prior to Obama, Bush's job creation numbers were the lowest of any US President post WWII.

Accurate Analysis of the 2010 Midterms

Katrina vanden Heuvel gave a great quick analysis on the democrat's problems on Stephen Colbert's show.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Indecision 2010 - Katrina vanden Heuvel
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive

Will Obama Lead?

Last night's election results was a direct result of a White house and US Congress (especially the US Senate) yielding to protect corporate interests rather than protect working American. This protection of corporate interests came in the form of legislation like the health care reform bill, re importation of pharmaceuticals, re-importation of pharmaceuticals, and the wall street reform bill.

What am I talking about you ask? On the issue of health care reform for instance, the two main mechanisms that would have caused health insurance premiums to lower significantly, the public option and the repeal of the antitrust exemption, were not a part of the final bill that passed. The public option would have been a proposed health insurance plan offered to Americans by the US government. By the US government offering a reasonably priced health insurance plan to it's citizens, this would have forced private insurance companies to lower their prices for their health plans to keep and get new customers. The antitrust exemption was originally passed under the Mc-Carran-Ferguson Act in 1945 by the US Congress and it exempted the business of insurance from most federal regulation. Repealing the antitrust exemption would have been an important part of making sure that American families and businesses have more choices and have greater control over their own health care. In order to garner 60 votes in the US Senate for the passage of the health reform bill however, the exemption had to be taken out because Democratic US Senator, Ben Nelson-Nebraska, demanded it be taken out to get his 60th vote for the bill.


Analysis: Problem 1) You have a bill that adds 30 plus million more Americans to the private health insurance rolls without the mechanism (public option) to lower the actual cost of private insurance which was supposed to be one of the main objectives of this bill. Without really addressing the cost problem in the private insurance industry, the average American will not see the benefit of this bill. The public option was not a final part of the health insurance reform bill because of corporate democrats like Ben Nelson, Tom Carper, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, and the other 40 Republicans in the US Senate . Problem 2) Even if the price control mechanisms were present in this bill, the bill does not fully take affect until 2013 or so. So once again, the benefits of this bill would not fully occur until years down the road. This makes no sense. If Social Security could be created and fully implemented within one year pre-internet and all the technological advances we have today, then why could this health insurance reform bill not take full affect within one year?

The re importation of pharmaceuticals is simply the practice of allowing citizens to purchase pharmaceutical drugs in whatever country has them at the cheapest prices. The amendment for re importation failed to pass the US Senate in a 51-48 vote. In this example, you had both democrats and republicans both voting against and in favor of this amendment. Unfortunately, democrats had already struck a truce with the pharmaceutical companies that if big pharma would not oppose health care reform legislation, the democrats would in turn not support the re importation of pharmaceuticals. Re importation would have cost US pharmaceutical companies billions in profits. A good number of foreign countries like Canada have price controls over their pharmaceutical industries and that is the reason why their drugs are so much cheaper.

Analysis: As a result of this deal with the pharmaceutical companies, drug prices have not gotten any less expensive for American consumers, in fact what the democrats did not expect is that US pharmaceutical companies would actually increase prices even further after this deal was struck. Once again, the average American does not see how health care reform has lowered their health care costs.

The the case of the wall street reform bill, in the Senate version, no strings were put on the banking companies so that in exchange for the bailout they would have to loan credit worthy individuals and business money. There were no strings in the bill to force the banks to re-examine and re-write these faulty mortgages at all.

Analysis: Most Americans feel that they have not or are not benefiting from this reform. The majority of Americans cannot get personal loans or loans for small business start ups even when they have exemplary credit ratings.

Add all of these types of issues mentioned above and you have an electorate that overall felt no real sense of urgency to get to the polls yesterday. Michael Moore was interviewed late last night by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now and he gave a very insightful analysis of the direction the White house and congressional democrats should go in. The only question is will the President stop listening to DLC types or actually take the mantle and fully lead the way FDR did facing the exact same types of crisis.

Here is the link to Michael Moore's interview.

Corporate Media Gone Crazy?

Chris Matthews in an interview on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC program proclaims that President Obama is an elitist. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Or is this yet another example of Matthew's obvious insanity?

Remember this famous Chris Matthews quote about Hillary Clinton?

I'll be brutal, the reason she's a US Senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting she didn't win there on her own merit.

I wonder would Matthews still make the same observation about how Clinton has fared in her current job as SOS?

Is there anyone out there who still thinks that Chris Matthews is relevant?

Here's a clip of this conversation with Andrea Mitchell provided by Mediaite.com.

Inside The Beltway Wisdom?

George Will on ABC This Week illustrates how conventional wisdom is often times complete and utter non-sense.

Watch: