According to Huffington Post, Obama said this at an appearance today:
My appointee, [FCC Chairman] Tom Wheeler, knows my position. I can't now, that he's there, I can't just call him up and tell him exactly what to do. But what I've been clear about, what the White House has been clear about is that we expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we're not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet. That ends up being a big priority of mine.
Once again, Obama says all the right things but then either doesn't mean them or fails to lead.
Join me below the squiggle for an Obama rant.
I live in Georgia. I have a toddler. We are just getting into the age of playdates and the like. I have a question for everyone:
What is least confrontational way to ask a parent of a child's friend if they keep a gun in the house? And if they say yes, what is least confrontational way to politely say, "your child can come to my house, but my child won't be coming to yours?" Much as I'd like to try to convert them to my way of thinking, practically speaking I don't want to get into a political debate with them or interfere with my child's friend-making. It's a tough issue. Suggestions? How are you all handling this?
It's generally a bad sign when you have to strong arm your own team to get a deal done.
A simple poll regarding the Compromiser in Chief:
Ann Romney says if Mitt loses this will be his last election. We can only hope!!!!
If he loses, he can go back to the private sector where his very special brand of job creation - otherwise known as bankrupting companies and outsourcing jobs - will only cost us a few hundred thousand jobs, instead of the untold grief that will result from a Romney Presidency.
So no new revenues, despite the fact that much of the future shortfall relates to Bush tax cuts. Two more votes on the debt ceiling before the next election. A compromise almost entirely on Republican terms to a manufactured crisis. And now we are going to significantly decrease government outlays at a point where we have chronic long term unemployment, stagnant job creation and very slow GDP growth. It's just awful policy!
But worse. it's bad politics. Here's why:
Here’s how this will play out. The bipartisan committee will be deadlocked as Democrats push for tax increases (actually the latest reports are the bipartisan committee can consider tax changes but not increases; for real???? I mean what IS in this deal that's good?) and responsible cuts and Republicans push for draconian cuts to the social safety net. The deadlock will result in it becoming increasingly likely that the automatic cuts will kick in. Republicans will start screaming that if Dems don’t cave, we will all be in danger because the defense cuts are irresponsible. So going into the election, Dems will have the choice between approving draconian cuts to social programs or being tarred with the weak on defense brush. Lose/lose. Why can I see this coming but Obama cannot?
I HATE THIS DEAL. I HAD ALREADY GIVEN UP ON OBAMA. OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM IS IRRETRIEVABLY BROKEN. REPUBLICAN POSITIONS ARE BEYOND IRRESPONSIBLE AND DEMOCRATS SUFFER FROM A COMPLETE INABILITY TO FIGHT FOR GOOD POLICY (indeed they can't even fight for the policies that the majority of Americans support)
The ACLU does great work most of the time and I applaud their efforts to raise awareness of the torture issue and to put pressure on the Administration to prosecute all of those involved in the torture that was so obviously performed and authorized at the highest levels of the bush Adminsitration. That said, the new ad is very ineffective if it is intended to persuade anyone other than those already convinced.
I used to think Harry Reid was spineless. Now I realize he's just an idiot.
I used to think he only picked battles he could win, regardless of the stakes. Now I realize he has no idea which battles he can win, so it is WAY TOO MUCH to expect him to know which battles are worth fighting.
More "wisdom" from the people paid to tell us what is going on with the markets. Let's remember that all of these people failed to predict the current meltdown.
Nancy Pelosi says that http://www.msnbc.msn.com/.... She's nuts.
How did we end up with such idiotic Democratic leadership? They just gave $700B to an administration that has resisted oversight and been wrong on every major foreign policy and domestic issue of our day. And who gets to control that spending? Hank Paulson, who contributed to the mess by pushing for deregulation when he worked on Wall Street and ignored the warning signs of an economy on the edge. And, who will be out as Treasury Secretary in 4 months. Gee, I bet he feels like he needs to be accountable.
With all due respect to Obama and the Democratic leadership, I would submit that their guiding principles for a bailout are not the right ones if they want Main Street to get on board with a bailout plan.
Here is what I believe it will take:
As I understand it, Daily Kos is a site devoted to getting Democrats (progressive Democrats?) elected. Every day there are numerous "my candidate is great, your candidate blows" diaries and comment exchanges. And generally, speaking this debate is good. It makes us stronger...it's a forum for hashing out ideas, etc. But really, looking at the Republican slate, isn't it fair to say that most of us will (should?) vote for the Democratic nominee even if he/she is not our first choice?
Wouldn't it be good if, during these heated "my candidate is better than your candidate" debates we had some sort of acknowledgment that despite our differences we're on the same team?
A modest proposal below.
So the Dems want to cave on their "strong" stand against funding more money for Iraq without a firm withdrawal plan. Sure, we knew that one was coming. But only Pelosi and Reid could do it in such a way as to make it twice as bad as "just another cave-in" in a long list of cave-ins. What do I mean? Read below the fold and I'll tell you.