In show of bipartisanship, Obama admits to being born in Morocco

Cute.

In a press conference this morning, President Barack Obama admitted that he was, in fact, born in Morocco.

"It's half-way between Kenya and the US," Mr. Obama explained, "so in the spirit of bipartisan compromise I'm going to admit that I was born in Morocco.... There's probably some truth in both sides. I hope by extending this olive branch to my opponents that we can lay this matter to rest."

Read the rest of this post...

VIDEO: No, the puppy is not dead

H/t HuffPost Hill. Read the rest of this post...

WikiLeaks will release a 'thermonuclear device of files' if Assange is killed or brought to trial

Wow. Dylan Ratigan is referring to it as a "Doomsday File." Now we understand the hints contained in the New York Times story on the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. (Click the link for access to background stories.)

From AOL News, the straight stuff:

Julian Assange's lawyer has warned that supporters of the WikiLeaks founder will unleash a "thermonuclear device" of government files containing the names of spies, sources and informants if he's killed or brought to trial.

Assange, the 39-year-old Australian who has most recently embarrassed the U.S. by leaking hundreds of previously secret diplomatic dispatches over the past week, has dubbed the unfiltered cache of documents his "insurance" policy. The 1.5-gigabyte file, which has been distributed to tens of thousands of fellow hackers and open-government campaigners around the world, is encrypted with a 256-digit key, reports The Sunday Times. Experts interviewed by the paper said that even powerful military computers can't crack the encryption without the key.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says a cache of unfiltered government files containing the names of spies, sources and informants is his "insurance" policy, and his lawyer warns the documents will be released if he's killed or brought to trial.

Contained inside that file -- named insurance.aes256 -- are believed to be all of the documents that WikiLeaks has received to date, including unpublished papers on the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and papers belonging to BP and the Bank of America. Assange has previously suggested that the documents are unredacted, meaning they contain names that normally would be removed before publication to protect the lives of soldiers, spies and sources.

"We have over a long period of time distributed encrypted backups of material we have yet to release," he told the BBC in August. "All we have to do is release the password to that material, and it is instantly available."

Can't top that. "Tens of thousands" of hackers have the file; and all they need is the encryption key. Wanna bet that dozens of people have that key already? Distributed networking at its finest.

Let the games begin.

GP

UPDATE: I just want to add, after seeing Obama's train-wreck of a press conference, that this is how you deal with pressure from the authoritarian, hostage-taking right. It's the inverse of "compromise" and capitulation. Read the rest of this post...

Senator Reid, my civil rights are more important than your poker pork

Good to know that the Senator Majority Leader's eye is really on the ball on this one. The most important issue in the Democratic agenda is apparently online gambling.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to use the tax cut package President Barack Obama brokered with Republicans to legalize online poker, POLITICO has learned — a move that could further complicate the deal Obama announced Monday.

Now imagine had Senator Reid tried to use the tax compromise to pass something that actually helps people, like repealing DADT?

Not to mention, it might have helped had the President thought of adding DADT to the mix of things he'd get in return for giving the GOP their number one wish, the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Read the rest of this post...

Shorter Obama presser: 'Please don't hurt me'

Read the rest of this post...

Elizabeth Edwards has died

Very sad news this afternoon:

Elizabeth Edwards, the political wife whose public battle with breast cancer, coping with marital infidelity and continued advocacy for the downtrodden raised her profile above that of her husband, died Tuesday. She was 61.

Edwards died at her Chapel Hill home, where family and friends had gathered in recent days after doctors informed her that her cancer had spread and recommended that she not undergo further treatment.

Earlier today, Igor Volsky wrote a lovely tribute to Mrs. Edwards at the Wonk Room. Read the rest of this post...

Twitter reaction to Obama presser on Tax deal

It ain't pretty.

RT @emptywheel: To be fair, about only Progressives who have gotten O's attention--on DADT, even if no win yet--are those who took themselves hostage at WH.

RT @poopaltar Obama: Call me a Nazi, we'll deal. Vote for me, f--- you. Hold the country hostage? How much you want.

RT @brianbeutler: Dear @joshtpm. I've been taken hostage. They seem serious. Please send $10,000 to my paypal account so I can issue ransom.

RT @peterdaou Why does it escape Dems that it's good politics & good policy not to water down your principles but to fiercely defend them?

RT @Atrios: f--- the left, they don't vote for us anyway

RT @JoeSudbay: Yes, two years in to the Obama presidency, we do need to know what his core values are.

RT @HunterDK: Shorter Obama: It's your own damn fault for believing in me.

RT @ThisBowers: If you don't have a way to win the next fight, don't give in on this one. There is no plan for victory in the future, at all.

RT @ggreenwald most intense passion Obama exhibits is when he gets to explain why Left is so misguided: he really lights up; it's inspiring

RT @marcslove I wish Obama would express half the anger he expressed at his disappointed base today towards the Republicans.

RT @HunterDK: Yes, it's the liberals' fault again. if we'd just shut up America could be governed completely by GOP ideas, which would be much easier.

RT @pourmecoffee What the GOP just heard: "Find hostage for Social Security and entitlement cuts."

RT @mattyglesias: Obama presser seemed like open invitation for progressive members of congress to try to hold this deal hostage in hope of more concessions.

RT @Devilstower: Please don't allow Obama to be my negotiator if I'm ever taken hostage. Thanks.

RT @Atrios: so i guess i should take some hostages

RT @brianbeutler: Obama: This is like the public option fight all over again where I caved and opposed the thing that reduced the deficit.

RT @AdamSerwer: But you know, day after reversing one of your biggest campaign promises probably not a good time to slam your base

RT @DavidCornDC: If I were a pundit, I'd predict this will be a turning point in Obama presidency, esp. re his relationship with his base.

RT @kombiz: my big problem with deal is not extending UI during deep recession has become the new normal and not seen as radical

RT @DavidCornDC: The strategic intent of this press briefing should have been for O to say he got the best of the Rs. That's not what came out of this.

RT @kausmickey Dude is way too sensitive to left blogosphere and NYT ed page.

RT @DavidCornDC He had a point? Messaging disaster--the public is with me but I have to give in, anyway?

RT @HunterDK Someone start up a series of YouTube videos called "It Will Not Get Better" for Obama.

Read the rest of this post...

More on WikiLeaks' Julian Assange being arrested in London

That old (and questionable) arrest warrant in Sweden stemming from questionable charges has resulted in WikiLeaks founder Julina Assange's arrest in London. For background, you might go here, then here, then here, in order. The sequence gives some idea of the spy-vs-spy drama.

Assange says he will fight extradition. More here from the New York Times.

As to whether the arrest will slow WikiLeaks, the Times says this (my emphasis):

“Today’s actions against our editor-in-chief Julian Assange won’t affect our operations: we will release more cables tonight as normal,” a posting on the WikiLeaks Twitter account said. ...

That left unclear whether a more serious threat would be carried out. In recent days, Mr. Assange has asserted that “over 100,000 people” had downloaded the entire archive of 251,287 cables in encrypted form. Only around 1,000 of the cables have so far been released; in many, names of sources who might be compromised or endangered were redacted.

“If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically,” Mr. Assange wrote in a question-and-answer session on the Web site of the British newspaper The Guardian. Mr. Stephens, the lawyer, reiterated that warning on Tuesday saying a “a virtual network” of “thousands of journalists” around the world would ensure that the rest of the documents would be published.

There's also a big banking papers outage coming. All very interesting.

The Guardian has a nice timeline on the multi-front attack on WikiLeaks since the release of the diplomatic cables.

As I said before, if this were a novel, Assange is a stain on the pavement by now. Stay tuned.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Obama press conference Open Thread

UPDATE FROM JOHN @ 3:08 PM: Wow. I'm actually a bit shocked. What I learned from this train wreck of a press conference is that it's not Rahm, folks. It's him. He actually believes this shit. He actually thinks that a head of state caving into the demands of terrorists, pardon me, "hostage takers," is a virtue. And he freely admits it. Wow. He actually believes this shit. He actually believes that his penchant for caving, his fear and loathing of fighting for anything he claims to believe in, is a virtue. It's absolutely shocking. And finally, he's itching for a fight? No he's not. And the Republicans know it. He just freaking admitted that if they take hostages, he's going to cave. I'm speechless. Did nobody in the White House think of telling him that the President of the United States doesn't admit that official American policy is to cave to hostage takers, lest they take even more hostages in the future? Dear Lord. He won't fight. He never fights. I'm sorry, but it's open season on this guy now. He is congenitally unable to fight for anything, and considers it a badge of honor. Good luck with that in 2012.

UPDATE @ 3:00 PM: Wow. So, Obama got a little testy. He really doesn't like when his base challenges or questions him. But, we don't think he tries. Or as Glenn Greenwald tweeted:

The most intense passion Obama exhibits is when he gets to explain why the Left is so misguided: he really lights up; it's inspiring

UPDATE:@ 2:55PM FROM JOHN: Dear God. He's serious. He actually thinks that fighting is useless, it's only symbolic, it gets you nothing. Dear God. He then went on to say that this reminds him of the fight over the public option. No shit, Sherlock. It sure does. Oh this is good, now he's saying that the NYT editorial page doesn't "permeate" across America. Excuse me, but you just admitted that the entire country was on your side. Now you're claiming that old "I'm powerless" cop out again. Good God.

UPDATE @ 2:53 PM: Obama explains what his lines in the sand are. one is not extending permanently the tax cuts for the wealthy (they just get them for the entire first term of his presidency.) This notion that somehow that we are willing to compromise too much...this is the health care debate all over again...this is the public option debate all over again.

UPDATE @ 2:50 PM: Obama doesn't know how the Republicans can win the debate over lowering taxes for the wealthy. Well, they've just won a big battle on that front. Apparently, Obama wants to fight this one out in the 2012 campaign. It's okay to fight in campaigns when real policy isn't at stake.

UPDATE @ 2:47 PM: Obama, "I am happy to be tested over the next two years.." He's challenging the GOPers to test him. Um, they've tested him for the past two year -- and won time and time again. I think the GOPers will be happy to keep testing him. They must be laughing about that line.

UPDATE FROM JOHN 2:43PM: The President of the United States just said that you negotiate with hostage takers. Seriously? That kind of changes a major tenet of US policy going back decades I believe.

UPDATE @ 2:41 PM: Chuck Todd wants to know why the Democrats shouldn't think he's rewarding bad behavior of Republicans. Well, according to Obama, the American people are being held hostage...or something like that. And, he goes back to the idea that the polls are on his side. Adds, we weren't operating from a position of political weakness. Um, then how the hell did you lose???
____________________________
Not too long ago, we got word that the President would hold a press conference at 2:20 PM to discuss his tax deal with the GOP. It's on and I'll be liveblogging it.

In the opening remarks, the President said "some would prefer a protracted political fight." That's the President taking a swipe at his base -- again. He's going to fight really hard in 2012 to end the tax cuts for the wealthy (um, we heard that in 2008.)

The deal must be in trouble or Obama wouldn't be doing a presser today, especially after giving the speech last night. Huffington Post is reporting that Mary Landrieu (D-LA), yes Landrieu called the deal the "Obama-McConnell plan" and blasted its "morally corruptness."

First question is basically why should the American people believe what you say when you've abandoned a campaign promise. Obama gave a long answer about how the American people are on his side -- but that he can't budget GOP Senators. Hence, he caved. "I haven't persuaded Mitch McConnell. I haven't persuaded John Boehner." I have to say, watching that first answer did not inspire confidence. I don't think the President and his team of geniuses grasp how this looks. He caved on a key campaign promise. He succumbed to the bullying politics of the GOP. He didn't persuade McConnell and Boehner because they don't fear Obama. They expect him to cave -- and he proved their point.

The White House team wants Obama to be viewed as the reasonable man. They don't understand that the American people want and need a leader. Also, this is as passionate as I've seen Obama about any issue of late. Figures he gets riled up when he's caving. Read the rest of this post...

Alan Grayson on the Pundit Tax Cut

Digby points us to an interesting Daily Grayson about the effect of extending the Bush tax cuts on "conservative" pundits. (And by "conservative" I mean Conservative, a radical invasion force disguised as principled intellectuals.)

Way to connect the dots. Enjoy:



So when Obama's cave-in "deal" is voted in (barring some mishap), Rush Limbaugh will pocket $2.7 million per year.

Glenn Beck will nab $1.5 million per year. Sean Hannity, an extra $1 million per year. And the list goes on.

Grayson aims his guns at Republican pundits. But all of these people stand to gain a fortune in extra income. Chris Matthews, for example, reportedly makes $5 million per year. If so, that puts his tax cut at a quarter million per year, every year. These are all staggering sums of money.

The number you want to memorize comes from Paul Krugman:

We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade; over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the entire projected Social Security shortfall.

Four trillion dollars over 10 years; that's almost a half trillion per year. No wonder they don't want to cash the Treasuries in that Social Security Trust Fund.

Your Pundit Tax Cut, ladies and gentlemen; here for the rest of your life, and theirs.

GP Read the rest of this post...

So what's your take on Julian Assange and Wikileaks?

You might have read that Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has been arrested in London on what some feel are trumped us sex charges. I have to admit, it sure was awfully convenient for these charges to arise right when the Pentagon had Assange in its targets. (And yeah, I think the charges were fabricated.) Then there's the larger issues of the leaked documents themselves. Have to admit, the notion of leaking millions of documents is a bit of a shocker. But would I have any problem reading them through, had I the time, no. Did we get a ton of really interesting news out of them, especially by the NYT? Yup.

And isn't it ironic that Wikileaks is bad for leaking the cables but the NYT is good for reporting on what's in them.

A part of me feels that this is one of those "yes it's 'wrong,' but it's also good" situations - meaning, technically what he did was bad, but some of this information hitting the light of day is a good thing. Another part of me worries about whether the docs exposed any sources and methods our spy apparatus uses to gather necessary national security information. And a third part of me wonders why Karl Rove isn't in jail.

What do you think? Read the rest of this post...

The poison pill in the cave-in deal — the payroll tax reduction

Paul Krugman details the shape of the "deal" here (my emphasis throughout):

Well, for starters we have the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. ... To this, the deal added $120 billion in a payroll tax cut; $56 billion in extended unemployment benefits; about $40 billion in extension of other tax credit. Also, expensing of business investment.

Click through for a good analysis of the effect — and also the timing. (Obama's timing means that whatever good effect this deal will have, that effect will disappear just in time for the next election cycle. More on his bad timing here.)

The payroll tax cut caught me by surprise, as it did others. It's explained as a form of stimulus — more for the middle class, so they can spend more. But why a payroll tax? Because you can't kill Social Security unless you starve it first.

Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works, walks us through the logic. Remember, as proposed the payroll tax "holiday" is set to expire in two years. That means if it's not extended by vote, it becomes a "tax hike" on expiration.

Given that unwillingness to raise taxes by less than a nickel on every dollar earned over $1 million, I find it unfathomable that a more conservative Congress, in two years, in an election year, will increase the payroll tax by 2 percent on the very first dollar, and every other dollar up to the cap, earned by virtually every single worker in the country. Consequently, I think we have to assume that the payroll tax holiday will be extended beyond the two years the president is proposing and quite likely could become permanent.

That means that the federal government will have to continue to transfer $120 billion to the Social Security trust funds each and every year even as it has to transfer more and more interest payments as the trust funds continue to grow and as interest rates return to more normal levels. Unless Congress acts to restore Social Security to solvency, the Treasury bonds held in trust will have to be redeemed, again on top of that new $120 billion transfer from the general fund, starting fifteen years from now, assuming Congress even continues to make the $120 billion every year before that point. These dollars will be competing with dollars for defense, environmental protection, education, school lunches, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, Pell grants for low income college students, and every other good and service financed by the federal government.

A permanent two percent cut in Social Security contributions doubles the 75 year projected shortfall. Scrapping the cap (eliminating the $106,800 maximum on earnings), tonally eliminates the shortfall today. If FICA is cut by 2 percent, scrapping the cap gets Social Security only halfway there.

Very clever, Mr. Yes You Can. Say it again: A permanent 2% cut in Social Security contributions doubles the 75-year shortfall.

And that's how you kill Social Security — by giving people the gift that will starve it.

A poison pill, and and the press will push us to swallow it. Is there not one senator who will rid us of this meddlesome deal?

GP Read the rest of this post...

SU's Alex Nicholson talks DADT's hurdles in the Senate with Sam Seder

Two of our good friends talking DADT and the problems facing passage of the Defense bill in the Senate.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read the rest of this post...

Krugman thinks tax deal is bad for Obama's reelection prospects

Team Obama thinks they've established the President as a reasonable man. And, everything they're doing now is with an eye to the reelection of Mr. Reasonable. Unfortunately, it looks like the tax cut deal, much like the 2009 stimulus, won't work as intended. And, that will end up having a negative impact on the reelection, according to Professor Krugman:

Since all the evidence says that elections depend on the rate of change of unemployment, not its level, this is actually bad news for Obama: he’s setting himself up for an economic stall in the months leading into the 2012 election.

Oh, and he’s overpromising again:

“It’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery,” Mr. Obama said. “It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.”

Millions of new jobs? Millions? Not by my arithmetic.

So, was this worth it? I’d still say no, although it’s better than what I expected over the weekend. It still greatly increases the chances of the Bush tax cuts being made permanent — especially because the front-loading of the stimulative stuff actually worsens Obama’s 2012 electoral prospects.

Overall, enough sweetener has been added to diminish, but not eliminate, the bitterness of the disappointment.

Krugman was absolutely right about the stimulus -- as was Joseph Stiglitz. But, no one in the administration pays them any heed because they're only Nobel Prize winning economists -- and Team Obama is comprised of the smartest people in the history of the world. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

So, the President is one tough negotiator, huh? Yeah. The Republicans figured out early in the Obama presidency that he didn't know how to fight. That's not his style. And, Team Obama thinks people want their president to be reasonable and get along with everyone. I think Americans actually want a leader. A real leader. A leader who fights for what he believes in. It's not clear what Obama believes in. (Can't say we haven't been warning you.)

On a conference call last night with reporters, a "Senior Administration Official" explained that, since there's a two-year extension to the Bush tax cuts, the President will be fighting the same battle in 2012. It was noted that team Obama looks forward to having that fight, because they had the same battle over taxes in 2008 and won. I think that gives us some insight into the warped thinking of Team Obama. They "won" on the tax issue in 2008, but completely caved on the tax issue in 2010. I'm sure GOPers are really scared about 2012.

Big news this morning is that Wikileak's Julian Assange has been arrested in London.

Yesterday, we liveblogged the oral arguments in the Prop. 8 case. Many thanks to USC Constitutional Law Professor David Cruz who participated in the chat and helped us all understand what was going on. We're so lucky to have Ted Olson on our side. He was just eloquent -- and fierce.

It's fricking cold here in DC. I understand the cold air has made its way down to Florida. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: The 'soft corruption' of the economics profession

Seems I've been reading some Krugman lately, but it's been well worth it. In this blog post he comments on the film Inside Job (which Chris in Paris discussed here).

I won't highlight everything in the post (I'm saving the "helicopter" comment for you to enjoy alone). But this jumped out — the Professor finally sees it:

There aren’t, I think, all that many cases when economists are literally paid to offer a specific opinion — although Greenspan’s defense of Keating qualifies. But the movie didn’t say there are. What it suggested, instead, was a kind of soft corruption: you get paid a lot of money by the financial industry, you get put on boards, but only if you don’t rock the boat too much. Besides, you hang out with these people, and get assimilated by the financial Borg. I think all of that is very true.

You don't get your kids into Exeter by disagreeing with the billionaire donors of the Brookings Institute.

Now maybe he can stop assigning the noble badge of Honest Differences to the PhD-ed retainers who refuse to make sense. I know, baby steps.

GP Read the rest of this post...