Skip to main content

Paul Krugman at The New York Times notes in The Big Budget Mumble that the elephant in the room has boxed itself in:

In the ongoing battle of the budget, President Obama has done something very cruel. Declaring that this time he won’t negotiate with himself, he has refused to lay out a proposal reflecting what he thinks Republicans want. Instead, he has demanded that Republicans themselves say, explicitly, what they want. And guess what: They can’t or won’t do it.

No, really.

Four experts on the subject at The New York Times offer their answers to Do Filibusters Stall the Senate or Give It Purpose?

Molly Ball at The Atlantic says in Did Citizens United Help Democrats in 2012? that the much-reviled Supreme Court decision may have been better exploited by Left than the Right:

After a year Democrats mostly spent fretting, freaking out, and fulminating against Citizens United--the 2010 Supreme Court decision that unleashed this year's flood of unfettered political spending--it was a bit unexpected to hear Michael Podhorzer, the political director of the AFL-CIO, say on Friday, "Super PACs are so awesome. It was long overdue that the Supreme Court recognized that corporations are people like everybody else."

Podhorzer, who spoke on a panel at the RootsCamp left-wing organizing conference, was being sarcastic--sort of. Progressives still really hate Citizens United. But in one of the most ironic turns of the 2012 election, groups on the left were some of the most skilled exploiters of the 2010 court decision.

Eugene Robinson, as he so often does, broke away from the pack at the Washington Post and wrote about, OMG! climate change in Is this the planet we want to leave behind?
You might not have noticed that another round of U.N. climate talks is under way, this time in Doha, Qatar. You also might not have noticed that we’re barreling toward a “world . . . of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions.” Here in Washington, we’re too busy to pay attention to such trifles.

We’re too busy arguing about who gets credit or blame for teeny-weeny changes in the tax code. Meanwhile, evidence mounts that the legacy we pass along to future generations will be a parboiled planet.

Robert Howarth at the New York Daily News has a big problem with natural-gas advocates in his column, Fracking good for the climate? What a load of hot air:
The fracking cheerleaders are misinformed. Drilling for natural gas has some disastrous environmental consequences. It will speed climate change, not help stave it off.
Gary Younge at The Guardian mocks Dick Morris just by quoting his Tweets at length in Republicans, welcome to the reality-based community:
"If you beat your head against the wall," the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci once wrote, "it is your head that breaks, not the wall."

On election night Morris's head exploded, leaving shards of baseless braggadocio scattered across cyberspace. Reality will do that, sooner or later. For Republicans it has been later.

Doyle McManus at the Los Angeles Times asks in Doubts about drones whether or not the civilian fatalities U.S. policy creates are recruiting as many terrorists as it kills.

Leonard Pitts Jr. at the Miami Herald writes Another case of 'black blindness'?

It is a kind of myopia that afflicts some of us—too many of us—whenever we gaze upon a dark-skinned man. It causes some of us—too many of us—to see things that are not there, and to miss things that are. Sometimes, it is fatal. [...]

We cannot yet know if black blindness was the cause of death for Jordan Davis, a 17-year-old black kid who was killed the night after Thanksgiving. But there is reason to suspect it was. Davis was shot by a 45-year-old white man, Michael David Dunn, who says he saw a rifle. At this writing, police have recovered no such weapon

Hendrick Hertzberg at The New Yorker writes Mandate with Destiny:
In 2004, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, conservatism’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, congratulated President Bush for “what by any measure is a decisive mandate for a second term” and exulted, “Mr. Bush has been given the kind of mandate that few politicians are ever fortunate enough to receive.” This year, examining similar numbers with different labels, the Journal came up with a sterner interpretation. “President Obama won one of the narrower re-elections in modern times,” its editorial announced.
John Nichols at The Nation asks, Is Paul Ryan Making Americans More Favorably Inclined Toward Socialism?
A new Gallup Poll finds that socialism is now viewed positively by 39 percent of Americans, up from 36 percent in 2010. Among self-described liberals, socialism enjoyed a 62 percent positive rating, while 53 percent of Democrats and independent voters who lean Democratic gave socialism a thumb’s up.
Carl Davidson at In These Times writes Somewhere Under the Rainbow:
A rainbow coalition of Democratic voters gave Barack Obama a victory over big Wall Street money and the steady drumbeat of hard-right racism. Nearly 45 percent of the president’s voters were people of color, with their numbers augmented by white women, youth and trade unionists. It was enough to keep him in the White House, but not enough to decisively change the overall balance of forces.

Now the harder struggles begin—for Obama, for the Democratic Party and for the Left. Tough choices face all three. [...]

The Left faces a choice, too. Do we continue trying to build mass movements, in the hope that they will be the engines of a new and transformative strategic politics? Or do we go further than our usual “movement building” mantra and put new emphasis on organization building? We’ve seen the Wisconsin and Ohio uprisings, Occupy Wall Street, and the pressing of the Robin Hood tax by the Congressional Progressive Caucus—all of which are the beginnings of an emerging popular front against finance capital, one pregnant with new potential. But without organization, movements simply ebb and flow—and often dissipate. Our task now is to combine fanning the flames with a new organizing thrust.

Peter Dreier weighs in at the Huffington Post on 50 Young Progressive Activists Who Are Changing America.

John Cavanagh and Robin Broad at The Nation write It's the New Economy, Stupid:

New Economy Working Group co-chair David Korten, author of Agenda for a New Economy, and top environmental scholar and practitioner Gus Speth, author of America the Possible, have laid out comprehensive agendas to speed the transformation from a speculative and militarized Wall Street economy to a vibrant, green and caring Main Street economy. Korten’s agenda includes steps to break up the “too big to fail” banks as well as incentives to expand state and community banks and other locally rooted institutions. Both authors pinpoint strategies to speed the transition, such as shifting our measurements of economic success from sheer output to the things we value as individuals and communities. Again, this is not pie in the sky: Maryland has created an Office for a Sustainable Future that measures twenty-six economic, environmental and social indicators as an alternative standard of well-being. Vermont and other state governments have begun to follow suit.

There is also momentum on the activism side—some of it building on the Occupy movement’s compelling case that the entire system needs to be changed.

Peggy Noonan is still not embarrassed to be seen in public as she proves at The Wall Street Journal (free link) in The Drawn-Out Crisis—It's the Obama Way. Without a blush she says the president is doing it wrong.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  How did PUMA's spend election night? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    (I'd forgotten that this website still existed until yesterday when I stumbled across it. Funny stuff.)

    Show us your tax returns !!!!!!

    by Bush Bites on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 04:33:58 AM PST

  •  Mr President, John Boehner on the phone........ (0+ / 0-)

    Rout that call to the Men's Room Attendant at Motel 6.

  •  I know it's (13+ / 0-)

    been said many times, many ways, but why can the rest of us screw up one time and lose our jobs while Noonan, Morris, et al. be wrong 100% of the time (which really isn't easy; you have to be spectacularly inept to achieve this) and stay rich and employed?

    Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

    by KibbutzAmiad on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:22 AM PST

  •  Krugman's right... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    an unusual event unto itself, but the Republicans have screwed themselves over royally.

    There is no stupidity like a politician's stupidity, especially those in the minority party.

    It sucks not to be in the majority: you don't get to push all the buttons and twist all the shiny knobs.

    On the other hand, you can set and sell your agenda to the electorate without much consequence.  

    Raise your issues, offer up amendments, but, if everything goes to hell, it's not your fault.

    When the next election comes around, you have something to offer.  After the election, you have something to do.

    Parliamentary systems are a little bit like that.  Here in the US, not so much.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 04:39:45 AM PST

    •  If you can't read polls....why should you be (5+ / 0-)

      entrusted with anything bigger than vehicle licensing in Oshkosh?

    •  Republican ads targeted their donors. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marinero, Egalitare, TKO333, Laconic Lib

      Not the voters.

      Again and again, their ads repeated John Birch Society / Tea Party swill. The paranoid rants that take years of "bubble" craziness to make believable.

      The focus group is one mentally disordered billionaire. Don't expect that ad campaign to help you win a helluva lot of elections.

      Then there's Peggy Noonan.

      Pegger fell in love with Ronald Reagan. A classic unrequited dream of a love. Total. Heart and soul.

      Despite what you might think, beautiful to behold. She appreciated the human-contact gifts of the man.

      But now, 30 years later ???

      That page at WSJ has seven occurrences of "Reagan" including a blurb that recommends paying an extra fee (ultimately to Rupert Murdoch) to participate in Peggy's blog --  "The Patriot Post" -- which is an effort to sustain the Reagan Legacy.

      It's a fantasy world.

      Heaven forfend that anyone would mention Lebanon between April 1983 and 1984, when St. Ronnie fired naval guns into populated Arab areas killing 5,000,  got 392 of our own people killed from retaliatory truck bombs, and then turned tail and ran away.

      Despite Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan misused his powers as Commander in Chief. He was inept. The result in 1983/1984 was to encourage Islamic terrorism. He gave Islamic military Koran-followers their first victory over a Western professional army -- a "Christian" force -- in a couple hundred years.

      Don't tell Peggy about it.

  •  PEW did a survey a year ago that showed.... (7+ / 0-)

    .....millennials distrust capitalism more than socialism.

    Show us your tax returns !!!!!!

    by Bush Bites on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 04:40:52 AM PST

  •  Noonan is nuts (4+ / 0-)

    Everything would be solved if President Obama would channel Reagan. And eat a sandwich with Boehner.

    And he is precisely the man with whom Mr. Obama should be having friendly lunches.
    What to serve...Chicken Caesar with the dressing on the side or two scotches and a pack of Kools?

    I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

    by hulibow on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 04:52:40 AM PST

  •  Howarth: Will somebody leave the propaganda (0+ / 0-)


    I get it: he doesn't like fracking.
    Fracking the Marcellus shale is an incredibly bad idea.

    But -- this propagandist's desire to deny any environmental benefit is misguided and dangerous.

    And that would be true even without his repetition of the "is now and always will be" canard employed by so many earnest "hey look -- the purpose is good, does it really matter if we lie a little to get there?" types like to employ.

    [ that is -- "Gee, it uses x amount of bad stuff, releases y amount of bad stuff and, unlike so many other things that we can do in different ways, this process can't possibly be improved upon. ]

    In all of the lathering up, he misses an important and environmentally hopeful point:

    cheap natural gas has replaced coal in a number of places, and that replacement has played a role in last year's 2% reduction in CO2 emissions (compared to China's 10% increase).

    The market works, is powerful, and can encourage people to do the right thing, even without government browbeating.  

    The problem is that we haven't yet figured out how to make sustainable energy economically preferable to those whom we cannot regulate -- like the emerging economies who are driving CO2 growth.

    Global warming has reached the point of needing a Manhattan Project level of response, and taking the cost out of sustainable energy would seem like a brilliant goal for such a project.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:00:56 AM PST

    •  The problem with your glowing endorsement is (0+ / 0-)

      that the companies doing the fracking are consistently concealing as much as they can about the consequences. It's already doing damage in New York and Pennsylvania, mostly to aquifers. But corporations are doing everything they can to keep secret what they are injecting into the wells, as well as trying to wave away any contamination of well-water as "pre-existing". Hello, I don't think most people whose tap water can now be lit with a match were ignoring that for the last few decades.

      Better we should be generating methane from farm and municipal waste.

      •  You've got a funny notion of glowing endorsement (0+ / 0-)
        Fracking the Marcellus shale is an incredibly bad idea.
        I hate to imagine what it takes to rate as a negative comment in your world.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 12:55:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except for Marcellus, you implied that it's good: (0+ / 0-)

          " natural gas has replaced coal in a number of places, and that replacement has played a role in last year's 2% reduction in CO2 emissions (compared to China's 10% increase).

          The market works, is powerful, and can encourage people to do the right thing, even without government browbeating."

          These points are true as such but by leaving out context, you've perhaps unknowingly endorsed fracking:

          1) CO2 production from coal is being replaced by widespread aquifer pollution from fracking.

          2) Markets are useful tools but where big coal and oil interests are concerned, you just don't get good results without some government browbeating (e.g. denying BP access to more offshore oil, unfortunately after they finally created the disaster that the Feds should have known was coming from them).

          So, point taken, but I don't think you can say that calling all fracking bad is lying, nor that calling all criticism of fracking pure propaganda is the strict truth.

          •  Nope, I've done nothing of the sort. (0+ / 0-)

            Fracking is fine in some places, but that doesn't mean it's good everwhere but the Marcellus.  Big shale formations like the Marcellus are a disaster in the making.  Even favorable geology might be a a bad idea on large enough scales.

            The problem with government browbeating is that you can't browbeat everybody. In terms of the current problem, you can't browbeat the very people who are driving CO2 emissions growth because our government can't reach them.

            That's a HUGE problem.  If we can't address that problem, nothing -- NOTHING -- we do here in the US will matter for crap. CO2 emissions will continue to climb precipitously.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:16:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I heard an interesting interview from Dubai (0+ / 0-)

              the other day, wherein the interviewee (sorry, forget what sort of Govt Minister or NGO type) was saying it's better for us (the West) to subsidize best-available coal-burning powerplant tech for the developing world (and I think they were including China), than to try right now to help them with solar panels. If I recall the reasoning was that replacing highly-polluting coal with nearly-clean coal gives you immediate good results, and as they continue to industrialize they can then start putting $$ into solar and wind and biofuels etc.  Sounded rational (although one can still ahve doubts.

              So if the choice is browbeat vs encourage substantial incremental reform, then the latter wins. Is it fair to say that's about where you stand?

              •  It's getting close, but I think we've blown (0+ / 0-)

                incremental reform because levels are already much too high.

                An immediate stop to growth definitely is better than nothing -- and, if we can get it -- worth taking.

                We really need a rapid reduction.That won't be enough gto head off Very Bad Things, maybe even disastrous things, given  the long loiter time of CO2 in the atmosphere, but we owe it to our childrens's children's children (presuming we don't all fry in the meantime) to get that process underway ASAP.

                That's why I think substantial cost-gutting is a big deal.  Nobody has to agree to it.  Just as many American powrplants have dumped coal for natural gas, industries the world over would adapt cheap clean energy because it makes sense to do it.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 03:25:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the roundup, MB (3+ / 0-)

    You gotta love Paul Krugman!  He nails it every time.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:00:59 AM PST

  •  drones (5+ / 0-)

    Same as it ever was

    "Anyone who runs is a VC Taliban. Anyone who stands still is a well disciplined VC Taliban."

    White-collar conservatives flashing down the street, pointing their plastic finger at me..

    by BOHICA on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:01:03 AM PST

  •  Watts for RNC chair....yep, that'll work..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, glitterscale
  •  Republican plan: (0+ / 0-)'ll know it when we see it if President Obama will tell us what it might be.

    "Let's see what fresh fuckwittery these dolts can contrive to torment themselves with this time." -- Iain Banks, The Hydrogen Sonata

    by Rikon Snow on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:04:47 AM PST

  •  Howard Kurtz at The Daily Beast (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, One Opinion, Laconic Lib

    pens an article titled "Barack Obama's Hashtag Army" reporting on the president's efforts to encourage his database to contact their representatives, using the hashtag #My2K, to encourage them to work with the president to give middle class taxpayers a tax cut.  The article explains how difficult it is to keep the momentum going and people engaged after the election.  It does not breach the subject of how lobbyists are bearing down on the capital to thwart the president's efforts though.

    The article recounts some of the steps the right wing is using to take advantage of the president's outreach effort to influence his voters:

    The right, which wants to extend all the Bush tax cuts, including those covering the top 2 percent, isn’t ceding the playing field. The Heritage Foundation tried to hijack the hashtag by buying #My2K as a “sponsored tweet,” pushing its message up to the top of any search. When I checked the other day, the think tank’s tweet (“4 Reasons Warren Buffett is Wrong on Tax Hikes!”) was just above Obama’s. Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist told me he tweets his messages three times a day to reach shifting audiences.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:05:00 AM PST

  •  Does anyone know (0+ / 0-)

    of a very user friendly site that explains the health care exchanges and the other aspects of the ACA ?  I'm talking "So simple a wingnut could grasp them" simple?

    Justice For Will Will spent his brief, courageous life fighting for the rights we all take for granted. Please share his story to support the fight!

    by KibbutzAmiad on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:05:29 AM PST

  •  Sheldon A. Blew $150MM on this election (7+ / 0-)

    Sheldon Adelson Spent Far More On Campaign Than Previously Known

    WASHINGTON -- Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson vowed to spend as much as $100 million to defeat President Barack Obama and help the GOP take control of Congress. According to two GOP fundraisers with close ties to the Las Vegas billionaire, he made good on that promise -- and then some. Adelson ultimately upped the ante, spending closer to a previously unreported $150 million, the fundraisers said.

    Adelson, a fierce critic of Obama’s foreign and domestic policies, has said that his humongous spending was spurred chiefly by his fear that a second Obama term would bring "vilification of people that were against him." As that second term begins, Adelson's international casino empire faces a rough road, with two federal criminal investigations into his business.

    This coming week, Adelson plans to visit Washington, according to three separate GOP sources familiar with his travel schedule. While here, he’s arranged Hill meetings with at least one House GOP leader in which he is expected to discuss key issues, including possible changes to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the anti-bribery law that undergirds one federal probe into his casino network, according to a Republican attorney with knowledge of his plans.

    During the election, Adelson told Politico that the Justice Department investigation, and the way he felt treated by prosecutors, was a primary motivation for his investment in Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates. He put his money where his mouth was. The two GOP fundraisers, both with strong ties to Adelson, said that the casino mogul dished out close to $150 million, including between $30 million and $40 million to the Karl Rove-founded Crossroads GPS and at least $15 million to grassroots efforts with financial links to Charles and David Koch. Among other major beneficiaries of Adelson’s largess were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which received almost $5 million from Adelson, and the Republican Jewish Coalition, which got the bulk of its $6.5 million budget from him, the fundraisers said.

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:09:14 AM PST

  •  Krugman (7+ / 0-)

    Instead, he has demanded that Republicans themselves say, explicitly, what they want. And guess what: They can’t or won’t do it.

    That's what Geithner enjoyed saying on all the shows. I watched most of all of them.

    Meet the Press

    Now again, David, Republicans have said that they don’t like those reforms, they’d like to do more. And if that’s true, then they should tell us what they’d like as an alternative or as a compliment to that. If they want to build on those they could just tell us how. But we can’t react to anything until we see the details of their proposal, and we need it on the rates and revenues side as well as on the spending side. We’ve given them our best view of what makes sense for the country. We think our proposal will have enormous public support.

  •  John Nichols (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minnesota Deb, TKO333

    In Nichols' article at The Nation, he mentions and links to Tom Paine's pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, which he says Paine "used to outline a social-democratic model for establishing a just and equitable society."

    I thought I'd check it out and was surprised to see the link took me to the .gov Social Security site. The have posted the full text of the pamphlet at

  •  Your PUMA/Hillary44 site shows its true colors. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    One Opinion
    "Our sense is that Romney is displaying the firm determination of a person who believes he can win, must win. Romney supporters/voters sense this is a man with a desire to win and a desire to Rescue America. That is a priceless jewel to own.

    Romney, we believe, will win. It might even be a massive victory. "

    They also ignored the polls.

    Quite possibly they are ignoring the election, itself. It's the news of the North Korean unicorn lair that really matters.

  •  Paul Nichols' article in The Nation on socialism (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, Minnesota Deb, TKO333, DSPS owl

    is a real eye opener. The real shockers are that 25% of self-identified conservatives and 23% of republicans view socialism positively and that these numbers have been rising. Perhaps the recession and the growing inequality are having a radicalizing effect.

  •  Cantor won't. (0+ / 0-)

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:03:36 AM PST

  •  The mendacity of Peggy Noonan: (6+ / 0-)
    Here's just one thing they should be discussing. Mr. Obama wants to raise tax rates on those earning $250,000 or more, as we know, on the assumption that they are "the rich." But if you are a man with a wife and two kids making that salary and living in Westfield, N.J., in no way do you experience yourself to be rich, because you're not. You pay federal payroll and income taxes, state income and sales taxes and local property taxes, and after the mortgage, food and commuting costs you don't have much to spare.

    Tighten the squeeze on that couple, and they'll change how they live. They'll stop sending the struggling son to a neighborhood tutor, they'll stop going out to dinner once a week, they'll cut off the baby sitter, fire the guy who once a month does yard work, and hold back on new clothes. Also the guy will peruse employment ads in Florida and Texas, potentially removing from blue-state New Jersey his heartening, taxpaying presence.

    To begin with, Noonan knows--or should know--that the president's proposal would NOT "Tighten the squeeze" on her mythical Westfield resident by a single penny. This is pure demagoguery, not to mention outright lying.

    Second, her talking about the man who is at the 98th percentile of household income as somebody who can barely afford a babysitter or a weekly restaurant meal is a gross insult to The family with a median income of $50,000. "...don't have much to spare"? Really, Ms Noonan?

    Why do I sense that Noonan is desperately trying to protect her own household income? (I'm guessing that a premier columnist for the WSJ makes well over $250,000)

    Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- -7.25, -6.21

    by Tim DeLaney on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:00:59 AM PST

    •  I just read the replies to Ms Noonan's screed. (4+ / 0-)

      I was astonished at the number of people who parroted the party line that raising tax rates would lower tax revenue. They said this as though it had been proven, like Fermat's last theorem.

      The Republican party has done a marvelous pushing this meme. I am reminded of Lewis Carrol's Red Queen, who could believe in five impossible things before breakfast.

      Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- -7.25, -6.21

      by Tim DeLaney on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 08:05:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read them, too. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, MaikeH, Tim DeLaney

        Pretty revealing.  

        I did like the woman in New Jersey who said her family made nowhere near $250,000 and could still afford lawn service, dinner out and baby sitters.  Of course the nutters vilified her as a fool who would regret voting for the president when he came for her guns and her job.

  •  Did Citizens United Help Democrats in 2012? (0+ / 0-)

    In other words, did a decision made by a SOTUS mostly appointed by Republicans, allowing billionaires to call the shots help democrats in 2012?

    Does this seem like a promising framework for democrats (or progressives for that matter)?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site