Wednesday Open Thread

Myspace Comments

Please Come Home for Christmas” is a Christmas song, released in 1960, by the American blues singer and pianist Charles Brown. Hitting Billboard’s Hot 100 chart in December 1961, the tune Brown co-wrote with Gene Redd peaked at position #76. It appeared on the Christmas Singles chart for nine seasons, hitting #1 in 1972.[2] It includes a number of characteristics of Christmas music, such as multiple references in the lyrics to the Christmas season and Christmas traditions, and the use of a Church bell type sound, created using a piano, at the start of the song. It is sometimes referred to as Bells Will Be Ringing.

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Christmas Songs, Current Events, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Wednesday Open Thread

  1. rikyrah says:

    Today in the Coming Republican Coalition

    [ 35 ] December 5, 2012 | Erik Loomis

    On all fronts, the Republicans are making remarkable progress in building a coalition that will appeal to people who aren’t old and white.

    1. John Sununu dismissing Obama’s victory as a group of people dependent on the government.

    2. A Subway owned by Republican Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana refused to serve a Muslim couple and told them that was the reason.

    3. The rejection of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Disabled treaty.

    If there’s three things that appeal to young voters, it’s denigrating why they voted for Obama, Jim Crow-style treatment of brown people, and hating on the disabled because of anti-world government nonsense.

    I can’t wait for the coming immigration debate.

  2. rikyrah says:

    It Isn’t Easy Being Fox

    Paul Waldman

    December 5, 2012

    Why they’ve sidelined Karl Rove: being all things to all conservatives can make for some tricky moments.

    Fox News has been in the news a bunch over the last two days, with stories like Roger Ailes’ wooing of David Petraeus, and now the discovery by Gabriel Sherman of New York that the network has benched Karl Rove and Dick Morris, though for slightly different reasons. Morris is just an embarrassment because he’s always so hilariously wrong about everything, while Rove apparently angered top management by challenging the network’s call of Ohio for Obama on election night. “Ailes’s deputy, Fox News programming chief Bill Shine, has sent out orders mandating that producers must get permission before booking Rove or Morris.” This highlights something we liberals may not appreciate: it isn’t easy being Fox.

    For starters, MSNBC and CNN don’t get nearly as much attention for their internal conflicts as Fox does. That’s not only because there’s a healthy appetite among liberals for these kinds of stories, but also because there seem to be many people within Fox who are happy to leak to reporters about what goes on there, presumably because they don’t like their employer’s politics. Without them, we’d never know about these things. But more importantly, Fox has a lot of people and factions to keep happy. To see what I mean, let’s start with Ed Kilgore’s explanation for the sidelining of Morris and particularly Rove:

    Thanks to their high visibility in the 2012 cycle, some MSM and progressive observers seem to be making the mistake of associating Rove and Morris with right-wing influence in the GOP, and assuming that taking them down a notch in FoxLand means some sort of new conservative pragmatism. Are we forgetting who these men are? Rove was the author of every single violation of “conservative principle” by George W. Bush that has enabled wingnuts to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the bitter fruits—substantively and politically—of the Bush/Cheney administration: No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Rx drug initiative, comprehensive immigration reform, and in general Big Spending and Big Government Conservatism. And given his role as the “quarterback” of the entire Super-PAC/501(c)(4) money blitz in 2012, Rove is also nicely positioned to take the fall for a “Republican Establishment” that failed to make ideology and “vetting” the centerpiece of the anti-Obama drive. As for Dick Morris—well, he’s the same unprincipled self-promoter he’s always been.

    Putting Rove and Morris “on the bench” is precisely what you would expect from conservatives looking for a way to shift blame after another electoral defeat. The idea that it means Fox is coming to grips with the error of its ideological ways is leap of logic and faith unjustified by anything we’ve seen so far.

  3. rikyrah says:

    It Is Easy to Train a Parrot to Be a Republican Presidential Candidate: All You Have to Do Is Teach It to Say: “Bernanke Bad! Bernanke Bad!”

    Witness Marco Rubio:

    Sound monetary policy would also encourage middle class job creation. The arbitrary way in which interest rates and our currency are treated is yet another cause of unpredictability injected into our economy. The Federal Reserve Board should publish and follow a clear monetary rule – to provide greater stability about prices and what the value of a dollar will be over time.

    Rubio is saying nothing coherent here–besides: “Bernanke bad! Bernanke bad! I’m not sure why, but Bernanke bad!”

    Rubio, you see, wants the Federal Reserve to stabilize three things:
    1.The path of the price level,
    2.The value of the dollar, and
    3.The level of interest rates.

    But you cannot do this. cannot stabilize the path of the price level and the exchange rate and nominal interest rates. Were we to confirm The One Who Is to chair the Fed, she could not do it.

    If you stabilize the exchange rate–i.e., set up a gold standard and join it–interest rates and the price level will do their thing.

    If you stabilize the nominal interest rate, you will find yourself in either an inflationary or deflationary spiral.

    And if you stabilize the path of the price level, you will have to do some serious leaning against the wind with interest rates, and that will set the currency bouncing around.

    I would call for Republicans to step up their game. But what’s the use? No Republican primary voter, no advisor, no donor, no fundraiser will care that Rubio is talking economic incoherence. No Republican economist of note will shy away from boosting Rubio because his speechwriters lack basic economic literacy.

    This is who they are. We have to deal with it.

  4. rikyrah says:

    Pelosi: Dems must say No to raising Medicare eligibility age

    Posted by Greg Sargent on December 5, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    It’s a perennial fear among liberals: In the quest for a fiscal cliff deal, the White House and Democrats will ultimately acquiesce to GOP demands to raise the Medicare eligibility age. But one Democrat is drawing a line against this possibility: Nancy Pelosi.

    “I am very much against that, and I think most of my members are,” Pelosi said in an interview with me today. “I don’t see any reason why that should be in any agreement.”

    The argument against raising the eligibility age is that it would leave hundreds of thousands of seniors without health coverage and wouldn’t raise that much money for deficit reduction, since many of those seniors would go into Medicaid or the Obamacare exchanges, offsetting savings. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that it would save $125 billion over 10 years.

    Pelosi echoed this complaint succinctly, saying: “Show me the money.” She also said flatly that she didn’t believe raising the eligibility age would be in the final deal, despite GOP demands: “I don’t anticipate that it will be in it.”

    It’s unclear how much influence Pelosi will have over any final deal. The Beltway chatter holds that she will have very little. But if tax hikes are in the compromise, there may be major Republican defections, meaning as many as 100 or more House Dems could be needed to pass it. Public statements like the above are meant to signal to the White House what her caucus can accept.

  5. rikyrah says:


    jacqlyn smith @deepdimlpes ….pssst!!!…Ann Romney had actually purchased new furniture, dishes, & linen 4 the whitehouse.. ugh!!..return line on left >>>

  6. rikyrah says:

    Michelle Obama ‘85 models for a fashion show to benefit Ethiopian famine victims during her time as a University undergraduate.

  7. rikyrah says:

    Tom Joyner Awards a Tearful Ella Edwards 10k on the TJMS

    Dec 4, 2012


    Ella Edwards, the mother of a college student who died in 2009 unexpectedly launched an online petition asking the loan company First Marblehead Corp to forgive a $10,000 student loan taken out by her son Jermaine Edwards, that she could not afford to repay,

    Edwards, a 61-year-old who works part-time as a seamstress, had gained over 195,000 signatures for her online petition on the website Her son was only 24-years-old when he died of “natural causes.” He was studying music production.

    She joined Jacque Reid for her segment “Inside her Story” this morning on the Tom Joyner Morning Show to explain her story and plea with the loan company to forgive her loans.

    After a tearful plea on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, radio legend Tom Joyner told Ms. Edwards he would pay off her son’s loan that currently totals $10,800 dollars

  8. Court asked to invalidate Obama recess appointments.–sector.html … /


    2nd term mofos! Get use to it or get therapy!

  9. rikyrah says:

    Pennsylvania GOP to reconsider electoral-vote scheme
    By Steve Benen – Wed Dec 5, 2012 9:00 AM EST.

    Republican Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania’s House Majority Leader, made quite a name for himself over the summer when he boasted that the state’s voter-ID law, ostensibly about the integrity of the electoral process, “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

    That plan didn’t go well — courts rejected the voter-suppression effort and President Obama won the Keystone State with relative ease. But Turzai isn’t done rolling out election schemes (via my colleague Laura Conaway).

    A Pennsylvania lawmaker is proposing making the state the only one to divide its electoral votes based on a presidential candidate’s percentage of public support, a method that would have helped Republican Mitt Romney on Nov. 6.

    Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, a Republican from Chester, wants to replace the winner-take-all system, which gave President Barack Obama the state’s 20 electoral votes, with one that divides them to reflect the proportion of votes cast for each candidate. His method would have awarded 12 votes to Obama and eight to Romney had it been in force this year.

  10. rikyrah says:

    Dems unveil ‘FAST Voting Act’
    By Steve Benen – Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:56 AM EST.

    In the days and weeks leading up to Election Day 2012, it became painfully clear that voting problems have reached scandalous levels in many parts of the country. The fear was, once the election was over, attention would shift, policymakers would move on to other issues, and memories of voters waiting seven hours to cast a ballot would fade.

    Fortunately, it looks like some members of Congress are keeping the issue alive.

    Yesterday, Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) unveiled a bill they’re calling the “Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely (FAST) Voting Act.” Under their proposal, states that “aggressively” pursue election reforms would be rewarded with federal grants.

    And what kind of reforms are proponents looking for? It’s not a short list, but the Warner/Coons bill calls for flexible registration opportunities, including same-day registration; expanding early voting; “no-excuse” absentee voting; and “formal training of election officials, including state and county administrators and volunteers.”

    As best as I can tell, because the FAST Act is roughly modeled after the Race to the Top education initiative — it’s a competitive grant program, not a set of federal mandates.


    In the House, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) unveiled a related proposal, the “Streamlining and Improving Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act,” which is even more ambitious. Most notably, it would require 15 days of early voting in all states for federal elections — and because Congress has authority over regulating federal elections, the assumption is states would simply apply identical standards for all down-ballot races.

    The introduction of these bills now appears intended to lay the groundwork for future efforts. This Congress will wrap up next month, and given its to-do list, and the fact that every new Congress starts over with a blank slate, we’ll almost certainly have to wait until the new year before voting reforms are considered. That said, it’s encouraging to see some worthwhile proposals on the table.

  11. Obama: Reporters At Business Roundtable Event ‘Got Enough … To Spin A Story’

    Reporters were forced to leave when President Obama started taking questions from CEOs during a meeting of the Business Roundtable on Wednesday.

    Journalists were allowed to film the president’s speech to the business group, but when Obama moved to the Q-and-A portion of the event, it was time to go.

    Boeing CEO James McNerney approached Obama. “I think the, uh, the press,” he said, indicating that reporters should exit the room.

    “Yeah, I think the press is, they’ve probably got enough there to … spin a story,” Obama said, according to the Washington Post.

    Reporters found themselves kicked out of multiple Business Roundtable events during the 2012 campaign. They were not allowed to cover a Q-and-A session with Obama in March, or one with Mitt Romney in June.

    Get…get outta here….kicked ass

  12. rikyrah says:

    Harry Reid Says He Will Change the Rules
    by BooMan
    Wed Dec 5th, 2012 at 01:03:59 PM EST

    I’ve been wondering whether or not Harry Reid has enough votes in his own caucus to change the rules of the Senate next year. It sure sounds like he believes that he does. He says he is going to change the rules and that he isn’t going to settle for any handshake agreement from Mitch McConnell. I guess that this means that Reid is at least locked into making an effort to change the rules, and I doubt he would commit himself this way if he didn’t feel pretty confident about his prospects of succeeding.
    I suppose it is possible that he is bluffing in an effort to convince McConnell to make concessions, but I think it is more likely that Reid actually does have enough support to make the changes if McConnell refuses to come to the table with a serious proposal.

    It will be interesting to see what actually winds up happening. I like the proposed reforms, but I worry that we’ll get relatively little out of them compared to the risk we will incur down the line.

  13. rikyrah says:

    Rove, Morris find themselves on Fox’s bench
    By Steve Benen – Wed Dec 5, 2012 9:51 AM EST.74

    Republican pundits did not fare well during the 2012 election season, and few did as much lasting damage to their reputations as Karl Rove and Dick Morris. The former had a strange, on-air tantrum on election night and running a wildly-unsuccessful campaign operation; the latter guaranteed a Romney landslide, then later admitted he lied as part of a larger partisan agenda.

    The post-election soul searching going on inside the Republican Party is taking place inside Fox News as well. Fox News chief Roger Ailes, a canny marketer and protector of his network’s brand, has been taking steps since November to reposition Fox in the post-election media environment, freshening story lines — and in some cases, changing the characters.

    According to multiple Fox sources, Ailes has issued a new directive to his staff: He wants the faces associated with the election off the air — for now. For Karl Rove and Dick Morris — a pair of pundits perhaps most closely aligned with Fox’s anti-Obama campaign — Ailes’s orders mean new rules. Ailes’s deputy, Fox News programming chief Bill Shine, has sent out orders mandating that producers must get permission before booking Rove or Morris.

    Now, both men will be seen less often on their network of choice. Gabriel Sherman has the scoop.

  14. rikyrah says:

    The right still thinks ACORN exists
    By Steve Benen – Wed Dec 5, 2012 11:56 AM EST.

    In the post-election environment, conservatives’ appreciation for facts, evidence, and reason is taking longer than expected.

    Nearly half of Republican voters say that ACORN — the community organizing group that closed in 2010 — aided in stealing the 2012 election for President Obama, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

    The survey, conducted by Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling, found that 49 percent of GOP voters believe that the president did not legitimately win reelection because ACORN interfered with the vote.

    So, ACORN doesn’t exist, but nearly half of self-identified Republican voters suspect the defunct group of boosting Obama’s clear win. This really isn’t healthy.

    That said, Jamelle Bouie had a sensible defense of the right on this, arguing, “Kevin Drum calls this evidence of the ‘Fox News effect’ — the process by which conservative propaganda outlets convince their viewers of things that just aren’t true — but I think there’s a better, more charitable explanation. In short, a large number of Republicans don’t like President Obama, and when offered a chance to endorse something that signals that dislike, they did it, even if the “something” is absolutely insane.”

    Perhaps, but as Steve M. noted, Fox Nation published a lengthy series of items throughout the election season telling conservatives that ACORN really does exist and is up to nefarious misdeeds.

    It’s quite possible, then, that many on the right still fear the non-existent group precisely because they’ve been told to by news organizations they trust.

  15. rikyrah says:

    The Morning Plum: Why Obama won’t negotiate with GOP over debt ceiling
    Posted by Greg Sargent on December 5, 2012 at 9:09 am

    So here’s the latest on the fiscal cliff talks: Republicans have edged closer to yielding on middle class taxes — but they may now swing the gun in the direction of a new hostage, i.e., the debt ceiling.

    The New York Times reports that Republican leaders, running low on options, may buckle and agree to extend just the middle class tax cuts. Then, in January, they will resume the fight to get the deep entitlement cuts they want by refusing to raise the debt ceiling again:

    Republican leaders could take up legislation already passed by the Senate to extend tax cuts on income under $250,000, attach a deferral or cancellation of the automatic spending cuts, and give Mr. Obama nothing else, denying requests for increased infrastructure spending, help for homeowners to refinance their mortgages, and extensions of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance.

    Then Republicans would demand deep concessions on spending and changes to Medicare and Social Security as a price to raise the debt ceiling a few weeks later. Republicans say any such decision to follow that course is still a ways off.

    In this scenario, Republicans are simply exchanging one mode of extortion for another one. If that sounds harsh, remember that Mitch McConnell has explicitly confirmed that Republicans view the prospect of future debt ceiling battles in precisely these terms — as a perennial way to force ever more spending cuts. After the 2011 debt limit battle, McConnell said that Republicans had learned that it is a “hostage that’s worth ransoming,” because it “focuses the Congress” on cutting spending.

    So here’s a prediction: If this happens, Obama will refuse to negotiate over the debt limit, just as he’s refusing to negotiate over tax rates on the rich. The message will be clear: We’re not talking, if the debt ceiling — and the nation’s economy — have a gun pointed at their head.

  16. rikyrah says:

    Suddenly in Michigan: A move to ban union shops
    By Laura Conaway – Wed Dec 5, 2012 1:30 PM EST.

    Labor unions crossed Michigan Governor Rick Snyder this year, and now he seems intent on making them pay. Snyder had said he was against a ban on union shops known as a “Right to Work” law — or as unions describe it, “Right to Work for Less.” Playing peacemaker, he also opposed the unions trying to pass a referendum enshrining collective bargaining rights in the state constitution. The unions went ahead, the referendum lost, and now Snyder says the unions have to pay.

    The Detroit Free Press headline on this reads: “Gov. Rick Snyder now says right-to-work is ‘on the agenda.’ ” A few paragraphs in, we learn that Snyder is willing to make a deal:

    He did say that there is a view that unions must put something on the table if right-to-work is not to proceed, after having gone ahead with a collective bargaining ballot proposal against his urging in last month’s election.

    With clear Republican majorities in the state House and Senate, Snyder could conceivably get a union-stripping bill sent to his desk and signed quite quickly. It’s not clear what unions would have to give up in order to ransom their collective bargaining rights. Now that Snyder has changed his mind, the fight in Michigan seems to be totally on.

    After the jump, a couple charts on the effects of Right to Work.

  17. rikyrah says:

    The election wasn’t just about taxes and the deficit. It was also about jobs.
    Posted by Greg Sargent on December 5, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    The $1.6 trillion in tax hikes in the White House’s fiscal cliff proposal is the main focus of the political argument right now, but the plan also contained an array of economic stimulus measures, such as $50 billion in infrastructure spending to create jobs. And Republicans are balking not just at the tax hikes on the rich, but at the call for more stimulus spending, too, claiming that more spending to create jobs will widen the deficit.

    So perhaps it’s time for a reminder: This election wasn’t just about taxes and the deficit. It was also about whether government should invest more in job creation. And the electorate’s verdict was: Yes, it should.


    Republicans will argue that during the campaign Obama cleverly couched the call for more spending in benign language about government “investment” in the middle class. There’s some truth to that. It’s also true that Obama didn’t campaign that directly on the specific job creation proposals in the American Jobs Act. And it should be noted that polls showed strong public skepticism about Obama’s first stimulus and about the general idea that government can create jobs. But here again, when the talk turned to specifics, public skepticism about government action on the economy suddenly disappeared: Polls also showed overwhelming support for specific government job creation policies, such as infrastructure spending.

    In broad strokes, the election featured a big argument over the central question of whether government should act — and, yes, spend — to create jobs and boost the economy. Obama ran multiple ads claiming we should raise taxes on the wealthy specifically to be able to invest in job creation and in strengthening middle class economic security. He campaigned heavily on the auto bailout as vindication for his push for government intervention in the economy to preserve American jobs and revive manufacturing. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, dismissed Obama’s call for government investment in job creation as more out of control spending and said dramatically cutting that spending was the way to boost the economy, create jobs and generate broadly shared prosperity.

  18. rikyrah says:

    GOP to Obama: no stimulus for you
    By Steve Benen – Wed Dec 5, 2012 11:05 AM EST.

    Rachel made the case on the show the other night that while deficit reduction is the talk of the town — if the town is Washington, D.C. — but given the larger economic circumstances, what policymakers ought to be focusing on is job creation and growth, not new ways to take money out of the economy.

    Any chance Congress might be inclined to agree? Apparently not.

    Republicans and Democrats are struggling to find common ground on a long-term debt deal. But as economic growth has weakened this quarter, they are at odds over what the flagging recovery needs in the immediate future, too.

    The Obama administration is arguing that the sluggish economy requires a shot in the arm, and it included tens of billions of dollars of little-noticed stimulus measures in its much-noticed proposal to Congressional leaders last week. But Republicans have countered that the country cannot afford to widen the deficit further, and have balked at including the measures in any eventual deal.


    For another, we’re still feeling the effects of a brutal recession, unemployment is still way too high, and there are plenty of economic storm clouds hovering. The American mainstream wants Washington to focus on getting Americans back to work and making the struggling recovery more robust, and Democrats are prepared to do that with policies that Republicans have traditionally supported, including the payroll tax break.

    For now, GOP policymakers simply don’t seem to care

  19. rikyrah says:

    Paul Ryan and conservatives have not gotten the message of this election
    Posted by Jamelle Bouie on December 5, 2012 at 11:32 am

    Since the election, conservatives have begun to voice the need for an approach that addresses middle class concerns, acknowledges that the free market doesn’t always yield perfect outcomes, and allows for a role in government to protect the market’s excesses.

    For instance, Paul Ryan is now moderating conservative economic rhetoric. Last night, at a Washington tribute dinner to conservative icon Jack Kemp, Paul Ryan offered some implicit criticism of Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks, in which the former Republican presidential candidate disparaged nearly half the country as “dependent” on government and unable to “take responsibility for their lives.”

    But are Ryan and conservatives really changing? Here’s what Ryan said:

    “Both parties tend to divide Americans into ‘our voters’ and ‘their voters,’ ” Mr. Ryan said. “Let’s be really clear: Republicans must steer far clear of that trap. We must speak to the aspirations and anxieties of every American.”

    This, of course, runs counter to the rhetoric Ryan has used for his entire political career. Just this August, Ryan told a group of conservative scholars that President Obama’s policies were creating more “takers” than “makers” in society.* Earlier this year, Mother Jones released a brief video collecting almost every instance where Paul Ryan divided the American public into “makers” (the wealthy “job creators” of Republican rhetoric) and “takers” (those who receive direct government benefits).

  20. rikyrah says:


  21. rikyrah says:

    Failed Republican Economics are at the Root of America’s Decade of Economic Woe

    Blame is the act of holding responsible, or making negative statements about, an individual or group that their action or actions are socially or morally irresponsible, and as the nation nervously waits to see whether or not President Obama and Republicans can reach an agreement on the dreaded fiscal cliff, someone will take the blame if there is no deal. Many Americans are worried there will not be a deal and across the board tax hikes and spending cuts will send the economy into a recession if the two sides fail to reach an agreement, and if the cuts and tax hikes go into effect early in 2013, there is sure to be plenty of blame targeting each side for not negotiating in good faith and reaching a compromise that both sides can live with. However, a recent poll shows nearly half of Americans think the President and Republicans will not find common ground to avoid the fiscal cliff that 64% of Americans think will have a major effect on the economy.

    In the ABC/Washington Post poll, 49% of Americans think there will not be an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff, and a substantial 53% of Americans believe Republicans in Congress will be to blame versus 27% who think President Obama shoulders the responsibility if there is no fiscal cliff deal. Within the poll, 64% think the fiscal cliff will have a “major” effect on the economy, 60% think the effect will be negative, and 43% say it will have a major effect on their personal financial situation; 61% say that effect will be negative. The poll’s results do not bode well for Republicans who are intransigent on raising tax rates on the wealthiest 2% of income earners and instead, propose closing tax loopholes coupled with drastic spending cuts that affect the poor, middle class, and elderly in a reiteration of failed presidential candidate Willard Romney’s tax plan.

    President Obama campaigned on, and won the election based on, raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, and his offer last week included $1.6 trillion in new revenue over the coming decade but largely spared Medicare and Social Security from budget cuts. As a reminder, Medicare and Social Security are funded by payroll taxes, and by statute, Social Security is forbidden from adding one penny to the deficit, but Republicans called for increasing the eligibility age for Medicare and lowering cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients. The Republican proposal omitted any tax hikes on the wealthy, and it appears they will hold middle class tax cuts hostage unless the President agrees to their proposal which impacts how the public perceives where to assign blame. However, there has been little talk about why there is an impending fiscal cliff to begin with and as usual, the blame falls primarily on Republicans.

  22. rikyrah says:

    This Isn’t a Draw
    by BooMan
    Wed Dec 5th, 2012 at 02:07:53 AM EST

    I think this Yuval Levin piece is pretty insightful. I don’t agree with him about the unaffordability of the Democrats’ social welfare state and I am fully cognizant that ObamaCare actually improves our balance sheet rather than contributing to our deficit, but other than those two quibbles I see Levin’s landscape as accurate. The Democrats (as opposed to their progressive wing) are pretty much done building the social welfare state. What they want to do is shore it up financially and implement the health care reforms. They know that they need more revenue to accomplish this on a sound basis. And they know that they will never get the needed revenue if they can’t get it now. The Republicans want to deny the Democrats new revenue for precisely these reasons and, as a result, neither side sees compromise as remotely acceptable.

    Where I think Mr. Levin is wrong is in thinking that the battle is still ongoing. You can’t keep everything locked in trench warfare when your side only controls one half of Congress and the other side has the presidency. We can’t have four more years of battles over the debt ceiling. We can’t have four more years of total obstruction in the Senate. The Democrats have to be allowed to implement their policies. There is just no way to maintain the status quo. In the end, the Democrats will get their revenues and implement ObamaCare.

    I think Mr. Levin has described the current conflict quite accurately and his analysis helps explain why the Republicans seem incapable of accepting reality and cutting their losses. But it doesn’t ultimately matter whether the Republicans get rolled in December or January. They lost the argument when they lost the elections. And they now know that they have no route back to the White House. There is really no possibility that they can win a national election with their current constituencies. If Hillary runs, she wins. She wins two terms. But almost any Democrat will beat almost any Republican as long as the GOP is beholden to a base that is this intolerant of and alienating to the majority of Americans.

    They have suffered their own Waterloo, and they don’t even seem to know it.

  23. Ametia says:

    The music lives on. Thank you, Mr. Dave Brubeck

  24. Hey Rikyrah,

    The Chicago Tribune has reported that jazz pianist Dave Brubeck has died at the age of 91.

  25. 2 Termz

    Crying with Laughter

  26. Lawrence O’Donnell: ‘Senate Day of Shame’

    Because of wingnuts like Rick Santorum, the Senate behaved in a shameful manner Tuesday. It was painful to watch Lawrence O’Donnell’s pain in this segment. Clearly he is proud of his work in the Senate and regards it as a distinguished body, which is why it was so difficult for him to do this segment.

    His pain stems from the idiotic vote in Tuesday’s Senate proceedings to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This should have been a simple ratification, because there is nothing in it that is in any way pre-emptive of United States law. In fact, it was modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Yet because of the teaBirchers’ paranoia and petty nonsense, they couldn’t get 67 Senators to ratify it, even after they brought Bob Dole in his wheelchair to try and shame some of those old-timers into doing the right thing. What a joke today’s teaBirchers are.

  27. President Obama speaks at Business Roundtable

    Live streaming now..

  28. President Barack Obama joins the TJMS to discuss the fiscal cliff and much more on the TJMS.

  29. Please sign the petition for the Obama Administration to “Investigate George Zimmerman for Civil Rights violation in his killing of Trayvon Martin”. It’s open season on young black men in this country. If we don’t stand up, who will?

    Do this for your sons, grandsons, brothers, nephews, dad, uncles.

  30. Senate GOP Kills Disabilities Treaty



    Louis Farrakhan treated for fever in USVI

  32. Craig Hickman:

    At ten o’clock this morning, I will be sworn in. I can hardly breathe.

  33. rikyrah says:

    Good Morning , Everyone at 3CHICS!!!

  34. Shady_Grady says:

    I like Charles Brown. Ray Charles started out trying to sing like him.

Leave a Reply