Tweet of the Day

Must Reads

Joy Reid: JFK’s Liberal Heresies: Would Today’s Progressives Oppose Him?

Sarah Jones: Eric Cantor Runs from The American People with Real Time Facebook Censorship and Obama Throws His Campaign’s Weight Behind the Wisconsin Recalls

John Thorpe: Forget Anonymous: Evidence Suggests GOP Hacked, Stole 2004 Election

Jonathan Capehart: Debt-Ceiling Drama: Rep. Joe Walsh (Tea Party-Obstinate)

Paul Krugman: Profiles in Un-courage

Matthew Yglesias: If Only Milton Were Around…

National Center for Science Education: Victory for Evolution in Texas

Ali Gharib and Travis Waldron: Right-Wing Pundits Jumped To Blame Muslims And ‘Jihadists’ For Norway Attacks

Zandar, at ABLC: Teleporting To Conclusions On The Norway Attacks

The Rude Pundit: Nearing the Ends of DOMA and DADT

President Obama's Press Conference - July 22, 2011

If You Want to be a Leader, Then You Got to Lead

Amy Winehouse Dies at 27

Daily Mail: Amy Winehouse has been found dead at her home in London, it has been reported.

The Back To Black singer was apparently found at 4pm and her death is believed to be unexplained.

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 23, 2011

A Bipartisan Approach to Strengthening the Economy

Quote of the Day

You need to pass a test to become a citizen. You need to pass a test to drive a fucking car or to benefit from higher education. But any slawjawed shit-kicker with a pulse and questionably intact gray matter can become a member of Congress.

~Bob Cesca

Will Everyone Please Calm Down?

I was out of earshot of the televisions and the cable "news" outlets today (thankfully) and therefore out of earshot when the hair on fire freakout happened with a story based on those famous "anonymous sources" leaked that President Obama was ready to sign off on a $3 Trillion debt reduction deal with no increases in revenue. IEEEEE!!! Run into the streets with torches and pitchforks! Obama is selling out the poor! We knew it! He's not going to raise taxes! IEEEE!...

I found out when one of my faithful readers sent me an email with a link taking me to the Washington Post article and it's ridiculous first paragraph (emphasis mine):

President Obama and top House Republicans are deep in negotiations over a far-reaching plan to save $3 trillion over the next decade through sharp cuts in agency spending and politically painful changes to popular health and retirement programs, but without any immediate increase in taxes, Democratic congressional leaders reported Thursday.

Step away from the keyboard and take a breath. And think logically.

Why on earth would President Obama, while in a position of negotiating power as can be proven by poll after poll, just decide to give up on tax revenue increases when he and the administration have stated unequivocally that any part of a "grand bargain" would have to include tax revenues?

After reading the article, it sounds like a fake story designed to sabotage talks and put President Obama on the defensive since he's been getting favorable poll numbers on this issue. No one is being quoted, no one is taking ownership of these rumors, yet everyone is asking about it. Funny that.

According to my reader, he heard Oregon Congressman Pete DeFazio on the Thom Hartmann Show today tell Hartmann that Jared Bernstein had said the White House is catering to the independent voters who are worried mostly about the deficit, so there will be some cuts to "The Big Three," namely Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security "because Obama doesn't care where the money comes from." Of course, DeFazio wasn't at that meeting, and frankly, though I like DeFazio, that story sounds like a bowl full of shit to me.

News to DeFazio and anyone else not paying attention: the White House already has the independent vote. Independents don't trust the GOP led House in Congress.

Since the beginning of these talks, there has never been a time when the President or any of the White House spokesmen have ever denied that a grand bargain would include looking at restructuring Medicare and Social Security to strengthen them for future generations without making cuts to benefits. How this is interpreted at cuts is beyond me. Does cutting money to Medicare (like the ACA did by $500 billion in terms of fraud and abuse) equal automatic cuts in benefits?

From teabaggers to firebaggers, how does anyone know that this is the super secret "Obama wants to be Reagan" position without details? And how do you assume that position when everything you've heard from the White House is contrary to that line of thinking? When the fact that anything that would resemble trying to pass $3 Trillion in cuts with no revenue increases would never, ever pass in Congress?

But hey, this story did the job that it was supposed to. It filled another news cycle on a stalled story and caused the collective freakout of the MSM, the professional left, the Democratic politicians in Congress and the Twitterverse. It took the beltway insiders by storm. It caused President Obama to call a meeting of Democratic leaders of Congress - all based on a rumor.

Who's Attacking Bachmann?!

Hey, Republicans. Hey, Conservatives. Hey, Teabaggers. Before accusing liberals of being scared soooo of Michele Bachmann that they feel the need to attack her in the press with this migraine story, maybe you should look at who broke the story.

The Daily Caller is a news website based in Washington, D.C., United States with a focus on politics, original reporting, breaking news, and YouTube videos, founded by journalist and political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010.

So as usual, please get your facts straight before assuming your loopy Queen was attacked by the left. In other words, shut the fuck up.

Mitt Romney Doesn't Know How Video Works...

...or else he'd probably try not contradicting himself at such a dramatic rate.

Mitt Romney, June 3rd, 2011: "I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course," Romney said. "But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing."

And there's video to verify his quote.

Mitt Romney, July 18th, 2001, just 6½ weeks later: "...I support reasonable standards. … Do I support the EPA? In much of its mission yes, but in some of its mission no. The EPA getting into carbon footprints, and… [APPLAUSE] I think we may have made a mistake, we have made a mistake is what I believe, in saying that the EPA should regulate carbon emissions. I don’t think that was the intent of the original legislation, and I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies."

And there's video to verify his quote.

What happened between June 3rd and July 18th that made Mitt Romney hedge his original statement?

Rush Limbaugh took Mitt Romney to task today for saying he believes in man-made global warming. After playing the clip of Romney’s comments, Rush said, “Bye, bye nomination. Another one down.”

Now, technically, are Romney's two statements different? Yes. But are they significantly linked? Of course.

If you believe greenhouse gases are in fact causing the earth to warm, causing oceans to rise, causing weather patterns to become more and more severe, causing natural disasters like tornadoes and hurricanes to become fiercer and more frequent as a result, then the "harm to our bodies" may come in the form of houses crashing down on us or hurricanes flooding out towns and causing mass drowning, and not a conflation between "pollutants and greenhouse gases."

Romney knows this and is trying to make it all nuance-y to walk back his statement (his correct statement) that man contributes to climate change, but hey, Mitt's gotta keep his GOP masters happy, right?

Herman Cain? Seriously?

Is this what passes for a serious politician in the eyes of the Tea Party, or whoever is actually donating money to Herman Cain?

At the beginning, he seemed like just another in a long line of wannabe candidates committing silly gaffes like confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution while touting Constitutional tenets. But here we are, further on down the line from his initial foray into the world of American politics for his humble pizza mogul beginnings, and it would seem the more we know about Herman Cain's positions, the more we can categorize them, and him, as troubling to say the least.

White-knuckling the Constitution while agreeing with religious discrimination is disturbing.

Presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Sunday sided with communities that want to ban mosques, saying Americans have a right to oppose the construction of places of Islamic worship.

..."Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state," Cain said Sunday. "They're objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws," Cain said of the opponents.

When asked if his beliefs constitute discrimination, Cain disagreed, saying: "I am willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists. That's what I'm saying."

Well, the Constitution doesn't literally guarantee separation, but as we can obviously tell, Cain is by far not a Constitutional scholar. And sure, he's just looking out for terrorists because you know, they're all Muslim. (Please omit Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczynski, Britian's Robert Cottage and David Jackson, need I go on?)

Still, separation of church and state hasn't been what Cain's advocated in the past.

Repeatedly over the last several years, Cain has spoken out in support of letting local, state and federal government be used to promote Christianity. At a recent Tea Party rally, Cain angrily declared, “It was during the Fifties that the United States Congress voted to add ‘one nation under God’ with liberty and justice for all, because we are a God-fearing Christian nation!”

Well, what is it? Are we a Christian nation or do we believe in religious separation when it comes to politics? And this is after Cain has stated he wouldn't appoint Muslims to his Cabinet posts or federal judgeships should he become President. I suppose he'll need to reread his precious Constitution to refresh his memory on the No Religious Test clause.

Oh, and should we mention Cain thinks it's a good idea to have a Great Wall of Chine type of fence, complete with an alligator-filled moat as a deterrent to border immigration? Or that President Obama isn't a real black man? The more Harman Cain opens his mouth, the more he amazing us with jaw-dropping quips. And the more he reveals himself to be an unserious candidate despite Tea Party support.

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.

Sometimes You Can't Combat The Stupid

No matter how hard you try, there's no way to combat the amount of stupid in this country. I say that after making a dumb mistake. I replied to a stupid person's comment on this week's YouTube video of President Obama's weekly address. I should have known better. But it was a sincere effort to supply information - unfortunately, there's no amount of facts and truth that can appease the hatred.

Here's what initially got me started (not going to bother acknowledging grammatical errors):

berserker1776: "this is starting to feel like a banana republic ..... Ive been chasing cave men in Iraq for 27 months, almost got blown up rightfully so, i mean if occupier where patroling I-5 in california id try to blow them up too. mr. president, you are nevergoing to get my vote, my familly voted for youand they are disgusted with you. thanks for your part in fast in furiouse that led to the death of us border agents, and thanks for working to take our guns at home .... im going to go read my bible sir"

I responded with a general comment:

Broadway Carl: Reading the comments here thus far, I'm actually appalled at some of the responses. You'd think everything was all fine and dandy on January 19, 2009 but all went to hell on January 20th, 2009. And maybe some of you truly believe that for one bizarre reason or another. But the complaints I'm reading? Come on now.

Iraq? Call me crazy but I thought that started about 8 or 9 years ago. Bank bailout? Yeah, I remember that summer... of 2008.

And you can thank President Obama for restructuring TARP so that the banks would actually pay that $700 BILLION back that Henry Paulson and George W. Bush initially gave away with no strings attached.

Some of you really need to take a step back and actually see what happened before being so quick to blame someone for WHATEVER REASON you might have.

Of course to me, "WHATEVER REASON" is thinly veiled racism. I have little doubt that these kinds of vitriolic rants would be half as angry if we had someone in the White House who wasn't categorized for the last three years as a terrorist loving, Kenyan born, Manchurian candidate, Socialist, Marxist, Communist Antichrist. Oh, and he's black too. He's not a "real American."

The problem in commenting on YouTube is the limited characters allowed and it seems you can no longer include links to back up your information or provide a longer explanation. But it wasn't long before berserker1776 responded. And now I'm getting email notifications from YouTube telling me stupid people responded to my comment.

berserker1776: after 3 years in office the man has accomplished zero of his promises. and after 3 years the wars are now his wars so even if a war is not a war like libya, we have robots to send in to drop love bombs. this president is acting like adolph hitler, he says he doesn't need congress to go to libya, well why have a us flag lets get a UN flag on all our uniforms this is mass insanity. we are not free, and we are loosing everything at home AMERICA WHEN WILL YOU CARE? WHEN YOU HOMELESS?

...Sigh... I opened up a can of stupid. But hey, with "1776" in his handle to show his patriotism, he can't be all bad.

My initial reaction was to respond, which is when I came across the "no links" errors, so I took a step back, calmed down and decided to forget the notion of replying. It's not worth the time to slam my head against a brick wall of idiocy when I'm never going to convince the wall anyway. But what I wanted to say was this:

I don't know what planet you live on, but on my planet January 20, 2009 through July 16, 2011 is actually 2½ years, not three years. And as far as accomplishing "zero of his promises" you might want to visit this site that is keeping tabs on promises kept, 148 and counting. As far the wars are concerned, he said he'd draw down in Iraq, and he has; he said he'd escalate in Afghanistan, and he has; he said he'd surge troops in order to complete the dismantling of Al-Qaeda and then bring them home, which he's doing; he said he'd capture or kill Obama bin Laden, and he has. Just add those to the "Promises Kept" column. As far as Libya is concerned, you can say it's debatable whether the President violated the War Powers Act, but saying he's acting like Hitler is just plain silly. I hope you were just as vocal when President Bush declared war on Iraq under false pretenses.
Also please point me in the directions of the sources you're using for your claims that Obama policies led to the death of border agents and that he's trying to take your guns away. Good luck with bible reading.

I did get a word of encouragement, however:

fonkymaster: Finally! A rational person has appeared! It's super effective!

But it wasn't long before others chimed in:

JUDALATION: so since the president does one good thing we should forget the REAL BIG BAD THINGS HE HAS DONE?He has KEPT Guantanimo, Kept drilling offshore, Kept the Patriot act, Kept tax cuts for Millionaires, kept soldiers in Iraq, Kept Dont ask dont tell, and passed weak regulations on banks, He has surrounded himself with wallstreet people in his cabinet. He is to the right of Bush on Immigration and has deported more illegals than bush. He is AGAINST GAY MARRAGE,He racked + debt than bush

AthenasConquest: This is Hilarious Obama spent more money than all presidents combined.Now he pretends to arrest the problem blatant spending he created.

Well, it's like a crack in the dyke of stupid. I just don't have enough fingers to plug the holes.

Should I go into the fact that Congress voted practically unanimously to defund the closing of Gitmo? That Obama extended the Bush tax cuts in order to also provide and extra 13 months of unemployment insurance and that the tax cut extension wasn't just for millionaires, but for everyone? That he repealed DADT? That enforcing immigration rules, including deportation, is what the government is supposed to do?; but if you look at the numbers, deportation has been on a steady incline for the last nine years. Should I go into the fact that while Obama is personally against gay marriage, that hasn't stopped him from being the most progressive president when it comes to gay rights that all other president combined?

Sometimes you just have to save your energy, pick your battles and shake your head as you walk away from the stupid. At least on YouTube.

Must Reads

Michelle Goldberg: Marcus Bachmann’s Gay ‘Cure’

Dennis G., Balloon Juice: How The Game Is Played

Post Tenebras Lux: Where At Least I Know I'm Free

Extreme Liberal: Frank Rich Crosses The Line Into Fantasyland – Let’s Play The Blame Game!

Leisa Simone: Confessions of An ‘Obamabot’

BooMan: I'm Almost Sad for the Tea Partiers

Russell Simmons: Stop Cryin' and Pay More Taxes!

Adam Serwer: Laughably Bogus Poll Tries to `Prove’ Obama is Losing Jewish Support

TiMT: Say It Loud: "Current GOP Leaders Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion"

Ian Boudreau: Just One MFer's View

Monte Bute: Dayton's Critics Should Remember That Politics is The Art of the Possible

Paul Krugman: Getting To Crazy

Rick Ungar: Fake Democrats Lose In Wisconsin Primaries While Exposing Fake Financial Concerns Of Scott Walker

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 16, 2011

Securing Our Fiscal Future

Michele's Bridge to Nowhere

POSTED BY JHW22

Republicans like to say Obama is three years into his Presidency, so using their math, Michele Bachmann is one year into the new Congress -- the Create Jobs Congress. And thus far, she has sponsored seven bills in one year. Yep, seven. And none are titled "Job Creating Bill". From the way she talks, you'd think she has worked tirelessly (like the Founding Fathers on slavery) to create jobs. Nope. Seven bills. None of them job creators. Well, unless you think cutting taxes is a job creator and if you do, well, you don't need to be reading this. Or unless you think building a bridge is a job creator. (In fact, it is a job creator which is why I support federal infrastructure funding. More on that later.)

To be fair to her work ethic, she has co-sponsored 92 bills this year. But that's not really leadership, is it? I mean when you sponsor 7 and co-sponsor 92, ya look like a follower. In fact, she has only sponsored 38 bills ever. Heck, Obama sponsored 121 in only two years -- he sponsored at least one bill for every four bills he co-sponsored when he was in the Senate. In two years.

Now, about that one bill of hers, her one of her many, many (seven) bills that is a job creator. Its goal is

To facilitate a proposed project in the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River, and for other purposes.

Sounds a little like earmarking to me. Hey, she did the proper thing by filing a bill and submitting it to committees. Heck, she even attached a Constitutional Authority Statement. But, still, when someone uses 1/7th of her bill-sponsoring time on a local district project, it's an earmark, because an earmark is an earmark is an earmark. Well, except when it's not. And this one is not.

This bill is not an earmark because there is no money attached to it. The bridge is estimated to cost between $334 and $373 million dollars. (Remember that other bridge that was going to cost the feds about that much?) But all THIS bill does it get permission to build it because it violates some environmental concerns. She's just asking for the green light from the federal government to be able to later ask for funding for it. So, because they can't build it, there's no need to ask for money and that means she can stick to her pledge to

not seek any earmarks this year [emphasis mine]

It seems rather easy to not seek earmarks when you're not really seeking much in general. I mean seven sponsored bills is an easy way to avoid asking for earmarks. Especially when the one you REALLY want earmarks for, isn't approved for funding yet.

Or IS it? I guess it depends on what your def... oops, sorry. Anyway, DID she avoid earmark requests for this bridge? Well, yes and no. She didn't ask for earmarks this year or even over the last two years. What she did do is send out letters requesting grant consideration for federal funding in 2009 in the ... wait for it ... stimulus!! Yes, the OBAMA stimulus. You know, the one she despises and said hasn't created jobs. She sent letters on behalf of her bridge to ask for funding from the very stimulus she spoke out against before, during and after the votes.

Is anyone really surprised? I mean the gal has a lot of "choots pa", after all.

Now, I was actually for the Bridge to Nowhere before I was still for it. It made sense to me considering the need. The problem was that it became a political football and people lost sight of the need. And, instead, they built a road to nowhere with the money. A bridge would have been the better use.

And I support more federal funding for bridges, light rail, broadband, alternate energy source conduits. I am a Democrat (although I was recently told I am not one because I don't agree with the Angry Left and I was told this by a woman threatening to vote third party so yep, I AM a Democrat). I love when the federal government employs people to make things people will use. I don't care where those things are as long as people work to make them and they make lives easier where they are.

So when a "Constitutional Conservative" who believes

that many of our problems result from the federal government's insatiable — and unconstitutional — grab for power and money

actually makes a money and power grab for a bridge in the middle of nowhere while condemning the very funding source she begs to be a part of, I think to myself, "How's that conservativey, hypocrisy thing workin for ya'?"

Oh, wrong Conservative hypocrite. It's hard to keep those two straight.

President Obama's Press Conference - July 15, 2011

...on the debt ceiling/debt reduction talks.

Charles Krauthammer Is Missing Something

Today's op-ed from Charles Krauthammer has one craaaazy headline: Call Obama's Bluff

Hasn’t the White House leaked that he’s prepared to raise the Medicare age or change the cost-of-living calculation?

Anonymous talk is cheap. Leaks are designed to manipulate. Offers are floated and disappear.

Say it, Mr. President. Give us one single structural change in entitlements. In public.

Now obviously, when in the course of negotiations, it's a pretty dumb idea to float your ideas in public as far as specifics are concerned. And of course, Mr. Krauthammer knows this - surely he's not that stupid. He's just trying to shoehorn his perspective into his piece. But apparently, Mr. Krauthammer hasn't been listening when it comes to statements in public.

Obama signaled at his press conference today that changes to Social Security could be a bargaining chip in a deficit reduction deal with Republicans – something many Democrats have staunchly opposed.

“The reason to do Social Security is to strengthen Social Security to make sure that those benefits are there for seniors in the out-years,” Obama said. “ And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.”

There's your public statement, Mr. Krauthammer, right in the middle of a news conference, for which the President has taken a barrage of hits from the fringe left that would rather primary him, to the Democratic members of the House. But no matter. He continues:

The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It’s time to act. Time to call Obama’s bluff.

A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger.

Well, President Obama has already stated he will accept no short-term deal. The time for that passed, by Mr. Krauthammer's calculation, about 5 months ago. And his premise sits on the notion that the GOP would work in good faith to "work on something larger" and not use the borrowed time to drag their feet until the next debt ceiling increase vote all the way to November, 2012. Past performance has dictated such an outcome. But let's see what Mr. Krauthammer's proposal on "something larger" is:

Republicans should call for urgent negotiations on tax reform along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles commission that, in one option, strips out annually $1.1 trillion of deductions, credits and loopholes while lowering tax rates across the board to a top rate of 23 percent. The president says he wants tax reform, doesn’t he? Well, Mr. President, here are five months to do so.

And that's where Mr. Krauthammer's fist shaking falls apart. He is still under the impression that the Republicans are actually serious about debt reduction.

From the very beginning the Republican negotiators have stated unequivocally that any revenue increase is  a non-starter, including closing tax loopholes, streamlining deductions and even an expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Krauthammer assumes the Republicans will automatically change their mind if only that stubborn, mule-headed Obama would accept a short-term deal to work out the kinks of these reforms in the meantime. ...Please...

And taking a jab at the President as a "born-again budget balancer" when St. Ronnie tripled the debt and George W. Bush doubled it in their respective terms in office is just comical. Look at your own party's White House leadership history when it comes to deficit spending, Mr. Krauthammer. Don't try crying crocodile tears now.

Krauthammer ignores the fact that the supposed leader of these negotiations on the GOP side, House Speaker John Boehner, doesn't even have full support of his own members, where somewhere between 60 and 70 Tea Party House members have stated they wouldn't vote for a debt ceiling increase under ANY circumstances, which means Boehner needs Democratic votes in order to pass ANYTHING. To get those votes he needs to make it palatable. It's called "compromise." So please spare me the Republican superiority. The current crop of Krauthammer's party are the ones who decided to tie spending cuts to the debt ceiling increase in the first place. To cry foul now and project that it's President Obama who is holding the debt ceiling hostage is completely preposterous.

And then he ends with this kicker:

If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term, small-government, Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.

Ah, the cause. Not to save the economy, but to win back the White House. So ultimately, Krauthammer's suggestion of calling the president's bluff is a political ploy to implode the economy in order to gain traction in winning back the Presidency, apparently not aware of polls showing that if there is a US default, the American people will blame the Republicans in Congress before the only adult in the room occupying the White House. How will that bode for the 2012 elections up and down ticket? It is to laugh.

The President Has What Now?!

Michele Bachmann says President Obama has a lot of... a lot of... uh... "chootspa"? Is that a disease?



Does her religion forbid her from using the Yiddish pronunciation?  ...Oy vey!

The Stupidity! It Burns!!!

Behold, the Mr. Bean of the House of Representatives, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa, IOWA for fuck's sake!) getting together with Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert (now that's a trifecta of idiocy) claiming that there is no risk of default.

WARNING: Watching this video will increase your blood pressure, cause you to lose some brain cells (and not in a good way) and possibly induce stroke-like symptoms. If you smell toast, immediately cease viewing.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Who Are You Going To Believe?

Day 4 of the debt ceiling talks ended today, with differing acounts.

According to Luke Russert via Twitter:


So did Obama storm out? Who are you going to believe? The guy who's been at the table constantly looking for a deal or the guy who had already walked out of previous meetings and hasn't budged in his ideology?

UPDATE: Jake Tapper weighs in.