Chicken Little: The end is near

It seems Chicken Little was right after all. The sky really is falling...and has been falling for at least six months now. Chicken Little must have known that after 30 years of living like the sky was the limit, eventually it was bound to come crashing down. So he hunkered down and warned us.

We didn't believe. We spent and squandered. Now Washington and Wall Street want us to put up a trillion dollars to bail them out. We have to do it right now because the sky is falling...and quickly. Why are they so pressed? We're the ones with our you-know-what's in the air.

Who’s the real villain in the AIG bonus debacle?

Of course they took the money!

In all the congressional huffing and puffing about the $165 million bonuses given to AIG execs, Congress seems to ignore a basic of human nature: Nobody returns a $6 million bonus check from their boss, no matter how bad the business is doing. Ain’t gonna happen.

That said, I think it’s pretty safe to say that most Americans are outraged that AIG would pay bonuses to employees who engineered the current financial catastrophe. None are more outraged than Congress, however. Legislators, seeking a dramatic demonstration of their anger, are demanding that employees give back the money or have it taxed by 100 percent.

Seems to me that they are punishing the wrong villains. We know the employees don’t deserve retention awards or “bonuses” by any other name, but they were promised and paid.

If you are looking for villains now, how about Congress, who shoveled billions from taxpayer coffers to the banks. This same outraged Congress didn't ask basic questions about whether banks would be forced to actually loan money or if employees could scamper out the door with some of the bailout loot. How about the board of directors and senior management, who approved and disbursed the bonuses while they were still begging America for a handout. How about a Secretary of the Treasury, who had no clue that the bonuses were planned while selling the “rescue” plan. How about a complicit media, who didn’t report on the substance of the stimulus bills but rather focused on who was winning or losing the fight.

None of the true villains want to take responsibility, so they point at the employees who accepted the bonuses rather than the knuckleheads who paid them. Now they want the employees to voluntarily give them back. Who does that? Certainly none of the real culprits.

The $165 million question

What the hell were they thinking?

Sent from my iPhone.

‘Too much, too soon’

Pres. Obama is trying to do too much, too soon. That’s this week’s constant refrain from Republicans in Congress. Focus on the economy, they warn. Do that first. You can get to health care later. We can deal with education down the road. We need to fix the banks now. Then the legislators retire to their offices in the sterile, white buildings that bookend the Capitol.

Those offices are so far from the regular person who might be struggling to keep health insurance after losing a job. The person who might be counting the days until unemployment insurance runs out, having already lost health insurance. The person who wants to pin their hopes on a better life for a child stuck in a school system that is failing them. Just wait, guys...to educate you, keep you afloat and healthy between jobs is too much, too soon. We’ll get to you later.

To dismiss the urgent needs of millions of Americans as too much, too soon is the antithesis of the Golden Rule. Worse, it’s an overly simplistic view of governance. Why does the president need to focus on only one thing? Is it like he’s actually doing it himself? Should all of the employees in the Department of Health and Human Services cool their heels while their counterparts at the Department of Treasury get their acts together? Employees at the Department of Education must really be thrilled to know that no one will ask anything of them for at least three years. To ask them to focus on their jobs would be too much, too soon.

I’m guessing congressional Republicans aren’t used to seeing leadership in action. The idea of a president who will set a lofty vision and challenge different communities to work toward a common purpose must be totally foreign. How about setting a goal and holding people accountable for the results? I don’t think so, Brownie.

I like that Pres. Obama is trying to do so much so soon. There’s a lot of work to do. He has to repair and rebuild almost simultaneously. He has to do it before a fickle public gets bored and impatient. He has to do it or risk becoming irrelevant. He has to do it...now.

I like that he presses on with his agenda, ignoring the chihuahuas snipping at his heels. Critics will always criticize. “Strategists” who have never had to make a decision of any consequence will always pontificate. And envious politicians will try to limit your effectiveness by challenging your ambition. Too much, too soon. Puhleeze. I say do it all. Do it now.

It seems Steele don’t really ‘be da man’

Bless his little heart. Michael Steele really thought he was in charge of the Republicans. He eked his way into the position of Chairman of the Republican National Committee in a very competitive race, then started making the rounds to sell “his” party.

You might excuse him for thinking he was in charge after his ‘endorsement’ by Rep. Michele Bachmann. After Steele finished speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Bachmann belted out “You be da man!” That moment would have been awkward anywhere else but the CPAC. Not one person from the Conference seemed to get it or has since acknowledged her comments might be construed as inappropriate.

Anyway, fresh with that endorsement, Michael Steele went on D.L. Hughley’s CNN show and proclaimed that Rush wasn’t the head of the Republican Party. Steele said that HE was the head of the party.

“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly,” Steele said.

Now an interesting thing happened in between that exchange and Rush’s response. On CBS’ Face the Nation, Rahm Emanuel reinforced that Rush was the head of the Republican Party.

“When a Republican did attack him (Rush), he was — clearly had to turn around and come back and basically said that he's apologizing and was wrong.”

Ok, back to Michael and Rush.

As you might expect, Rush didn’t take too kindly to Steele’s comments.

“I hope the RNC chairman will realize he’s not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats don’t nominate our candidates,” Limbaugh said, his voice rising. “It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off.”

Ooooh... Well Michael Steele couldn’t let those comments go without a response, could he?

“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."

“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”

An apology? Actually, three. After that apology, Steele called Limbaugh and apologized in person. Steele then issued another statement saying that he had apologized, and Rush had accepted him back into the fold. I guess now he can “go behind the scenes and do the work he was elected to do,” just as Rush had instructed.

Excuse me… who’s the head of the Republican Party?

Bless his little heart... He really thought he was in charge.

Would you follow my Twitter?

After hearing about this Twitter thing, I decided to try my hand at the new technology. I've set up the Peoples Pundit Twitter update page. I'm still figuring it out, but for the moment, I think I'll use Twitter for short dispatches that come to me during the day.

I've embedded a feed to keep updated between blog posts. In Twitter speak, when you are tuned in to someone, they say you are "following" them. If you follow my blog, I invite you to follow my Twitter. :-)

Gibbs v. Santelli: The rant and response

Point. Counterpoint.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama, Dude, They’re just not that into you

If Obama were a close friend and Congress, a paramour, this would be a no brainer. Dude, you are chasing someone who is just not that into you.

Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo gave us a near fool-proof “No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys” in their popular book by the same title. I think Pres. Obama would do well to consider a couple chapters as he begins his presidency.

During the campaign, Obama promised us a new Washington. He would break the gridlock, restore the peace, dispel partisanship, end global warming, and so on. I must admit I was taken. Smitten even. I shared his hopes that we could fashion a newer, more tolerant America. In our optimism, we overlooked what should have been an obvious factor: it takes two to tangle.

In Obama’s early efforts to pass a stimulus and during conversations about the new president’s priorities, it became obvious that Congress had no intention of appearing to follow in the popular president’s footsteps, no matter where they might lead. While the country might still approve of Obama and his new direction … While Obama might be able to claim a mandate with his overwhelming election victory … Republicans in Congress are just not that into him.

You don’t need to read the whole book, just look at the title of the first chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not asking you out.” One of the first things Obama did when he got to Washington was start asking out Republicans. He attended a highly publicized dinner with conservative columnists George Will and company. He threw a special dinner for John McCain. He went to special closed-door meetings with the Republican delegations of both houses of Congress. He even invited John McCain to watch the Super Bowl at the White House, which McCain declined.

Then when Obama went looking for support, not one Republican in Congress could be found. They ate his food at night but wouldn’t be seen with him in the light of day.

Even the second chapter, “He’s just not that into you if he’s not calling you” offers some clues. In each of the overtures, Obama was calling on the opposition. I can’t think of one instance where the reverse was true. To make matters worse, Republicans called everyone else except the president. They lined up for every camera they could find to denounce the president’s plans. They lectured him from the house and senate floors, they chided him from every Sunday morning show. They did everything but call the president directly.

At the end of the day, Obama had to go to the prom alone. The Republicans were unapologetic. They intended to spurn him, and they boasted in their triumph.

As Obama goes forward, he will have to decide how much to keep chasing a disinterested lover. It’s admirable to keep pushing for consensus, but sometimes you have to know when to say when. Sometimes you have to recognize: Dude, they’re just not that into you.

STFU Award: Political strategists and experts

Somewhere someone said it first. ‘Pres. Barack Obama was losing the PR war to the Republicans in debating his stimulus his bill.’ Then someone else picked up the all-purpose observation and repeated it. Noticing the allure of drama to an otherwise wonky story, other “experts,” “strategists,” and pundits continued the refrain until it filled the echo chamber and was accepted as a universal truth.

There was just one thing missing from this analysis: a source. What was the factual basis for the claim? What knowledgeable, objective person were they quoting? What empirical evidence led to this conclusion?

There’s an old joke… What do you get when you give a reporter two pieces of information and a deadline? The answer? A trend. And so the trendy analysis continued until it was interrupted by real data.

A Monday Gallup poll found that 80 percent of voters felt that passing an economic stimulus proposal was important or very important (51 percent very important, 29 percent important). RealClearPolitics.com reported in their poll of polls that Pres. Obama enjoyed a 64 percent job approval while congressional Republicans earned a mere 31 percent approval. This happened while Republicans were winning the PR war.

What could have possibly led all these experts to conclude that Republicans were besting the president? A bunch of grumpy old men saturated the airwaves peddling 30-year old sound bites and the same baseless predictions that created the current mess. Because of the overall volume of their wall-to-wall pronouncements, the chattering class concluded the opposition must be winning.

I have a little reminder from any Communications 101 course: In order for communications to occur, you need a sender, a message, a receiver, and feedback to suggest the receiver got the message. Short of that complete cycle, you can’t assume that any real communication occurred.

In the Republicans blitz, you had a sender and a message but no feedback that any intended receiver heard or bought into their claims. The only people who seemed to receive the messages were the drama-hungry media. Despite the Republican offensive, Americans didn’t seem to be persuaded. The experts didn’t get the memo.

It’s the same old drill. News stations keep a stable of experts who tell us what we should think about every situation. They pronounce their opinions with absolute certainty, things of which they have no clue. Then they tell two friends. And they tell two friends. And so on. And so on. Until you have a trend story: Republicans are winning the PR war against the stimulus.

By the way, congress agreed on a stimulus plan this week, with the support of a majority of Americans.

To the news pundits who repeat the same tired cliché’s without any facts or sources…I hereby bestow the Peoples Pundit STFU Award. Shut The Fuck Up!

What if the bailout still works without bipartisanship?

Republicans have been trotting around Washington for the last week warning that if Pres. Obama doesn't get bipartisan support for his bailout bill, the president alone will own the results. Republicans will be able to brand the president with the failure, since none of them had a hand in the decision.

Slipping past them, seemingly unnoticed, is the reverse argument. If it succeeds, Republicans would be on the wrong side of history yet again. Not only would they have owned the worst decisions of our generation, but they would be seen as erecting roadblocks on the road to recovery. Someone ought to point out that there's a fair amount of risk in that approach, too.

Sen. John McCain, in a deja vu moment for those of us who were finally beginning to put the campaign behind us, lectured Obama from the Capitol. You might get a bill signed, he warned, but it won't be bipartisan.

The Republican road to victory goes through a little town off the side of the road called Bipartisan. In unison, they've withheld their support from the House bill and all but about three for the Senate bill. The Democrats have the votes to pass the measures, but they won't be able to claim that the victories were bipartisan.

One thing guys...Americans don't need a bipartisan, they need a bailout. When you are drowning, you don't really care if the Coast Guard and Life Guard hold hands when they throw you a life raft. People are losing jobs at ridiculous rates. Families are losing homes. Life savings have evaporated in the market. And it's only getting worse.

Against this backdrop, Republicans think that it is important to hold out and deny the president bipartisanship because if the plan doesn't work, the Democrats alone will own the failure.

Again, another little factoid that slips past them in this argument; Republicans own the current failure. This isn't something we are trying to do; it's something we are trying to UNdo. To say that you can crap all over the place for eight years and tell the new guy to clean it up in two weeks or you own the pile is kind of ridiculous. We all know whose shit we are cleaning up.

All these arguments overlook a very real possibility, however. What if it works?

What if the economy is stimulated? What if people start going back to work? What if the rate of foreclosures stalls? What if banks begin lending? What if they created or saved 4 million jobs? What if any of those things happened? What if they all happened? What if they all happened and the victory wasn't bipartisan? What would Republicans say then? What would they do? I sure hope we have a chance to find out.

Maybe we should Google 'Inauguration'

I found this goodie from Flickr member Marcellina right after Inauguration Day.

Where's the friggin' special Google Inauguration Day Logo???

Mother's Day
Father's Day
Groundhog's Day
Flag Day
Fourth of July
Veteran's Day
Easter
Christmas
St. Patrick's Day
Valentine's Day
Earth Day
Halloween

All of these days get the special Google logo, so why not this Inauguration? It's an historic event, and the Google execs were open about their support for Obama. So what gives??

Republicans lose in a dramatic stand

This week the Republicans tried to send Pres. Barack Obama a strong message: you might be Michael Jordan, but we're still going to play defense.

Despite personally campaigning for an $819 billion stimulus bill, Pres. Obama could not raise a single Republican vote. In Obama's 244 - 188 victory, Republicans were unanimous in their opposition.

Just eight days after 2 million people gathered in front of the Capitol steps to welcome the new executive, Republicans, in the same building, staged an open revolt against the president's leadership.

To keep my basketball analogies going, I remember a quote that says 'if a guy is coming through the lane scoring on every possession, the next time he comes your way, clean his clock. He'll think twice before driving your way again.'

Bless their little hearts, the Republicans figured they'd make an early stand against the popular president, just to let Obama know Republicans won't be pushovers. They not only played defense, they tried to clean his clock. (Ok, no more basketball analogies.)

A couple issues, however... The bill still passed. As many of Michael Jordan's opponents learned, playing defense wasn't enough to ensure a win. (Ok.. ok... I couldn't resist one more.)

One other thing... they were opposing solutions for the future with arguments from the past. They opined that the bill consisted of wasteful spending rather than tax cuts. Once again, they told us that only tax cuts will rescue us from this disaster. The danger is in including unemployment insurance for all those Americans who lose their jobs in this economy. We don't need social programs. They are only a drag on the American economy.

Is it just me, or haven't we heard these arguments before? Isn't this the vehicle that took us straight into this ditch? Didn't Republicans promise us that a sole diet of tax cuts was the path to financial health? And didn't it end in the spectacular failure we now endure?

If we learned anything during the last eight years, it's that the Right won't be deterred by reality as long as they clutch to their core "principles." Slogans over substance all over again.

Here we are...a tad more than a week after a resounding repudiation of those "principles" and Republicans are still resisting based on the same failed theories.

Sometimes I'm glad they don't learn from their mistakes.

The road to hell...

...was paved with good intentions.

So we learned last night during George Bush's farewell speech to the nation.

He took the country straight to Hell but wanted us to know he followed his principles and made decisions that he thought were best for the country. In other words, he meant well.

In Bush's narrow world where everything is black or white, good or evil, any decision made for that noble principle of freedom is worth any trade off.

The goods and evils are clear cut even though the goals are ambiguous. How close are we to "freedom?" How much further do we need to go? What's the threshold where the price becomes too much? The objective unattainable? When is enough, enough?

None of these issues matter to old George as long as his efforts are in pursuit of "freedom."

Liberated from the scrutiny that might cause him to rethink his decisions, the president plows on...fueled only by the certainty of his principles. He made tough decisions, he said. Whether or not you agreed with him, he did what he thought was right.

Few regrets. No remorse. He's riding out of town on the road on the road of good intentions. He has no clue where it ends. We do. The world went to Hell in a handbasket ever since he arrived. But he meant well.

Speed on by yourself, Mr. President. Good bye and good riddance.

The president and the preacher

Here's a bit of irony. On the weekend that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of the United States, his old pastor Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright will also be in Washington, D.C., speaking at the Howard University Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel.

Rev. Wright has a standing engagement to preach every Martin Luther King Birthday weekend. As fate would have it, that weekend coincides with the inauguration. Wonder if they'll have time to catch up. :-)

Bush's legacy: it could have been worse

After eight years of what could be the most dismal presidency in modern history, George Bush has found the ultimate talking point to salvage his presidency – It could have been worse.

Most of us probably wonder what could be worse. President Bush began his presidency with the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil. He responded with a misguided war that claimed 4,000 American lives and wounded 30,000 Americans, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

He plunged the America into the worst economy since the Great Depression, and presided over a period when we lost more than 4 million jobs.

History will vindicate him, he says, because it could have been worse. The crux of his case seems to rest on what didn't happen rather than what did.

Pres. Bush's chief argument is that we have not had an attack on the Homeland since 9/11. If keeping America safe is your legacy, you are overlooking one big ole data point. Despite explicit warnings that Al Qaeda was determined to attack the United States, Bush was caught off guard when Al Qaeda terrorists attacked the United States. The terrorists killed thousands of innocent citizens, but Bush wants to be remembered as the guy who didn't let it happen…again.

We now have the worst economy since the Great Depression. Lucky for us the windows in Wall Street offices don't open because there has been mass panic over there for the last three months. Bush responds that he inherited a recession, he ended on a recession, but in the meantime there was 52 months of uninterrupted job growth. Let's do some math. Bush was president for 96 months, and he claims success for 52. Even by his definition of success, half his presidency was spent in a recession. It could have been worse, however. We could have spent the entire presidency broke.

When asked about the federal government's lackluster response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush snapped that they plucked 30,000 people from roof tops right after the storm passed. In a city of 2 million residents, the feds can take credit for rescuing 30,000.There are 9,000 Louisiana families still living in trailers and more than 30,000 gulf state residents still receiving assistance. Five of 23 acute-care hospitals in New Orleans remain closed. The bus system carries less than a third of its pre-storm passengers. Many neighborhoods remain vacant. It could have been worse, I guess; He could have let the entire city drown.

Finally, when confronted with the reality that the country's standing in the world has been greatly diminished; Bush retorted that this was the view of Europeans and the elite. You don't even need data to rebuff this claim. Just think back a month when Bush took a valedictory tour to the country he "liberated" from Saddam Hussein. The most memorable point of the trip was when an Iraqi journalist hurled both of his shoes at the president. That's standing for you. Not sure how that one could have been worse.

For every major decision, the president was resolute and wrong. To bolster his legacy however, Bush asserts that it could have been worse. Let's thank God that he wasn't president for longer; he might have just proven it to us.

What so proudly we hail...

The flag, Silly.

After months of resisting requests to wear a flag pin during the campaign, Barack Obama eventually capitulated and donned the patriotic symbol. Now the flag is one of the more prominent things in the official photo that will be used throughout his presidency. Oh say can you see?

Bail out for porn? Come on...

Times are hard in the porn industry. They are so hard that Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis are planning to ask Congress for a $5 billion bailout of the adult entertainment industry.

"With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind. It's time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly," said Larry Flynt.

I know... Congress will say this is too hard to do. This won't stimulate the economy, and the American people will have no desire to bail out porn. The thought will be enough to make your head throb. We'd rather go about life carelessly blowing Bubbles. But we must do it. We must bail out porn.

Think of the impact if we don't act. Men will be forced to look at their own wives. Wives will have to fend off increased advances from other women's husbands. Camcorder sales will increase dramatically. Children will wonder why their parents now go to bed so early.

Well the porn industry won't take this lying down. They refuse to swallow their pride and let the the economy stick it to them in such an impersonal way. After all, why should porn be brought to its knees? Congress will have to enter this debate, or the American people will get screwed.

Could this all be true, I wondered? I was getting all riled up when the thought occurred to me that this might just be a stunt. Who cares, though. If we can spend money to bail out crappy Chryslers, surely we can lend porn a hand.

Congress, cut em the check. Keep it coming, Larry.

To seat or not to seat? For Ill. senate seat squabble, that is not the question

Honestly, they should have seen it coming. I'm not sure how politicians and the media were caught off guard when Gov. Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris to be the junior senator from Illinois.

Maybe they were distracted by all their huffing and puffing about how crazy Gov. Blagojevich is and how it would be ludicrous for him to appoint a successor to Pres. Elect Obama's seat. Maybe they thought that the embattled governor would take legal and PR advice from media pronouncements. Maybe the governor isn't as crazy as we'd like to think.

Ask yourself however, if you were Gov. Blagojevich, what would you do? It should have been a no-brainer that Blago would try to find the cleanest Black politician to appoint to President Elect Obama's vacant seat. What better way to inoculate the governor in his ongoing public relations and legal troubles. What does Blago have to lose by making the appointment?

The huffing and puffing continued with people openly wondering why Roland Burris should accept the job. Why wouldn't he? Once you get past the emotion of the moment, Burris makes some pretty interesting points. The decision about whether he should be seated is a legal one. So far I have not seen anyone dispute the pure legal basis for Burris' appointment. Burris also makes the point that he is qualified and the sins of the appointer should not be visited on the appointee.

The lone criticism I've heard against Burris thus far is that he is too ambitious. That his ego outsizes his talent.

Since when is humility a job requirement for the senate? Since when do candidates have to wait until the chattering class deems them "ready" or "qualified"? I seem to remember last year's democratic primary race come down to a bruising battle with two senators who began their senate careers labeled ambitious beyond their abilities. Now one of those candidates will be president and the other secretary of state. Ambition is no disqualifier in American politics.

Now the huffing and puffing continues with Harry Reid declaring that he will not seat Burris. Harry Reid, the guy who couldn't stop an idiot lame duck president from doing anything is now going to block Roland Burris from being seated?

How will you do that, Sen. Reid? Ahhh.. he won't seat the new appointee. Clever! Just in case, the Illinois secretary of state has also vowed not to certify the new appointee. A ceremonial one-two punch. Brilliant!

I wonder how well both those approaches will work? Burris told you that he intends to fight you in the courts; he is treating this as a legal matter. Burris told you that he is qualified and his record is without challenge; he intends to make this a David and Goliath fight in the streets of Chicago, where it counts. Rep. Bobby Rush laid out the role race could play. All the media huffing and puffing about the race card will be meaningless when the Bobby Rush PR machine gets cranked up in Chicago.

Burris has laid out his three strategies for succeeding Obama in the U.S. Senate, and I wonder if anyone is paying attention.

To seat or not to seat? To certify or not certify? Those are not the questions. The democrats of Illinois and congress seem unaware of what the real issues will be in this fight, and quite honestly, they ought to see them coming.