DOWNLOADS: (224)

PLAYS: (2541)

Embed

MSNBC analyst and former Obama advisor David Axelrod may not have been too happy with Rachel Maddow for her response to President Obama putting Social Security cuts on the table with his budget proposal, but she was exactly right here. The White House seems to want a fight with the left, because if what they were really worried was solvency of the system, they'd put raising the income cap on the table.

After Axelrod did a terrible job of attempting to explain why the administration actually believes this is somehow a good idea and claiming that what they're worried about is preserving the programs and economic growth, Maddow responded.

MADDOW: I believe you that he believes in his budget, but I think that if what he really believes in is Social Security benefit cuts, he's going to feel the ground beneath his feet give way. And I think this is the start that ends badly on the Democratic party (crosstalk).

After Axelrod tried to pretend that progressives “want to do nothing” and just leave the programs exactly as they are now, Maddow shot back.

MADDOW: Nobody's saying do nothing. That's not fair. Nobody's saying do... nobody's saying do nothing. First of all, Social Security isn't the problem with the deficit. Second of all, there is a way to fix it that has nothing to do with starving old people now or in the immediate future.

You have people pay more. And then your system is solved. If you wanted to approach it toward just solvency, that would be one of the things that's on the table. For the Democrats to not put that on the table and say it's all about solvency and not the politics, I just don't buy it.

He walked back some of his previous comments and brought up Medicare and Medicaid solvency, rather than just sticking to the issue of Social Security. He could have defended other portions of the budget such as spending on education and research and development. But after admitting that he's aware that the Republicans are already attacking the Social Security cuts, Axelrod said let's see what their position is in the coming weeks and months -- when they attempt to defend their “indefensible” budget.

Maddow was again correct in her response when she told him that their position in the upcoming weeks and months was going to be exactly where they are now. I'd say you can take that one to the bank. Good for her for calling the administration out for how cynical the politics of this move has been.

DOWNLOADS: (151)

PLAYS: (1614)

Embed

Republican strategist Karl Rove engaged in some friendly -- if not tone deaf -- banter with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile on Sunday, joking that she owed him some "fried chicken."

During a panel discussion on ABC, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan noted that many conflicts within the Republican Party would be healed after a strong presidential candidate emerged.

"That was Bill Clinton after Walter Mondale lost, after Jimmy Carter lost," Brazile pointed out. "We had a dynamic governor who was reform minded, who took those reform issues and brought them into the national forefront. He really helped recharge the Democratic Party."

"But you know, the Republican Party is out to lunch," she added, turning to Rove. "I watched CPAC, Charles -- I mean, Karl... Charles was former friend."

"I thought I was a current friend," Rove laughed.

"You're always a friend," Brazile replied. "But you owe me some chili."

"You owe me some fried chicken," Rove joked with his best Southern drawl.

"Well, I saved your life with malaria once," the Democratic strategist recalled.

"Well, yes you did," Rove admitted.

"We go back a long way," Brazile quipped before moving on to point out that the Republican Party "continues to reject the majority of the American people."

"They don't want to be associated with a party that talks down to them, that's condescending, that attacks their rights and them calls them victims," she observed.

While Brazile did not appear to be offended by Rove's remark, certain foods like fried chicken and watermelon have a history of been used to stereotype and slur African-Americans.

"A bucket of fried chicken may suggest nasty racial stereotypes by virtue of its unwholesome image... as much as by its particular history as a plantation staple," Jesse Bering explained in a 2011 column for Slate. "As an unhealthy and inexpensive food, fried chicken invokes images of poverty, ignorance, sloth, and other racist associations."

DOWNLOADS: (131)

PLAYS: (878)

Embed

A Fox News guest on Tuesday warned that a Democratic plan to expand gun background checks would allow the Ku Klux Klan to control black people and keep firearms out of the hands of women who had an abortion.

Conservative columnist Star Parker told Fox News host Sean Hannity that she had created a web advertisement linking KKK lynchings to gun control because "the Democrats in the Senate are insistent on passing background check laws."

"I thought it appropriate to remind Americans that we've been here before," she explained. "How is it that 5 percent of the population, the KKK -- six million people in a country of more than 100 million -- how is it that 5 percent were able to wreak havoc over 4 million new citizens, the former slaves? And one of the ways is because they systematically -- the Democrats in power, the Democrats in political power in the South -- systematically passed gun control laws in black code so that blacks would not be able to exercise their right to bear arms."

"Do you think that is the motive of some people now?" Hannity wondered.

"Come on, these are same Democrats that gave us Obamacare," Parker insisted. "Let me tell you something about this background check discussion that we don't get to ask about, how do we know what those qualifiers are going to be?"

"Because they're saying if you've had any mental problem in your background, well, does that mean that their going to ask questions about abortion?" she added. "Because people who have had abortion, according to studies, have a tendency to have mental challenges later on."

As Media Matters noted on Tuesday, a 2008 American Psychological Association task force found "no credible evidence" that "having a single abortion causes mental health problems."

From Majority FM: Jonathan Alter On His Calls For Democrats To Embrace Entitlement Cuts:

Blommberg View Jonathan Alter, argued that cutting entitlements will guard investment in discretionary spending, guess how Sam felt about that argument? Sam and Jonathan debated whether or not CPI was a cut and agreed that the wealthy should pay more taxes...

You can read Alter's article here: Why Democrats Must Get Smart on Entitlements.

It's a long and pretty infuriating interview for anyone who has time to listen to all of it. Alter pretty much personifies everything we've seen wrong with our beltway Villagers who want to insist that liberals are being unreasonable and don't want to do anything about the long term sustainability of our social safety nets, which is not true. Seder did a nice job of taking apart his arguments and the constant false equivalency game he played throughout the interview, which was bad enough that at one point he was comparing liberals who want to protect those programs to Grover Norquist.

Alter based most of his arguments during this interview off of the assumption that if Democrats just agree to cut these programs now, that will stop Republicans from trying to make more cuts in discretionary spending in the future and that if President Obama finally agreed to some "grand bargain" that it would keep Republicans from demagoguing the issue in upcoming elections. As Sam rightfully noted, it didn't stop them from doing it in past elections and there is no reason to believe that Republicans still won't be demanding more cuts.

I also thought Alter was going to blow a gasket when heaven forbid Seder suggested lowering the Social Security retirement age and increasing benefits to take care of our unemployment problem in the United States. It would really be nice to see Alter have to face this same type of scrutiny every time he comes on the air and is portrayed as representing the left side of the aisle.

And I'm sure it will come up here again, but I hate the use of the word "entitlements" but that's what Alter called them in his article and in the segment above. They're earned benefits and social insurance programs and they are designed to keep people out of poverty, but it's not ridiculous to take note of the fact that if you turn any of them into a poverty program only, they won't have a political constituency left to fight to keep them in place and they'll wind up being demonized like welfare has been.

DOWNLOADS: (315)

PLAYS: (3621)

Embed

Chris Matthews actually tried to get a coherent response out of now ex-chairman of the astroturf FreedomWorks about why Republicans claim to be the party of small government, but they can't seem to keep themselves from inserting government into women's reproductive health or from hating on gay people and insisting that they can't get married. Armey's response was to basically fling as much poo as he could find in the direction of the other party and say "but the Democrats...":

Armey acknowledged there had been several “foolish mistakes” the GOP made during the campaign season, including Mitt Romney’s remarks about the 47%. He insisted the party was trying to “rediscover its relationship” with constitutional limitations on big government and fiscal responsibility.

Host Chris Matthews asked why, if the Republicans are really the party of limited government, does the party have its candidates trying to get rid of contraception, and outlaw gay marriage and abortion. “Why don’t you stay out of people’s lives if you really wanted limited government?” asked Matthews.

The former lawmaker insisted that there were simply a few bad apple candidates, just like the Democrats have “had a few rather strange people,” too. When Matthews pointed out the GOP platform includes items about personhood and contraception, Armey insisted the Democrats also have “unusual” and “strange” items in their platform.

“Name one,” Matthews challenged.

“Homosexual marriage, all right. Abortion on demand,” Armey shot back. “These issues are in your platform. You don’t think it’s strange for these issues to be in your platform pointing in one direction, but you consider it outrageous that the other party has the same issues pointing in the another direction in their platform.”

Matthews responded, “The Democratic party generally supports Roe vs. Wade. It does not support ‘abortion on demand,’” adding the issue of gay marriage is going to be decided state by state, not nationally.

Matthews tried to get Armey to dish on FreedomWorks a bit more, now that he's taken the $8 million golden parachute of a retirement they paid so they could be rid of him, but Armey didn't have much to say on that front and was still trying to pretend that they're some grassroots movement -- and not a rebranding effort to get the Bush-stink off the word Republican. Driftglass has more on that and Dick Armey from back in 2010 here.

DOWNLOADS: (161)

PLAYS: (749)

Embed

It was nice to hear at least one person in Congress talk about the dangers we're facing with these so-called "fiscal cliff" negotiations and that is this moment of panic being used to ram a bad deal through that includes things like cuts to Social Security. Rep. Keith Ellison appeared on Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC and explained why he could not vote for any deal that doesn't protect the working class and our social safety nets and that "if you're talking about cutting Social Security, I'm not with that program."

I'd feel a lot better if I was hearing the same thing from Harry Reid. It might be a good time to remind him not to give away the store to McConnell and Boehner in the next few days.

Update: Here's more from Digby on these negotiations: Fiscal cliff notes 12/28 and she included some additional contact info for Reid:

So Reid and McConnell are supposed to try to work out some deal that will pass both houses and if they don't the president wants an up or down vote on extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than 250k a year and Unemployment Insurance. He's pretty much daring the GOP to filibuster in the Senate --- and/or Boehner to take the heat for not allowing a vote on middle class tax cuts. [...]

Keep in mind that if Reid and McConnell come up with something, the likely outcome is that Democrats will have to be the majority in both houses to pass the deal. That means most of the Republicans will be allowed to vote against spending cuts and tax increases while most of the Democrats will be expected to vote for spending cuts and tax increases. Despite the fact that the taxes were scheduled to go up anyway, this will be called a Democratic victory. Why, Villagers might even bestow upon them their greatest accolade and call them "grown-ups."

I think the sequester will be taken care of --- nobody's going to allow the defense industry to lose even a penny. Nobody. Either break off the middle class tax cuts now as the president proposes as his fallback plan or let everyone vote for tax cuts after the first and then allow the debt ceiling games to begin. (It's got to happen some time.) I see no reason to capitulate on spending at this point. If that's what it takes, go over the cliff. Why should Democrats become the tax collectors for the austerity state?

If you are of a mind to call Senator Reid's office and leave him a message, you can do so here. (And be sure tell him to keep Kent Conrad and his big "ideas" off the table. Conrad's the lamest of ducks and has no business involving himself at this point.)

Reid's office:
Phone: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327
Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) - Restricted to calls originating from area codes 775 and 702

DOWNLOADS: (265)

PLAYS: (1596)

Embed

Melissa Harris-Perry was on vacation this weekend, but I was very happy to see her guest host, Joy Reid and her panel members go after Democrats and President Obama for pretending that this god awful proposal for chained CPI would not be a cut in Social Security benefits for our seniors who can least afford it.

Sadly we don't have the opportunity for a group of actual liberals to debate policy as we saw here very often and are usually treated to our millionaire beltway Villagers talking about how we must extract a pound of flesh from the most vulnerable among us to balance our budget on the cable news programs instead. This was definitely a welcomed change of pace from what we're treated to far too often on MSNBC, where we've got way too many of them pushing for more austerity and cuts to our social safety nets, because heaven forbid we can't have taxes on members of the beltway cocktail party circuit going up.

Harris-Perry guest: Potential change to Social Security ‘absolutely a cut’:

On Melissa Harris-Perry on Sunday, panelists discussed the fact that Social Security was on the table in fiscal cliff negotiations — which has “progressives calling foul,” said guest host Joy Reid.

She discussed a proposed plan to divorce Social Security benefits from cost of living increases and tie them instead to the “chained consumer price index,” which assumes that people will buy cheaper alternatives when products become expensive.

House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claims that such a shift would not be a benefit cut and would strengthen the program, but others claim it would inevitably lead to reduced benefits.

Reid goes on, “As we await a [fiscal cliff] deal, one of the most looming questions we face is just what aspects of Social Security are on the table?”

Recently, 102 Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) requesting that a shift to chained CPI be removed from consideration.

As they noted, that got some real push back from The Nation's Richard Kim and their other guests, Bob Herbert and Raul Reyes.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (187)

PLAYS: (1082)

Embed

Just in case anyone didn't think that Michelle Malkin's display on Fox & Friends was quite enough with them carrying water for Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, they decided to bring in for good measure right wing rag The Daily Caller co-founder, and heir to the Swanson food fortune, Tucker Carlson, to lay the blame for the school shooting at Sandy Hook at the feet of President Obama, Democrats and Hollywood liberals. Because we all know that guns don't kill people, people who watch violent movies do.

Tucker Carlson: Obama Ignores Violent Media Because ‘Hollywood’ Donates To The Democratic Party:

The Daily Caller’sTucker Carlson appeared on Fox & Friends this Saturday and slammed President Obama for refusing to acknowledge the media’s role in our violent culture for fear of losing “Hollywood” donations. “Hollywood is one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party,” Carlson said, and because of this, the Obama administration ignores the violent media.

Host Dave Briggs asked Carlson if he thought Hollywood was “hypocritical” in speaking out against gun violence but never admitting their contribution to the problem. Co-host Alisyn Camerota suggested Hollywood is a “powerful lobby” that “bears some responsibility for the culture of gun violence”. According to Carlson, the main question Hollywood should be asking is whether “watching violence movies” and “playing violent video games” affects children. Carlson admitted “we don’t know” whether the media desensitizes people to violence but he believes “common sense suggests maybe.”

Carlson lamented that the role of media in America’s violent culture hasn’t been examined fully. He underscored his point that the reason for this is because Hollywood makes large contributions to Democratic to Democratic candidates:

“This is something Hollywood should be taking a close look at it. There ought to be some soul-searching. There ought to be, in the words of the left, some corporate responsibility here. And yet, you do not hear members of Congress on the Democratic side suggest this because they’re taking hundreds of millions of dollars from Hollywood.”

I'm not going to defend children being allowed to watch violent movies or play violent video games, but when it comes to controlling what adults watch, I guess Tucker suddenly doesn't like that "freedom" he and his fellow wingnuts are always railing about. Sadly no one bothered to ask Carlson why people in other countries manage to watch these same movies or play these same games, and somehow they don't have the same level of gun violence that we do here in the United States.

I'd also like to know just what they think any Democrats are supposed to do about what movies Hollywood puts out there. They seem to love the 2nd Amendment, but think it's perfectly acceptable to throw out the 1st if it suits their political agenda on any given day of the week, and as long as it means protecting the gun manufacturers in America and their profits.

DOWNLOADS: (105)

PLAYS: (259)

Embed

From this week's Fox News Sunday, Bloody Bill Kristol tells host Chris Wallace that "everything should be on the table" and we need some "serious hearings" on gun control in the United States after this tragic shooting at the elementary school in Connecticut this week, as long as that doesn't include anything different than what the Republicans support already. He's right there with the more guns will keep us safer crowd here, no matter how he's trying to spin this.

They can have all the hearings they want, but if our politicians are going to continue to be beholden to the nut job running the NRA right now, nothing's going to change and Kristol knows it. That didn't stop him from trying to pretend like he thinks the Republicans should make some meaningful compromises on the issue of gun control as he did here:

WALLACE: Bill, let’s look at this from the Republican point of view. Will Republicans -- should Republicans change or modify their strong opposition to gun control, especially -- not the right to bear arms but, especially on the question of these weapons of mass destruction? You know, as I say, the handgun that could fire five bullets in a second, the magazines 100 rounds. Should Republicans consider giving on that issue?

KRISTOL: I think Republicans and everyone else should take a serious look at what might work. And I think the speaker could well ask the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, but hold serious hearings, about what would work. Don’t do something symbolic like the assault weapons ban, which did no good and made everyone feel good and ended up evaporating and couldn’t be sustained even in a Democratic -- wasn’t restored when the Democrats controlled everything in 2009, 2010.

So I’m totally open to having serious -- and there’s a lot of social science research on gun control. I don’t think it’s very favorable to most efforts of gun control, and I think -- but everything has to be on the table, too. Is it sensible to have gun- free zones? Maybe elementary -- maybe the money would be better spent having security guards than having, you know, new background checks in a case where this -- the purchase of the guns in this case passed background checks.

Connecticut’s a pretty liberal state. I believe the Democratic Party controls all the branches of government in Connecticut. They chose not to ban the things we’re talking about, I guess, right? They could have, couldn’t they?

EASTON: State laws are useless. I mean, you can order things online now. I mean, it’s, sort of...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: He did buy them in the state...

KRISTOL: I’m just saying, let’s have an honest debate. Let’s have a debate about privacy laws and mental health. But I do think the Republican Party shouldn’t be in the position of saying you can’t even discuss this, and I think the speaker could easily ask, since they control one house of Congress -- Senator Reid could do this on the other side, and so they’d have serious hearings about the legal issues and the public policy issues.

DOWNLOADS: (195)

PLAYS: (1324)

Embed

Michael Moore continued making the rounds this Thursday on The Ed Schultz Show to discuss what's going on in Michigan with the passage of their union busting "right to work for less" law. Moore reiterated his disgust for what's happened to his home state, where the middle class was born. Apparently Moore would like to help do something about that though.

MOORE: A number of things are going to happen. First of all, the unions and the Democratic party there are going to use every legal means possible to obstruct this thing that they've done, which is against the will of the people. That's number one.

Number two, the Democratic Party of Michigan has got to run candidates who are going to win. And in the last two days I've spent a lot of time talking to friends and colleagues in Michigan, and we're going to put together our own search committee. We are going to recruit candidates who are going to win. We don't need to win all the seats. We just need to identify just a few. We're only behind by a few, a few seats, and remove those Republicans in 2014 and get someone to run for governor who's going to win.

You know, you had Verge on last night, he's great guy, Lansing mayor, but, you know, it's like the Republicans, they run somebody that wins. This is why they have both of these governorships. I think we need to run -- if I were the Michigan Democratic Party, I would be approaching beloved Democrats in the state of Michigan who the people would love -- a number of ex- Red Wings, for instance.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

MOORE: Denise Ilitch, from the Ilitch family that owns the Tigers and the Red Wings and Little Caesars. They're Democrats.

SCHULTZ: People that people like.

MOORE: They like them, and that family's a beloved business and the sports teams. I mean, why not run people, that the people like? That's what the Republicans have done -- they ran Schwarzenegger in California. they run -- they always run these people -- Reagan...

SCHULTZ: So you're hands-on to get good candidates.

MOORE: Absolutely and we've got to start that now, not next month or next year. That has to start right now. and we're starting it right now.

All I can say is I wish him and the state of Michigan luck with recruiting some winning candidates. Republicans have done so much damage already, it's hard to see a lot of it ever being turned back.