DOWNLOADS: (140)

PLAYS: (958)

Embed

It looks like Bill O'Reilly still isn't finished spreading the same lies he was telling when he had his meltdown on air with Alan Colmes last week, because he decided to devote his Talking Points Memo and the opening segment of his show this Monday to defending and repeating those same lies -- and as Media Matters noted, despite getting his facts wrong again, O'Reilly claimed his "righteous anger" elevated the conversation about the debt.

The only thing we see Bill-O "elevating" in this segment is his ego. We've already been through the litany of B.S. O'Reilly was shoveling in the previous post here, so I'm not going to rehash that, but my fellow contributor here at C&L, Ellen at NewsHounds took the time to break down the segment above and I'll share just a bit of that here: O’Reilly Justifes His Meltdown With Alan Colmes: I’m Looking Out For You:

You don’t need to be a psychologist or a body expert to figure out that Bill O’Reilly’s justifications tonight for his bullying attack on Alan Colmes last week are a lot of hooey. In fact, there was so much hooey, I’m not sure I can catch it all in one post. But for starters, there was the hooey that O’Reilly likened Colmes’ “lie” about federal spending cuts to the danger posed by Al Qaeda (which included the hooey that Colmes had his facts wrong in the first place), plus the hooey that O’Reilly attacked Colmes out of a public-spirited desire to draw attention to this big danger, plus O’Reilly’s "admission" that he shouldn’t have called Colmes a liar – even though he immediately afterward described Colmes as lying. And my favorite hooey: O’Reilly said he’s not in his job for money or fame, but to look out for us.

Sure he is. How could anyone ever get the idea that O'Reilly was just all about the money or fame? Go read the rest for more of Bill-O's hackery and the back and forth during the panel segment, and as she noted, Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams did nothing but suck up to O'Reilly and reassure his poor bruised ego that he's really just a nice guy, no matter how badly he treated Colmes the previous week. I don't know about anyone else, but watching those two during this segment reminded me of a couple of battered wives telling their abusive husband that they still love him.

DOWNLOADS: (78)

PLAYS: (215)

Embed

Fox & Friends hosted Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council and an advisor to President Obama on economic policy, to preview the president’s State of the Union address tonight. Although Sperling told them that the focus would be on jobs and strengthening the middle class, the Curvy Couch Crew responded by obsessing over cuts to “entitlements” and carping about spending. Boosting employment? Helping the middle class? They neatly avoided the whole subject.

Sperling, when asked for a “20-second preview” said the president would hone in on “what we can do, working together, bi-partisan way, to strengthen the middle class.” He added that “a stronger middle class, better educated, working, in manufacturing, innovation, entrepreneurship, small business, these are the things that drive further economic growth.” He said that the administration has made “a lot of progress since the deep recession of 2009” but that “we have a lot further to go on job creation, on bringing down the deficit, and investing in our people.”

The only discussion about jobs was Brian Kilmeade’s comment that unemployment has just gone up in “year five” of Obama’s presidency. Apparently, he and his co-hosts thought that was all the consideration the subject deserved. He moved on to cite a Fox News poll that found 83% of respondents think government has a “spending problem.” From there, he took a swipe at Nancy Pelosi for saying otherwise and “asked” if the White House agrees.

In my opinion, Sperling should have sidestepped and highlighted what was obviously a pre-planned gotcha question that had nothing to do with the State of the Union address. But, instead, Sperling fell right into the trap of framing cuts as the Big Issue and, even worse, threw Democratic Leader Pelosi under the bus by saying the Obama administration believes “you absolutely have to bring down spending” but “in a balanced way.” He touted how much has already been cut and that there are more cuts on the table.

But, of course, that wasn’t good enough. Steve Doocy griped, “You’ve had five years, why hasn’t this administration addressed fixing entitlements with the Republicans?”

When it was Gretchen Carlson’s turn, she said, “One of the big buzzwords” in the SOTU would be “investment, which is another word for 'stimulus.'” She sneered, “Is the president really going to ask this country for more stimulus money?” She didn’t seem to care about how the previous stimulus increased employment for millions of Americans.

Sperling brought it back to jobs. “Today, we have now created twice as many jobs in this recovery as happened under President Bush in the previous recovery, even though this recovery (sic) was far deeper. …The economy has created 500,000 manufacturing jobs, we haven’t seen that in over 20 years. So you are totally right to suggest we have a lot further to go. That’s why the president has a singular focus on the economy, on middle class jobs, and making more progress.”

Oops, time up. But even as the segment was closing, Kilmeade was changing the subject. “It’s just hard to believe that we’re gonna print more money in order to pull ourselves out of it.”

The hosts could have questioned whether President Obama’s policies would accomplish any of his job-creating, middle-class-strengthening goals. But they were so busy talking about spending, they never got there. Which suggests the Republicans have no plan for the middle class and that that’s what the hosts really didn’t want to talk about.

DOWNLOADS: (117)

PLAYS: (471)

Embed

Sen. Orrin Hatch continued the whining we've seen from Republicans over the fact that President Obama didn't immediately cave on these so-called "fiscal cliff" negotiations in this week's Republican weekly address. It seems someone needs to explain to the Senator what the definition of "bait and switch" is.

Sen. Hatch: Obama fiscal proposal 'classic bait and switch':

The top-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee accused President Obama of pulling a "bait and switch" this week with the administration's proposed deal to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff."

"What [Obama] proposed this week was a classic bait and switch on the American people—a tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on, billions of dollars in new stimulus spending and an unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in Saturday's weekly GOP address.

"Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall him asking for any of that during the presidential campaign. These ideas are so radical that they have already been rejected on a bipartisan basis by Congress."

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was dispatched to Capitol Hill to share Obama's plan with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) The deal included $1.6 trillion in tax hikes, $50 billion in economic stimulus spending and $400 billion in spending cuts. Republicans have demanded more severe spending cuts - including entitlement reform - to begin a discussion on raising taxes. Read on...

As Think Progress noted, Hatch's claim that President Obama did not ask for any of the items they proposed is just not true:

Obama’s proposal — which includes $1.6 trillion in increased taxes on the rich over the next decade, $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other social programs, $50 billion in stimulus spending to begin next year, and an end to current debt ceiling rules — is not new or radical: it reflects the very same same policies Obama advanced for years and promoted extensively on the campaign trail.

For instance, Obama’s FY 2013 budget — released in February 2012 — raised “an additional $1.7 trillion in revenue” and proposed $360 billion in savings from entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. (Comparatively, Simpson-Bowles called for $2.7 trillion revenue over 10 years, more than what Obama requested). Obama advocated for additional stimulative spending throughout the campaign, calling for a path “forward” that will “continue investing in education and infrastructure.”

Republicans are feigning shock that Obama is proposing to implement the very same policies that Americans voted for in November, as they seek to define his second term agenda and bolster their own negotiating position. Meanwhile, they have yet to offer their own detailed proposal to avert the cliff.

And as they noted in their update to the post, much of what President Obama proposed this week appeared in his 20-page plan, released in October. If there's any party that hasn't negotiated in good faith for years now, it's the Republicans.

DOWNLOADS: (122)

PLAYS: (672)

Embed

It seems House Minority Leader Eric Cantor, like his cohort John Boehner, is still living in fantasy-land when it comes to their ability to "repeal" the Affordable Care Act. Here he is on Fox this Monday, saying he wants "Obamacare" to be "on the table" during the upcoming deft and deficit negotiations.

Republican Leader Wants Deficit-Reducing Obamacare ‘On The Table’ In Debt Talks:

Echoing House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) recent op-ed calling for a repeal of Obamacare through “oversight,” Cantor claimed that the law is a bloated entitlement and burden on the federal deficit that must be on the table during budget talks:

BILL HEMMER (HOST): In these negotiations, is Obamacare being negotiated?

CANTOR: If the president is serious about joining us and fixing the problem, he ought to be putting Obamacare on the table. There is no question in my mind, that is the largest expansion of government programs that we’ve seen.

HEMMER: Can you say at the moment that that is being talked about?

CANTOR: All I can say is that the president has got to get serious and the Speaker is correct, that Obamacare is such an expansion of government spending and involvement in folks’ lives it ought to be on the table.

HEMMER: You wonder what he is willing to concede on that.

While Republicans have been full-throated in parroting claims that Obamacare is not fiscally viable, the fact is that the health reform law actually reduces the deficit by billions in the next decade and by over $1 trillion in the decade after that, and repealing Obamacare would consequently increase the national debt while taking away Americans’ health benefits.

As the post at Think Progress also noted, Cantor is wrong about the law's support which has been gaining in popularity in recent months.

DOWNLOADS: (171)

PLAYS: (1449)

Embed

Lil' Luke Russert explains to Martin Bashir why Boehner is putting Ryan in a leadership position on debt negotiations after voters rejected his policies.

It seems John Boehner is hoping to avoid having the same experience he did the last time around, where his caucus revolted on him while trying to negotiate a deal on the deficit.

Ryan's New Catbird Seat:

It’s fascinating (if somewhat predictable) to watch the rapidly diverging post-election prospects of the two members of the Republican presidential ticket. Mitt Romney is going to disappear from public view approximately ten minutes after his usefulness expires as a scapegoat for his party’s sins. But Paul Ryan is back in Washington, and back in the saddle again. This sentence from the New York Times’ Jennifer Steinhauer nicely describes his pivotal position with his party colleagues:

When Mr. Ryan returned to Capitol Hill last week, he was met with a standing ovation from his Republican colleagues, a bear hug from Mr. Boehner and the hope from conservatives that he would hold the line on taxes and other spending.

Yeah, Boehner’s hugging Ryan, all right, making it clear the Budget Committee Chairman is a key, and maybe the key, figure in the fiscal negotiations with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats. Whatever Boehner decides to do, he wants Ryan’s finger-prints all over it. And the more feral of House Republicans want Ryan very close to Boehner’s side to keep the Speaker from selling out America’s priceless heritage of freedom and low top marginal tax rates. Presumably Ryan will seek to reprise his role in earlier fiscal negotiations, re-establishing his MSM reputation as a “thoughtful” conservative “reformer” who always manages to be heavily involved in bipartisan discussions until the crucial point, when he invariably opposes compromise on one pretext or another.

Go read the rest of Ed's post for what this might mean for Ryan's future, but as Paul Krugman wrote about Ryan returning to his role as "Washington’s favorite Serious, Honest Conservative" -- A Public Service Reminder: Paul Ryan is a Con Man.

And TPM's Sahil Kapur reminded us what we can expect from these negotiations -- GOP’s Opposition To New Taxes: Same As It Ever Was:

Having run and lost on their central anti-tax stance, and with an austerity bomb nearing detonation, Republicans are softening their tone on the issue. But what may appear to be a meaningful shift on taxes among GOP leaders is belied by the unchanged policy specifics within the rhetoric.

“For the purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in a post-election press conference.

That leaves the impression that Republicans are willing to raise revenue by limiting deductions and loopholes. Correct, but they’ve always been open to that — if and only if the new revenue is used to lower tax rates rather than reduce the deficit. Look closer and it’s apparent that that stance is still the same. Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (71)

PLAYS: (402)

Embed

It seems that, as Susie formerly called him, Pete Peterson's pet dog, the smarmy David Walker, made his way back onto MSNBC this Friday and surprise, surprise, he's endorsing Mitt Romney. Color me not shocked, even though the media constantly tries to portray this guy as some bipartisan straight shooter.

Apparently Walker isn't too happy that he hasn't managed to get his "grand bargain" passed under President Obama and he twists himself in knots trying to defend Romney's fuzzy math on his budget numbers that simply don't add up without raising taxes on the middle class and resorts to more or less questioning what the definition of middle class is.

As Susie noted in the post linked above, regardless of what Walker says here, she went to one of his seminars and the people who were in attendance were not buying the snake oil the man and his group were selling. You can read more about Walker and Pete Peterson here: Peterson's Grand Bargain Campaign To Kick Off After Election and here: Meet Pete Peterson, Architect of Social Security and Medicare Cuts.

Rough transcript of Walker's interview below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (180)

PLAYS: (731)

Embed

Tommy Christopher over at Mediaite caught this gem with NBC's Tom Brokaw playing the good little Republican water carrier and trying to blame the problem with our huge deficit on President Obama -- Tom Brokaw Says President Obama Must Answer For $1.1 Trillion Deficit ‘That Happened On His Watch’:

On Sunday morning’s Meet The Press, legendary newsman Tom Brokaw joined moderator David Gregory in evening out the “specifics” narrative that has dogged Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by demanding that President Obama give more details about his plan to control the deficit and debt. Brokaw said that in a 2008 debate, then-Senator Obama “was saying, ‘Look, we’ve got a deficit of a half a trillion dollars. I’m going to get that under control.’ Well, this week that deficit is $1.1 trillion and it happened on his watch. He’s going to have to answer to that.”

By the time President Obama took office, however, he was handed a $1.017 trillion deficit by President George W. Bush. [...]

The half-trillion dollar deficit that President Obama was referring to, however, was for the fiscal year ending in September of 2007. The deficit for FY 2008 was $1,017,071. That still leaves President Obama’s promise to “get that under control” arguably unfulfilled, but also dramatically alters the terrain of that argument.

I would add to that, what Brokaw is also completely ignoring is just whose policies have added to the deficit, and as this chart displays, you can place the bulk of that squarely in Bush's lap as well -- Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (74)

PLAYS: (463)

Embed

From this Monday's The Young Turks, host Cenk Uygur calls out hypocrite and now Mitt Romney running mate paul Ryan for his hypocrisy on "big government" supposedly being detrimental to people's lives. As Cenk explained, Ryan knows full well that's not true since he himself has either been dependent on or employed by government the better part of his own life.

And after having voted for every budget busting initiative and two wars left off the books under Bush, Ryan now wants to pretend he's a deficit hawk. Typical Republican. I got mine and too bad, so sad for everyone else. I would hope this continues to get some traction in the rest of the media as well. Ryan was happy to have a leg up from the government when he needed it, but now he wants to take those same benefits away for others.

DOWNLOADS: (230)

PLAYS: (674)

Embed

As our friends over at Show Me Progress noted this Tuesday evening, Claire, you must be living right. Regardless of what the polls show right now, I don't think Rep. Todd Akin's primary win in Missouri to face off against incumbent Sen. Clair McCaskill is good news for Republicans in the Show Me state. He's a wingnut of the first order and hopefully is not going to be very attractive to general election voters once they start to get a better look at him.

Back in 2009, we shared this lovely video of the Representative, making jokes about lynching his Democratic colleagues, which you can watch above. It was apparently a big hit with his constituents in his district, but he's going to have to appeal to voters all across the state now, and I'm sure there are a good deal of us besides myself that don't find lynching jokes particularly funny.

In August of last year, Akin refused to meet with his constituents to defend his vote to eliminate Medicare which you can watch the video of here: Rep. Todd Akin Refuses to Meet With Constituents and Defend Vote to Eliminate Medicare.

And we got a reminder on primary night from some local bloggers as to why Akin is going to have some trouble come the general election as well. From MO_Snark: The One reason Todd akin will lose to Claire McCaskill:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (221)

PLAYS: (1005)

Embed

From this Sunday's Face the Nation, Speaker of the House John Boehner repeatedly refused to specify which programs Republicans would be willing to cut in order to get out deficit under control despite being continually pressed about it by Norah O'Donnell. O'Donnell also allowed Boehner to get away with one of the lies they tell repeatedly, which is that it's President Obama who ran up the deficit.

As we've pointed out here already, it is George W. Bush's policies that are primarily responsible for the deficit Boehner is fearmongering over here. And par for the course, O'Donnell let him get away with it with no push back.

O'DONNELL: Let's turn now to another issue in this campaign and that is of course government spending. You have attacked Obamacare as something that this government can't afford. Are you willing to go forward to the American people and say, you're not going to be able to enjoy the same kind of services you have in the past, we've got to cut those services as part of shrinking the government?

BOEHNER: We clearly have a problem. This President's driven the debt up $5 trillion in less than four years. We've got a $16 trillion national debt now, a $1.3 trillion budget deficit this year. You can't continue to spend money that you don't have.

And I do believe that it's time to deal with this. I tried everything I could last year to work with the President to try to come to some agreement to begin the process of getting our debt under control.

O'DONNELL: So can you look people in the eye and say you are not going to enjoy the same services you have before?

BOEHNER: We've got to make changes to all of our programs, because if we don't, they will, not, exist.

O'DONNELL: So people won't have the same kind of services?

BOEHNER: We've got to make adjustments to them. How we do it, that's going to be the subject of a great debate as we get into this election cycle and as we get into the post-election cycle.

O'Donnell didn't ask him which programs he was talking about, but who wants to take dibs he would have lumped Social Security in with Medicare and Medicaid if she had?