Seems CBS ran two conservative political ads during the Super Bowl, and zero liberal ones

CBS "changed" their policy, secretly, just in time for the conservatives to run ads, but didn't bother telling anyone on the left that the policy had changed until it was too late. And the one liberal ad we know about, for a gay dating service, of course got rejected. Surprise! Read the rest of this post...

Sarah Palin's objection to DADT repeal is the timing. Gosh, so she's open to it otherwise?

Great, so when does she think would be a good time to repeal it, now that the timing is her biggest problem? Read the rest of this post...

GOP talking about cutting Social Security again, when the real budget problem is health care

Two Republicans, Alan Greenspan and Hank Paulson, sat on Meet the Press this morning and told us that there is no way out of our fiscal mess that doesn't involve cutting entitlements. And first on their list is Social Security.

First, why should anyone believe what these two guys have to say? They presided over the monetary policy and the fiscal policy that got us into our current economic mess.

Second, why on earth does the supposedly he-said/she-said addicted mainstream press have only discredited Republicans to talk about economics? Aren't there no Democrats available?

Third, and most important, can we PLEASE kill the zombie-like reawakening of the we-must-cut-Social-Security-benefits meme once and for all? We last killed this lie a few years ago when Bush Jr. had a run at it, but in fact it has been around since 1933. Republicans HATE Social Security for two reasons, one stupid and one understandable (but also stupid if you actually care about retirees):

- The stupid reason: Social Security is "socialist." Well, sure it is and what of it? If people actually like it (and there is no question they do) are we really going to cut it just because it is something socialists happen to like also?

- The understandable reason: If I were a Republican, I too would hate the program that is so popular, it got Democrats elected and reelected for half a century. (Incidentally, this is also why they hate single payer health care. If we ever actually put it in place it would be so popular that the party who got credit for it would be cemented in power for the rest of our lives (which would be much markedly longer, incidentally). Only people who never travel to other countries (like most Republicans) could imagine that single payer wouldn't be popular. If you doubt what I say, just look at Medicare, our current seniors-only single payer government health care system. Even the tea-baggers like it.

Here are some facts. Social Security, if it has a long run problem at all, won't run in to any problems for at least three more decades by even the most conservative estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Even then, the "crisis" is that the SS trust fund will run out and SS will have to rely on current SS taxes like it did for most of its history. In other words, the "crisis" is that instead of having a steadily rising value, social security payments will be stuck at current levels, meaning us worker bees today will retire "only" at the level current retirees are getting rather than the steady increases we are promised. Of course, it is entirely possible and even probable that this "crisis" will never materialize at all, so it is silly to worry about it now when there are far bigger problems out there.

What are those far bigger problems? Medicare and Medicaid! They really ARE going to eat the entire federal budget in a decade or two if we don't pass some health care reforms.

To make it crystal clear, let me reiterate. Health care costs are going to bankrupt us if we don't pass some real reforms. Social Security won't bankrupt us. Lumping them together is just a way for the Republicans to attack Social Security - something they have hated for almost 80 years, and something which still works pretty well. And it will continue to work pretty well if we just leave it alone. Health care won't. Read the rest of this post...

Obama calls meeting with Republicans to iron out HCR compromise

UPDATE: This can't be good.

Racheting up efforts to call the GOP’s bluff on bipartisanship, Obama made a surprise announcement moments ago that he’ll be holding a summit of sorts with leading Republicans at the White House to discuss their ideas on health care reform — and possibly to move forward on legislation with them.

At this second meeting, Obama said, the White House, Dems, and Republicans would determine whether there was a bipartisan way forward on specific legislation. He said he wanted to “look at the Republican ideas that are out there” on lowering costs and insuring the 30 million uninsured.

“If we can go step by step through a series of these issues,” Obama said, then “procedurally there’s no reason why we can’t do it a lot faster than we did last year.”

The White House will deny it, but it sure sounds like they're starting over. Then at the same time, we hear this:

[T]he New York Times notes he "did not rule out scaling back the scope of the legislation in hopes of drawing more support for a health care plan."

The Washington Post notes Obama "sketched out an alternative approach to passing health-care legislation that would enlist Republicans and potentially extend debate into the spring, a strategy seemingly in conflict with the fast-track talks among Democrats on Capitol Hill."

It's hard to understand any method to the madness. Our more cynical readers think this is all intentional on the part of the White House. But I don't see the benefit in raising liberal hopes one day, then smashing them the next, over and over again. The same thing happened a week ago on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The President included it in the State of the Union, we had a great hearing before the Senate Armed Services committee, and Obama even mentioned it to the DNC winter meeting yesterday. But at the same time, our sources tell us that DADT repeal is in serious trouble as the White House isn't doing anything to push for a vote this year. Raise our hopes then do nothing to follow through, and in fact, help squash the follow through. It's as if they think we'll hear the good news and ignore the bad the very next day. What possible benefit can there be to this ongoing mixed messaging? It's not helping us get any closer to a Democratic victory in the fall. Read the rest of this post...

Clemons: Core Chicago team sinking Obama presidency

Fascinating analysis from Steve Clemons on a Financial Times article looking at the Obama presidency and the influence of the Chicago Team of political insiders who seem to have pushed the policy people away from the President:

[O]ne thing [it] is essential to understand is that the kind of policy that smart strategists -- including by people like National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other advisers like Denis McDonough, Tom Donilon, James Steinberg, William Burns, (previously Gregory Craig) -- would be putting forward is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang's tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.

President Obama needs to take stock quickly. Read the Luce piece. Be honest about what is happening. Read Plouffe's smart book again. Send Rahm Emanuel back to the House in a senior role. Make Valerie Jarrett an important Ambassador. Keep Axelrod -- but balance him with someone like Plouffe, and get back to putting good policy before short term politics.

Set up a Team B with diverse political and national security observers like Tom Daschle, John Podesta, Brent Scowcroft, Arianna Huffington, Fareed Zakaria, Katrina vanden Heuvel, John Harris, James Fallows, Chuck Hagel, Strobe Talbott, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others to give you a no-nonsense picture of what is going on.

And take action to fix the dysfunction of your office.

Otherwise, the Obama brand will be totally bust in the very near term.

And before any goes off on anonymous sources, Steve knows more power people in this town than anyone I know. If he's writing this, it's because he's had 100 different people confirm to him that it's true. Read the rest of this post...

Massive explosion at power plant in CT, 'there are bodies everywhere'

Happened two hours ago:

Witnesses and emergency response authorities said as many as 100 people were injured and an undetermined number may have died when a massive explosion, which homeowners felt more than 10 miles away and mistook for an earth quake, blew up a power plant being built on the Connecticut River in the southern section of Middletown at about 11 a.m. Sunday.

Medical rescue personnel said at least 100 were injured, four critically, and two were dead. "There are bodies everywhere," a witness said. Another witness said many victims may be buried in rubble

Anybody in the area? Read the rest of this post...

AP photo shows Palin cheated, read notes off her hand at Teabagger conference

I can't even believe this. She wrote a cheat cheat sheet on her palm. Huff Post has the break down, with photos, and here at AP's Web site you can see the original photo for yourself. And here's the video we posted last night, where you can see her get stuck during a Q&A; and then check her hand. It appears she either knew the questions in advance, or had pat answers regardless of the questions. Either way, she couldn't remember 3 talking points without writing it on her palm like some kid?

What a blithering idiot.

Hey Sarah, when Osama comes to blow up a few planes, you don't have time to check your palm. Read the rest of this post...

Sunday Talk Shows Open Thread

Good morning.

It's Super Bowl Sunday and D.C. is digging out from the Blizzard of 2010.

In fact, CBS is dedicating its Sunday show to the Super Bowl. What a coincidence since CBS is broadcasting the Super Bowl.

There's a similar situation over at FOX. The network spent the weekend broadcasting the teabagger convention. Today, FOX will feature the star of the show, Sarah Palin, who is also a FOX News contributor. Funny how that happens. Will she write answers on her hand for FOX, too?

The economy takes front and center of ABC and NBC with three of the people who helped drive the economy over the cliff. Our current Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, is the guest on "This Week." Alan Greenspan and Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are on "Meet the Press."

Here's the full lineup. Read the rest of this post...

One More Time & Dub

Looking at the photos of the snow in Washington this morning has been lots of fun. I'm not much of a winter or snow person but I always liked the way a nice snow looked. And that silent sound. Loved it. Our brief spring-like temperatures are gone and the outlook for the next ten days is the typical 40F and wet.

For those watching the Super Bowl, who will it be? Being a native of Baltimore, I could never bring myself to root for the Colts. Then again, I don't follow the NFL very much other than a few minutes here and there. Read the rest of this post...

British Conservatives move away from climate change as election nears

The warm and fuzzy face of the Conservatives may not be the same as reality. The Tories may win this year but it might be more of a challenge to hold on than they expect. Their strongest selling point - and it's not to be undervalued - is the fact that they are not Labour. The Guardian:

Most Conservative MPs, including at least six members of the shadow cabinet, are sceptical about their party's continued focus on climate change policies, it has been claimed.

The recent furore around "Climategate" has hardened the views of Tory MPs, many of whom were already unconvinced by the scientific consensus, and has led to increasing calls for the issue to be pushed down the priority list.

Tim Montgomerie, founder and editor of the ConservativeHome website, said climate change had the potential to be as divisive for the party as Europe once was. "You have got 80% or 90% of the party just not signed up to this. No one minded at the beginning, but people are starting to realise this could be quite expensive, so opinion is hardening."

Read the rest of this post...

Digby on conservative whininess

I think Digby is onto something. But there's also another reason conservatives whine. It's called projection. Far too often, if you listen very closely to a Republican complaining about a Democrat, you'll note that the Democrat didn't do the thing they're being accused of, and the conservative already has. It's like a self-confessional, only a lot more bitter. After all, it's really hard being out of power for only 13 months of the past nine years. Read the rest of this post...