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.