A Must MUST Read

I've never done this before, but I thought this post from Miami Herald political columnist Joy Reid was so good, I'd link it here. I've argued this point before, but never could have put it so well as Reid does here.

Barack Obama and the myth of the progressive ‘majorities’

...Despite the myth-making on the left, Democrats actually held their tenuous 60-vote majority for only five months in 2009: from July of that year, when Al Franken was finally sworn in after winning the recount against Norm Coleman, through November 2009, when Democrats lost Barack Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois to Mark Kirk. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.

Could Barack Obama have somehow rammed through the entire progressive wish list in five months? I find it hard to see how, given the unreliability of the blue dog Senators.

Republican Hypocrisy: The Judd Gregg Edition

Senator Judd Gregg: "If reconciliation is used, it will be a clear signal to Americans that the administration and the Democratic majority are willing to trample the spirit of the Senate in order to pass a highly partisan policy, regardless of the damage it does to the concept of representative government."

Hypocrite says what?

Is It Time For Grassley's Death Panel Yet?

Via Bob Cesca:

“It’s not about getting a lot of Republicans. It’s about getting a lot of Democrats and Republicans. We ought to be focusing on getting 80 votes.” —Chuck Grassley

And Enzi is saying the same thing. 80 votes? They are truly mad. They can think it makes them sound all bipartisan-y to try and fool their baseless base, but it just makes them sound craz-y.

The REAL CBO Report

According to Think Progress, this much ballyhooed Congressional Budget Office report that was used to criticize the Obama Recovery Bill by Republicans was cited 81 times in the last six days by the talking heads on television and in print; they criticized that spending was initally slow and that only 35% of the package would be spent by 2011.

There's just one problem with that: the CBO report they were citing doesn't exist. Rather, the media and Republican opposition to the bill were citing a partial report that didn't include the planned tax cuts, unemployment benefit extensions and numerous other factors. Even after Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained that everyone was citing an incomplete report in his press conference on Friday, inaccurate reporting continued on the news.

New Meet The Press host David Gregory used the CBO report in criticism on Sunday morning and I personally witnessed Nora O'Donnell on MSNBC ask about the partial report when questioning Congressman Chris Van Hollen late Monday afternoon! But I suppose if it isn't scandalous it doesn't sell, so why bother with accuracy?

Well guess what? The CBO actually released a complete report Monday evening which shows that, just as the Obama administration has been saying, about ¾ of the stimulus package would be injected into the economy within the first 18 months.

From the CBO report (emphasis mine):

This is the first cost estimate that CBO has prepared for H.R. 1 in its entirety. A previous preliminary estimate that has been widely cited addressed only the budgetary impacts of an earlier version of the provisions contained in Division A, at the request of the House Committee on Appropriations.

CBO has since made small changes to our estimates of the portion of the bill that was included in that preliminary estimate, mostly to reflect amendments to the legislation since we prepared the last estimate. Based on information provided by the committee and discussions with numerous state officials, we also made small technical changes to that earlier estimate.

I wonder how quickly the very serious mainstream media will report on this, and if they'll mention it 81 times in six days? I'm also sure the GOP will ignore it while tending to their fudge, since it doesn't fit into their agenda.

I mean, think about it. All we've heard the latest cheap Republican talking point is the expenditure of $200 million for Medicaid to be used for contraception and all the hysteria from the right asking how something like that can stimulate the economy. They are completely ignoring the fact that education, prevention of STDs and unwanted pregnancies can help in reducing governmental financial responsibilities later on. But the word "contraception" is a touchstone for their religious right base, even though the money planned for this program is only 0.00024% of the total package.

What's the GOP solution? More tax cuts. You know, because it's worked so well before.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

More Obama Blago Bashing

From Bob Cesca:

Your 'Liberal' Cable News Network

Just now on MSNBC... Washington bureau chief Mark Whitaker said (paraphrasing), "Obama wants to change the tone in Washington? He couldn't even change the tone in Illinois!"

Yes, Mr. Whitaker, it was entirely up to the junior senator to change the entire political tone of the state of Illinois. Because he somehow had the power to do that.

Sheesh. Gimme something to break.

If Whitaker had bothered to do any research or maybe even pick up the New York Times yesterday, he would know that it was because of Obama that ethics legislation was passed in Illinois directly leading to the takedown of Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law’s restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.

So, yeah, Whitaker, Obama actually did change the tone in Illinois. I think it's time Mark Whitaker started doing some actual research and journalism or shut the fuck up.


UPDATE (11:52am): The Rude Pundit nails it.

...Unless you have Barack Obama on a recording saying, "Hey, Rod, I'll give you a hundred grand and three blow jobs from Michelle if you appoint my person to the Senate," then the rest of the nation thinks, "Let Illinois work it out and leave us the fuck alone." Because, see, if you're facing foreclosure after whatever brief grace period your bank is giving you so they don't look like complete cocksuckers over the holidays, the imminent end of your unemployment benefits, a COBRA that's chowed up your savings and your credit card limits, and the only prospect for the future is that shit's gonna get worse before it gets better, do you really give a happy rat's fuck if the President-elect's spokesman was right or wrong on whether or not Obama said jackshit to Rod Blagojevich?