I was deeply troubled last night by the lack of election coverage from of all networks MSNBC. I thought that both CountDown and the Rachel Maddow shows were ill prepared to talk about election issues. I also thought it was a digrace for them to do a patch quilt of 5 minute live splashes intermixed with first hour reruns.

I thought that the New York-23 race was by far the most interesting, and I thought that MSNBC devoted only a thimble full of resources to it last night. I was very surprised that they had no live coverage up there at anytime during the day aas Rachel had live spots covering Question 1 in Maine. Also the only intellectually insightful remark about the whole race wasn't made until 12:15am by Former Mayor Willie Brown who remarked that political paradigms may not have shifted as democrats were led to believe in 08' and that Obama may be a oddity for the Democratic Party.

I would have expected several stories or in depth pieces about low voter turnout in both New Jersey and Virginia, How the Democrats are basically a Single Pitcher team (per Chris' constant mocking of politicians trying to buy the game as the Yankees buy Championships ) in Obama being the only draw to encourage clearly key dem constituencies out to the polls, identifying Obama's key accomplishments thus far or maybe even a more than mocking assessment of the TeaBaggers and if they actually might be a viable force some day.

Long and short, there were VERY good races and even better political issues that could have been covered last night, more so than the "9 Smartest Baseball Plays". Not only do we have to strategize on how to get young voters, or women voters or over 45 year old voters out, we also need to have a special boosting session to get our Media out to cover the damned election properlu!

 

While its easy to call Senators Baucus, Lincoln, Conrad and others who oppose the Public Option as (insert apropriate Adjective here...), I came away with a wholy new take on the potential motivations of these Senators for opposing the Public Option during yesterdays hearings.

What struck me as strange is the fact that the Democratic Senators who most opposed Senator Rockerfellers Ammendment, all voted for a Grassley Ammendment to adjust Medicare reimbursement payments to rural area Hospitals and Healthcare Providers. Senator Conrad specifically said twice, in the same statement, that all the Hospitals and Healthcare Providers that he reporesents says that tying the Public Option payment schedule to Medicare would bankrupt their facilities, because Medicare reimbursement rates are so low in their Districts. And that Hospitals that they represent financially survive more than "urban states" on traditionally insured patients. All these Senators, including the Republicans (who also tend to represent states with lower median incomes) voted unanimously to raise the Medicare reimbursement fees. So not only do these Senators strongly support a "Government Run" program, they all overwhelmingly support the expansion of funding for the Government Run program.

Many of the Senators also had much to say about Small Business protections against fees, taxed and mandates. I thought about how many fortune 500 companies were based in North Dakota, Montana or even Arkansas?

Their rationale led me to think that much more so than Red/Blue State politics, there could be much deeper dividing lines emerging on State income levels. Might the per-capita income levels in Arkansas, Montana and Iowa be more closely related to how the Senators vote than party loyalty? Might campaign contributions to a Senator whose constituency is closer to the poverty line be more effective than contributions to a Senator who has a more wealthy constituency in his home state?

I wonder if Senator Rockerfellers Ammendment had provisions for both the Public Option and a recalculation of Medicare rates, would the ConservaDems have then voted for it? Were they truly feeling that the Public Option isn't worthwhile, or is it that their constiuents may not be getting enough pie under the Public Option? In any case, we with all the ink of the Press tend to live in more afluent states, so much of our Editorializing may fall on death ear.

 

'Bro', 'Brother', 'Dude', 'Cool Daddy', 'CAT",

are all names that I've personally been called in the past to clearly annotate that I was the different one in the room, the meeting, on the team, or at the social event. President Carter's words are being parsed, "segregated" and dismissed as poorly timed, when in actuality they apply all the time.

President Bush's latest off the cuff comments about then Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, as recanted by Matt Latimer, were yet another confirmation of just how pervasive and true the point that President Carter was trying to make was. I don't know President Bush, nor am I implying that he is a racist. But I do believe that he as well as the overwhelming majority of whites in this country would never refer to another white man as a "Cat!" Not only was President Bush calling Candidate Obama unqualified (which is his right do so), he was also separating Obama from the herd of "real" potential candidates. He was so overtly but unsuspectingly putting the then Senator on a rung below the rest of the field.

I've been in many circles where I was the only black person and have had the group at large come up with some prefix, connotation, or current colloquialism to use in referring to me, the one who is accepted but sill different. It's flatly clear to me when whites are talking about another black person on their job or in another circle because there is always a peculiar preface about the person, or an intentional extra adjective such as "Dude", "Cool", or otherwise added to the conversation. I know the nomenclature, I know the after stare to check to see if I object to the mal-reference, I am well aware of the rationalization to follow if I ask why the person made the mal-reference.

The easy defense tactic for many is to play the false equivalency game by showing that if there is one Teabagger, Birther, Deather or any other group member that opposes the President who is not a racist, then President Carter's entire argument is false. Well unfortunately, no only were President Carter's properly framed, he did not in any way charge that all who oppose the President were racists, or racially motivated.

President Carter's main point was that many in this country are now engaged in purposely diminishing and disrespecting the office of the Presidency because it is more comforting to them to delegitimize President Obama than to oppose his policies on the merits. President Carter is acknowledging the fact that many who consider themselves as the most Patriotic Americans find it more comforting to discredit the office of the Presidency rather than to accept a person different from themselves in that office. President Carter is acknowledging the fact that nowhere other than a bar, a brawl or some other venue that has no rules of etiquette at all would it be acceptable to discredit a persons office or occupation the way ease and ambivalence that many do today.

If the idea of a Black Man being President is so far a mental leap for a former President, that he could so flippantly dismiss the candidate that has earned more money than any other in political history, then it is no wonder that probably 1/5th of the country that he leads shares that same mindset.

So while the Obama White House Administration rightfully sees President Carter's remarks as a distraction and knows that his words could be used divisively, the Bush White House has clearly confirmed just how wise President Carter is.

 

Today marks the day when I witnessed a man write a non-fiction Memoir actually say that his Leaf Notes to his book were false. Today is also the day when I witnessed a man say that he was "in-artful" in the words that he chose when he offered a very believable, legitimate  rationale, in his brand new book, for resigning from one of the most important positions in this country.
Tom Ridge, former head of the Department of Homeland Security, in an interview with Rachel Maddow, when challenged with a direct quote from the Leaf Notes in his new book actually said that those Leaf Notes are wrong as he stated that "those are not my words. Read the book. Read my words."   I thought that when you were the "authorized" author of a book that you had say over every detail of that book. 
When challenged with a direct quote in his own words where he stated that the reason for his decision to resign from his Homeland Security post was due to his personal feeling that politics played a role in him being able to do his job, he now says that his words in the book were "not as artful as they should have been." 
It is clear that Tom Ridge who's former position warrants that he be given at least respect, if not the benefit of the doubt as well, from every US citizen has written a book that should now either be re-categorized as a fictitious accounting of his time as Head of Homeland Security, or that he has indeed "artfully" chosen words to write his book, that are purposely titillating enough to get people on both the Left and the Right to buy the words that he is not willing to stand by.
In either case, if people like Mr. Ridge can occupy jobs and positions that have a direct effect over the  governance of my country then this is the reason that I don't trust my Government!  This means that a trusted US Government official can write a book that he can go on national television and vehemently deny his own written words?
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!! We have been governed by Jerry Springer over the last eight years.

The Glen Beck fiasco can go on no longer. I started and stopped so many emails to Fox complaining about Beck's outrageous comments concerning President Obama being a racist, and having a problem with While People that this website would have had to buy a new server just for my correspondence.

 I applaud companies like GEICO, Sargento Cheese and server other corporations who feel that the show no longer fits their advertising profile. At the same time I also believe that individuals should follow suit. Thus I will be sending the National Football League (NFL) an email similar to the following:

 Mr. Gaddel,

 I am a Washington Redskins season ticket holder and an avid fan of the NFC East football conference. From this point forward, I will cease watching all NFL football on the FOX network, until the Glen Beck show is either removed or its programming is radically changed.

I want to point out that most all away games for the Washington Redskins as well as 90% of the coverage of all NFC East football games are broadcast on the FOX network in my area.

While this action may seem initially rash, and could be dismissed as rhetoric from one temporarily upset fan, I see no other recourse to express my disgust and disdain for the tasteless nature of the Glen Beck show.

Glen Becks comments about the President being a racist were, I thought, the most outrageous thing that I've ever seen on Television. That of course was until I saw his more recent skit portraying him poisoning Nancy Pelosi with wine. There is nothing funny, interesting or sarcastic about these and many other of his so called bits. These types of actions are absolutely obscene and should be treated as such.

While we do have a First Amendment right to free speech, and a free press. You still cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, or insight a riot in this country.

 A rabid football fan waiting action from the NFL!

 

 

 

To my knowledge this is Clarence Thomas' first written opinion on any decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Doesn't he usually go along with whatever the Scalia side says?

From the Washington Post:

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look," Thomas said.

Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501690.html

 

Pardon me, but while I did read and think that Tom Daschle's' book on Healthcare is filled to many good ideas, I cannot consider his new view that the Obama Administration should give up on the Public Option as either a constructive or a credible one.

Mr. Daschle today stated that "We've come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreement on one single issue," according to ABC news today.

Remember that Mr. Daschle was almost single handedly in charge of giving George Bush the Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq Resolution back in 2001. At the time being Senate Majority Leader, Daschle played a major role in allowing the resolution to move forward through Congress, and in reassuring other Senate Democrats that it was ok to follow along with his "Yea" vote lemmings.

I bring this up NOT to settle old scores, but merely to point out the ex-Senators political strategies have proven to be shortsighted and too far removed in the past. Mr. Daschle would rather get something passed in Congress, rather than to get the right thing passed. What he still refuses to recognize today is that the other side of the aisle has no real political interest or will in doing anything that the President wants. Being practical with someone who has no interest in being practical is closer to Euthanasia than compromise. You don't feel it until its too late?

Remember that Mr. Daschle was anxious to get on with moving the Use of Force Resolution forward, because he wanted to get the Senate's attention focused back to the economy. He saw the War Resolution as a minor impediment to really getting down to business.

Without a Public Option there IS NO SENSE in Healthcare legislation this year or ever. Because the insurance companies will continue on exactly the same path that they are on currently. Mr. Daschle statement clearly shows that he'd rather have the paper that the bill is written on than the policy that the American people need.

How many times does the actual elected President have to state on the record that the Public Option is not an ulterior route to socialized medicine?

 

 

By now everyone at least on this board should be able to "speak Obama." Both Rachel and Keith are trying to read way too far into the shapes of the vowels on this one. Obama's use of the word "mistake" after he damn near bit off his tongue before he had said something else, clearly was signaling that he is NOT going to pre-direct any decision or current poderances being made by Eric Holder or by Congress.

Though there have been no court filings yet, it seems crystal clear that the previous administration did indeed create, authorize and continually support "illegal" torture. In fact there is no more denying this fact. The only arguement now is whether  breaking the law was neccessary or not?

Could you or I tell the police that we robbed the bank because it was neccessary, to pay our kids college tuition?

What would happen if the Treasury Department were to  take steps to directly run AIG? It seeams that even to the far right, a move like this would be more palatable than nationalizing any of the Banks?

Don't we as 80% stakeholder have a right to call a board of directors meeting to elect a new CEO? New Management team? New Brokers and Financial Analysts?

I'd heard it mentioned on the talkshows this weekend that there is fear that if we fire the key AIGFP staffers that we may not be able to figure out how to get out of the mess ("we may need the people who planted the bomb to help to difuse the bobm"). But the fact is that the bomb has allready exploded, and we clearly see that the people who are being made whole after the bomb has exploded is the other banks (counterparties), not the stockholders.

Let me know if I'm off base here but Barclays bank and several other financial institutions are being made whole directly from the TARP bailout money. While stockholders (forget the taxpayers) won't be made whole until stock prices of those companies who invested in Credit Default Swaps rise?

How much "expertise" does it take to give someone elses' money to another person? And maybe someone can explain to me, what is left to figure out how to "unwind" the CDSs'. Seems to me that they've been fully sprung on the America People.

 

 

 

 

CRE act huh???

Let this be the last time that the greedy Wall Street BASTARDS use 1/10th of the US population as a scapegoat for screwing us all!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/11/jim-cramer-shorting-stock_n_173824.html

Wonder if the guys who started this fact finding excercise over at DailyKos could find out if Jindal has used any of this type of folklore in his stumping for the Governorship? It would be interesting to find out if he knows Paul Bunyon and John Henry as well:-)

I clearly understand Jindal's comments. You see, I've heard them time and time again for about 43 years now. The base of Bobby Jinda'ls comments go far beyond the conotation of the word "patronizing". I'm not sure how many of you have had a person who thoght that they were in an autoritative position try and frame you with an argument that was not only factless, but also barely stereotypical. I can recall overhearing a college friend of mine involved in a shouting match with a Math professor during a summer session. It was clear that the basis of the Math Professors argument was the overtly baseless leap that because my friend was Black, and because the Professor knew of other Black students who previously failed his class, that my friend was sure to fail the summer session as well (BTW the matriculation rate in our program was less than 40% for all students, and Black students made up less than 5% of the whole program).

Jindal's entire speech was based on the overt misperception (stereotype) of what he thought that Obama was going to talk about. Jindal believed the well over reported lines that the President was: "way too gloom and doom", "too tax and spend", "too big Government". Mr. Obama may be one of the truly great orators of our time, but Tindal's retort should have addressed issues in at least the same decade that Obama's did.

If you read his response, you see that Mr. Jindal takes two full paragraphs to revitalize the tried and true "Obama is a credit to his race" argument so well engrained into far too many sitcoms to introduce the new Black character into the script. We are in dire crisis as a nation and there is a large political credibility vacum that has not been filled in almost a decade. Obama used every word of his speech to give guidance, clear direction and true empathy to so many Americans affected by today's economic crisis. Using any of his time to talk about Mr. Obama's journey through the "abolition of slavery", or a southern "lunch counter", or trying to belie a common experience with the President due to a shared immigrant heritage was not only IRRELEVANT, but wreaked of the same asinine stench that led to the NY Posts recent Chimpanzee cartoon. America, all of America wants to talk about where we are today, and what the way forward is.

If Mr. Jindal's remarks in any way represent the views of many in the Republican party, America has is facing a grave internal danger. And that danger is that by electing officials that are so far bogged down in their own unfounded stigmatisms, that they will continue to fail to recognize the reality for many more years to come. The text of Mr. Jindal's speech was in no way ok, nor was the delivery awkward, nor was it child like as many political pundits tried to disguise the debacle as. It was fundamentally flawed and at its core was built on neither rhyme (which may have at least been humorous), nor single factual reason. The first job of a leader should be to ascertain where he currently is, in order to properly chart a new path, Mr. Jindal clearly demonstrated his inability to be a leader by not even being able to properly understand his opponent, his ideas, or even a hint at his motivations. If I ran a TV network, I'd return the fees that I'd collected for Mr. Tindal's airtime. Or, I'd threaten not to air any more political rebuttals in the future, unless the opposing party sent me a "demo" first.

The age old adage that "You don't get a second chance to make a first impression" comes to mind. In seeing his way forward, Mr. Jindal, may have sewn up the 2012 Republican nomination for none other than Sarah Palin on February 24th, 2009?

Funny how Barry Bonds who would have been considered one of the 10 greatest Baseball players in history, even if he never took a single vitamin, is in far more trouble than Mr. Shlozman is for lying to directly toCongress.

Bonds=Out of the League.

Schlozman=Corner office in a major law firm.

 

Bonds=Ostracized for life and never making the Hall of Fame.

Schlozman=The outcome of US elections from years to come still tainted to due the gerrymandering of voting districts all throughout the south.

 

Bonds=No endorsements, nor any accolade for his accomplishments even before the steroid crisis.

Schlozman=Practicing Lawyer until he chooses to retire.

 

Congress in relation to Bonds=Level Headed Lawmakers who want to ensure the integrity of America's favorite pastime.

Congress in relation to Scholzman=Ineffective Buffoons who you can sell a bridge in Minnesota to.