So, an old white male senator from the southern State of Georgia thinks the United States of America’s first black President should “express some humility” in his speech before a joint session of Congress tonight?
Where, exactly, do you begin with that?
The not so subtle racism?
What has to be either a total misunderstanding of his place in the political spectrum or the over the top hyperbole of the senior Senator from the State of Georgia saying that the man who was elected President of the United States of America needs to show humility?
Regardless of how I feel about the Republican Party, in general, and their views on healthcare, in general, the number of their members, particularly southern, who keep using ‘code words’ when discussing the President has to be appalling even to their own rank and file. You know the words: humble, swagger, uppity, cocky, etc….
The fact that the Republican rank and file are not calling these people on this is what is truly disgraceful. I grew up in deeply Republican Greenwich, Connecticut. I don’t believe anyone there would support this type of language, yet, I do not here any audible objections from quarters such as that.
Part of the problem is that Republican New England and even those in the Mid-Atlantic states have been marginalized and, to a large extent, ostracized. They are what used to be known as the ‘liberal’ wing of the Republican Party. A term that most national Republicans would deny ever applied to any Republican. They don’t even like to admit that they have ‘moderates’ within their party.
What then happens is that rather than fight for their party, they try to ‘fit in’. Thus, they do not object to the rhetoric. They have even come to believe that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are to lead them out of the darkness despite how objectionable they find some of their views.
Democrats learned long ago what following the demagogues can do to your party. Republicans seem to have failed to learn that lesson. In the meantime the rest of us have to listen to this tripe disguised as public debate and free speech.
My belief in America and Americans says that this type of talk will be marginalized, where it should be, soon enough.
The judgment of Sarah Palin and her family, Todd in particular, is amazing. Rather than just taking it in stride and leaving it alone, she decides to take a moral stand against David Letterman?
Well, at least one question is answered: Sarah Palin has no national political aspirations. No one with even the least amount of political savvy would publicly attack David Letterman if they had a national agenda.
Now, Dave and his writers should have been more aware as to which of the Palin daughters were on the trip before making those jokes, but this is an amateur, headline grabbing way of responding. Much like the miserably failed presidential campaign Palin was involved in, it does rally the base at the expense of that large swath of the middle that she only think she appeals to.
Congratulations, Sarah! The good news is that the presidential campaign season doesn’t really get going for another year and a half or so. There is time to recover although I am confident there will be plenty more forthcoming.
President Barack Obama today introduced U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York as his selection to replace retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter of New Hampshire. (Whitehouse.gov)
This is probably as close to a slam dunk as President Obama could have gotten. Thus far, pundits have praised the selection of someone with such a wealth of high level judicial experience. That could work against her as well as there is one heck of a long paper trail for Republicans to dig through.
She has however, been seen as a rising star since her nomination to the appeals court in 1998, so they are not likely to dig anything up that has not already been hashed out publicly. I’m sure there will be some hiccups. Ranking Judiciary Committee Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has plenty of not so well hidden skeletons himself, will see to that.
Despite that, I don’t see people such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Sue Collins (R-ME) or Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) supporting a filibuster on her nomination after they voted for her confirmation 11 years ago. They may vote against her in committee and/or on the floor but I don’t see them supporting an attempt to keep her nomination from a vote.
Thinkprogress has an article detailing the right's attempt to portray Judge Sotomayor as a “liberal Harriet Miers.” For full coverage of who exactly said what click on through.
It is a ridiculous argument starting with the fact that she has more federal bench experience than any Court nominee in memory. As SCOTUSBlog points out, women and minority candidates have a long history of being described as not smart enough for the job. It is also something that may generate an intense amount of backlash, if they wish to pursue it, from two groups the Republican party is allegedly desperate to court: women and Hispanics.
Here is some footage of them sticking their collective feet in their mouths already:
Class, do you know why this worked with Harriet Miers? Yes….you in the back. That’s correct…..because it wasn’t the presumed opposition, in that case the Democrats, doing the hack job. It was the people everyone assumed would support her. The Democrats were more than happy to let Jeff Sessions and company hack away at Harriet Miers intellectual fitness because it wasn’t they who would come out looking badly if it went awry.
If the Democrats were to attack Judge Sotomayor’s intellectual “heft” it might be a different story this time as well. But they won’t and not least because the woman has been a Federal Appeals Judge for 11 years! (Which, not coincidentally, is 11 years longer, by itself, than Harriet Miers total judicial experience, federal or otherwise.)
I understand that the right is still smarting from the fact that one of the reasons that Miers was nominated was that Sen. Harry Reid thought it might be a good idea. I think they also need to realize, as we Democrats do, that it wasn’t a vast left wing conspiracy when that happened, it was just Harry using his political judgment, which we well know is severely lacking.
Ultimately, the Republicans will cut their own throats with women and Hispanics if they go to far in opposition here. I realize they are capable of it but hold out hope that some of the relatively sane ones, such as Hatch and Collins and maybe even Judd Gregg, will save the party from themselves.
No filibuster will happen here. Fireworks? Perhaps. I think the nominee attracts close to, if not more than, 70 votes on the floor though.
Here is former Vice-President Dark Lord (also known as Richard "Dick" Cheney) and his 'interview' with wannabe journalist Sean Hannity. I hate posting FOX 'News' links, but you don't get to experience the sheer arrogance of the Dark Lord, or the utter sham of the 'questions' posed by the recently divorced (from Alan Colmes) Hannity.
Someone really needs to put the former Dark Lord in his place. I nominate two people who have excelled at this in the past: former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz. One, or both, of them need to give interviews that put the smack down on a) a former and b) Vice-President openly criticizing the foreign policy and national security policies of his succeeding administration, period. Never mind that we haven't even gotten to 100 days yet!
I realize that Dick still thinks he was his own branch of the government but he really needs to shut up. Baker and Schultz may be able to help that happen. Of course, they'll probably be attacked as liberal pansies by the Hannitys, Limbaughs and Becks. Never mind that just yesterday they helped end the "Cold War."
Next: A particular issue. Sean Hannity is not an interviewer any more than Ron Guidry is currently a major league pitcher. Sure, Guidry can throw batting practice and let hitters smoke balls into the center field stands but that doesn't mean he is still a major league pitcher. Similarly, check out this great big softball, not to mention totally leading, question about how Barack Obama handled his European trip:
Hannity: "Should he maybe have spent a little bit more time talking about the great sacrifice that America has made; While Europe was adopting totalitarianism and embracing appeasement, America was acting decisively to beat back totalitarianism?"
Um. First of all, he is apparently referencing pre-World War II America here. A country in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to struggle with Republicans like Arthur Vandenburg and Robert Taft with their increasingly anti-internationalist and isolationist points of view. We didn't actively stand up to totalitarianism! We, because of these guys, slinked off into our own corner. Things today celebrated as 'schemes' for Roosevelt to work our way into the war such as the "Lend-Lease Act" were vigorously opposed by Republican isolationists especially in the face of drawing us into a war. So any inference that we "were acting decisively to beat back totalitarianism" is utter nonsense. To the extent that we were acting at all, it was in spite of Republican (and to be fair there were Democratic non-interventionists also) non-interventionists and isolationists.
Further: Yes, we made a sacrifice. Was it purely out of the kindness of our own hearts? I don't think so. Roosevelt correctly saw that we had no choice but to go to war with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. He had to battle incessantly for years in order to get us involved in Europe. If we didn't? Well, we'd still be dealing with the ramifications of a German dominated continent. Hitler would never have had to pay attention to his western front, particularly if he did eventually overcome Great Britain. Stalin may never have been able to recover sufficiently to challenge Hitler's eastern front especially if Germany could have devoted more of it's resources there without a western front to worry about. (Admittedly, Stalin getting his ass handed to him does have it's benefits.) There is no way we could have allowed all of that to be the status quo.
So if you want to lord it over Europe. Fine. But don't expect to be considered anything other than an asshole by them for doing that. Just like you would consider the French assholes for lording over us the fact that we wouldn't ever have been a country if they didn't back us in the Revolutionary War. Which, by the way, is true: We would've been done long before 1780 if they hadn't come into the fray.
So, please, save your revisionist history. America is not always perfect. Expecting the world to constantly extol the virtues of this country and wonder why they get offended when you ask them to is idiotic. Obama and we on the left aren't ashamed of our country. Quite the opposite. We're just ashamed about the arrogance of some of our country's recent leaders.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
I haven't posted much lately and I won't promise that the posts will become more regular. I have to see if I can help this video go viral though:
Good jobs Dems. Don't let the country forget the spending spree our "fiscally conservative" friends went on for the last eight years. And don't let them try to blame it all on their "War on Terror" either.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
ThinkProgress has a post responding to Laura Ingraham's response to the left criticizing her about her criticism of Meghan McCain. Follow that? No?
Well, Meghan been running around lately expressing her views on the Republican party and it's right wing icons. Much was made by the left of Laura Ingraham using the term "plus-sized" in a derogatory sense, in criticizing Meghan McCain. McCain herself was not happy with the use, as she then expressed on The View:
Well, Laura thinks that we are using a double standard. After all, Al Franken calls Rush Limbaugh a "Big Fat Idiot", why is turnabout not fair play. She wants us to hear the clip in all it's glory, so, click through here, and give a listen.
Done listening?
Seriously? She wanted us to listen to a juvenile hack job of a young person taking an active interest in politics? Forget the "plus-size" snark, the rest was just embarrassing. She didn't even directly address a single point made! She just made fun of her the whole time.
Hello! Your party is getting 'older' by the day! Alienating the young crowd isn't going to help! And not for nothing but somewhat vapid and engaged is, in my opinion, an upgrade from the belligerent and ignorant crowd we saw at the tail end of the last campaign.
I wonder if her and her ilk understand how this stuff sounds to the middle? At least people like Stephanie Miller are A) upfront in their desire to rip apart people a B) generally make fun of the points being made and not just the presentation.
None of them understand this though. Just listen to Charles Krauthammer and Mort Kondracke:
(Think Progress' transcript at the end in case the video is still having problems.)
You see, they don't understand how they sound. They sound nuts to independents and moderates. Further, while they stoke their base the latter type of stuff incites people. Are they trying to have some right wing nut job show up at an AIG office, or any Wall St. office for that matter, with a gun?
Somehow, I think that might be counter to what they think they want to accomplish. Republicans in the last fifteen years don't seem to be able to comprehend how their actions may achieve results counter to their interests. Hopefully, nobody gets hurt this time. You know like the 4,000 plus U.S. dead in Iraq. Or the 90 odd thousand civilian deaths there.
KRAUTHAMMER: I’m all in favor of keeping this heaping opprobrium. I would deny them the bonuses if possible. I would be for an exemplary hanging or two. Have it in Times Square, invite Madame DuFarge. You borrow a guillotine from the French and we could have a party. If that’s what it takes to maintain popular support, let’s do it. But it’s not going to change anything economically. […]
KONDRACKE: I was going to recommend boiling in oil in Times Square, but look, because these are the people who invented these crazy credit default swaps that are leading to the whole disaster.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
The gist, if you don't care to watch, is that Stewart stands behind all he's said. He also has a cute 'MTV Networks media blitz' to counter Cramer's.
Well now we may get the real deal. Jim Cramer will be appearing on The Daily Show tomorrow night. (I say may because Rick Santelli backed out after confirming for last weeks show, so I'll believe it when I see it.) John Cook at Gawker brings up the point: Where is the upside for CNBC and Cramer in this? He can't really see any and neither can I. This is win-win for John Stewart. Cramer and Co. would have been better off shutting up and letting the story die.
Still, I shan't argue. You know what I'll be watching tomorrow night.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
I've been following Josh Marshall's posts of reader comments (here, here and here) regarding the Jon Stewart - Jim Cramer "dustup." I've read through and agreed with most of the comments including when TPM reader DC says, regarding Joe Scarborough criticisms that Stewart attacked Bush daily but doesn't attack Obama, that:
Joe repeatedly says that Jon Stewart would always rip on Bush but now that Obama is in office he will not make fun of the President so he must go after people "in the arena," aka Kramer(sic). If any of them had been watching Daily Show last night or any other time recently they would have seen many segments making fun of the new administration and the Democrats in Congress.
Now just to understand better what I am, and will be, talking about, watch this video from TPM which included Jim Cramer on the Today show as well as Jim Cramer on Morning Joe:
First. Joe. Perhaps there aren't transcripts. Perhaps Viacom is a pain in the a$$ as far as putting stuff up on YouTube. But, if you want to know what Jon Stewart thought about ANYTHING on ANY particular day his show aired, his website kicks ALL of NBC's properties for ease of access. Go to the site, click "Videos" and then move the sliders to the appropriate date. For instance, this is an easily accessible clip from January 11, 2007. You know, the day after our dear departed President announced "The Surge":
Yup. Sure looks like he's hiding from all of his past calls. BTW, there are a lot of us who are happy that "The Surge" seems to have worked, who still will not, in retrospect, recant our opposition to the concept. (Actually, there are some who think that the result would have happened anyway and the the surge might have just sped things up a little but wasn't instrumental. That's a topic for a different day and post though.)
Apparently, Jim Cramer himself, though, is getting all buggy because Jon Stewart won't shut up, like last night:
You know, I don't have anything in the market. I did 10 years ago. I was around when The Street was launched. I thought Jim Cramer was a loud-mouthed jackass then. Not much has changed.
I have long been talking with a very good friend of mine about the market. A little over a year ago, he started moving money out until he had zero exposure. I agreed that was the best move. You know why? Because we both knew something bad was happening with the subprime crap and neither one of us thought there was a safe haven within the market. In that TPM video, Cramer states that "any stock you recommended is down", and that "I told people to sell...everything."
Well, first of all, you kept recommending stocks. Even in an incredibly unstable environment. Why? That's your job. At least as you and CNBC see it. The people who trust you? They see you more akin to a financial advisor. That's what makes you and your network so dangerous. Yes, you told people to sell after you spent month after month telling people to buy! You finally told people to see on October 6, 2008. Gee, Jim. By then the DJIA was off over 23% ALREADY for the year. (Some would argue that a media stock pundit saying "sell everything this week!" isn't particularly useful to the economy or the market either. You don't care. Tact isn't your schictk.) Don't cry to us now, jerk.
Folks. Let's just talk sense. Jon Stewart tends to make sense. He tends to be funny making fun of other people not making sense. That's why he's funny. Jim Cramer, yesterday, could not be made to see sense by an anchor on his own network. Stomach as much as you can of this crap:
(Side note: CNBC's video embeds like crap too.)
You really want to follow this guy's advice? I think he could use some Ritalin. If you want to listen to Jim Cramer and CNBC, and be assured, the vast majority of Americans are happily ignorant of his existence, more power to you. The rest of us will watch Bloomberg and probably lose less money than you.
(I will not go on too much disputing the numbers they bandied about in that last clip right now. Such as the fact that the top marginal rate went to 79% not 73%. At least she had the right argument. I know there numbers were wrong. Suprise! Jim was reading from a slip of paper too! At least she threw a somewhat accurate fastball between his eyes extemporaneously.)
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Update: Forgot to include one of the many 'critical of Obama and the Dems' Jon Stewart segments has, just for you Joe "I speak of things I don't know" Scarborough:
In case you missed it Keith Olbermann has much of SNL's politically oriented skits from Saturday Night, featuring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, as well as his own show's little 'cameo' in The Simpson's:
