Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad may be based on falsehood, power lawyer alleges

His mom "chose" not to have an abortion in a country in which abortion was illegal anyway, according to attorney Gloria Allred:

Despite resistance from women's groups, the ad is expected to air during the Super Bowl. It is believed that the commercial will focus on Pam Tebow's 1987 pregnancy, during which time she fell ill in the Philippines. According to reports, doctors recommended that she abort the pregnancy, but she chose to go through with the birth of her son Tim.

Tebow grew up to be one of the most accomplished and celebrated stars in college football history, capturing two national championships and becoming the first sophomore to win the Heisman trophy.

Because abortion under any circumstance has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930 and is punishable by a six-year prison term, Allred says she finds it hard to believe that doctors would have recommended the procedure.

The attorney, who has represented a roster of famous clients, claims she will lodge a complaint with the FCC and FTC "if this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her choice," according to RadarOnline.

The religious right is behind the ad, and we all know how fast and loose the religious right can be with the truth. Read the rest of this post...

Sour grapes

Waah!

[M]any of the Republicans in attendance were less conciliatory, accusing Obama of coming to their conference for the purpose of scoring political points – exactly the kind of cynical ploy he accused them of.

"His purpose was to talk to the American people...but I think the American people will see through it...and that he continues to push forward with proposals with which they strenuously disagree," said Tom Price (R-Ga.), chairman of the Republican Study Group. "[W]hen he says he's not an ideologue, the chuckles in the room were only compounded by the chuckles across the land,” he added.

Read the rest of this post...

Bank sues customer who was victim of $800,000 cyber theft

Only in Texas. Read the rest of this post...

Stiglitz talks regulation and income redistribution at Davos

Unfortunately CNBC hasn't enabled the video for embedding, but if you follow the link, you can watch the five minute discussion. He always makes so much sense when he talks yet for some reason, the White House keeps siding with Wall Street instead. One very interesting tidbit from the interview is when he talks about the median income in the US dropping 4% in the last decade. Wow. The only changes with distribution of wealth in the US has been squeezing the middle and the poor to the advantage of the wealthiest Americans. Even then, somehow the Democrats have managed to lose that debate to the Republicans who scream "socialism."

Critics of increased regulation for banks said this would stifle innovation, but Stiglitz argued that it is difficult to see how the innovative banking products in the past 10 years helped society.

"You ask what was the social value of the CDO squares? They were doing things we should have known were stupid," he said.

A CDO square is a derivative where a collaterlized debt obligation is used to invest in other collateralized debt obligations.

Exactly. How brilliant was that "innovation" when nobody in senior management had any idea what was going on? The only thing they understood was the bonus money that piled into their bank account. Read the rest of this post...

The debate we should be having, instead of the spending freeze

I wrote a few days ago about what a silly idea a spending freeze is. We need to be working on getting ourselves out of a recessionary hole and back on a self-sustaining growth path, not cutting the spending that's helping us do just that. The job initiatives the president has proposed are all fine and dandy, but are just a drop in the ocean of 10% unemployment (more than 17% unemployed if you add in discouraged workers and those who are working part time when they would rather have a full time job).

Paul Krugman is right to denounce the freeze as a gimmick, but he should go even further. The gimmick can't even work on its own terms. Even if we think closing the deficit gap is the right policy for January 2010 (which it isn't), a spending freeze won't get us there. The gap is too big for a freeze on just 25% of the total budget -- it will do little more than slow down the rate of increase. Even worse, if we exempt the military, national security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt from a freeze, we are left with the 25% of the budget that contains almost all of the actual investment that the federal government does. And investment is the key. If we are going to spend money, we should be doing it in ways that increase future productivity. It is great that the president sees the need for investing in education, but there is also a major need for physical investment as well. And while a few miles of bullet train tracks in Florida is a good start, if that is as far as it goes, then it is just one more gimmick.

Republicans and teabaggers are unable to participate in a debate like this because they believe that ALL government spending is wasteful. They compartmentalize the part of their brain that sees the pot-hole ridden roads we drive on, the ports and harbors that our trade flows through, the airports that are increasingly decrepit and crowded, and the Internet infrastructure that lags behind our foreign competitors.

The debate we should be having is over how to make sure a second stimulus gets spent on real investments, rather than tax breaks for people who don't need them and spending on consumption that isn't necessary. We should NOT be debating how to cut non-defense discretionary spending. Read the rest of this post...

Must see TV: Obama and the GOP

UPDATE: The White House just posted the transcript for the entire meeting.

As I mentioned in the morning open thread, Obama planned to attend the "Issues Conference" of the House GOP Caucus this afternoon. Well, he did. Fortunately for all of us, the parties agreed to allow live coverage of the meeting. CNN covered the whole session (as did MSNBC, although I saw on twitter that FOX cut away early.)

It was very, very compelling television. There's going to be a lot of buzz about this appearance today. I have to say, Obama owned it.

Obama gave opening remarks, then took questions from a lot of GOP Representatives (some of the really nasty ones) including Mike Pence (IN), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Jeb Hensarling (TX), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Tom Price (GA), and Peter Roshkam (IL) among others.

The GOPers asked pretty typical questions. Some of them tried to play "gotcha." Didn't work. Obama answered their questions and provided his own commentary on them. He called Republicans out for their attacks on him. He noted that they've pretty much called his health care plan a "Bolshevik plot." One of the best moments was when Obama dissed Hensarling's question as a recitation of talking points. (UPDATED: Here with Obama's response to Hensarling, which I got from the WH transcript:

Jeb, with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.

Towards the end, Obama pointed to GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who was sitting in the front row. He noted that when many of the GOP Representatives stand on the House floor to talk issues, Luntz "has already polled it" -- and they get the talking points from him on how to box Obama in. The President kept going back to the theme that the GOPers were in a constant attack mode -- and how that prevented them from being able to work with him.

Obama was impressive. He was on the offense and didn't back down. That's the President we need to see. He looked like a leader -- a very smart leader. Read the rest of this post...

Orrin Hatch threatens to disrupt Democratic agenda if Democrats actually try to follow through with their agenda

The Republicans have already decided to obstruct the entire Democratic agenda, so what's the incentive to play nice in return? Hatch is a liar. He's complaining that the Democrats better not use the reconciliation process for passing health care reform when Hatch repeatedly supported using reconciliation when the Republicans were in power. Someone official, in the Senate and the White House, needs to step up and call Orrin Hatch a liar. Now. This is how the Republicans win the spin wars. They lie with impunity, they accuse us of doing what they've already done, and Democrats sit back and take it, until the public just assumes it's true. Let's see some leadership from both the Congress and the White House. Read the rest of this post...

Scott Roeder convicted of murdering abortion doctor George Tiller

Good. Read the rest of this post...

WH Communications Director: 'With 59 Senators, it is mathematically impossible for Democrats to do everything on their own.'

Found this little gem via Greg Sargent:

And [White House Communications Director] Dan Pfeiffer tells Politico that the White House will step up efforts to spotlight GOP obstructionism, but this quote may irk folks a bit:

“With 59 Senators, it is mathematically impossible for Democrats to do everything on their own."

Some will respond that it’s only mathematically impossible if Dems accept the filibuster as an inevitable fact of life, rather than something that might be campaigned against and changed. But the White House doesn’t appear to have an appetite for doing that.

It irks me. Apparently, the White House accepts the fact that Senate Republicans will filibuster every single legislative item. Or, they accept the fact that the Senate Republicans have no fear of repercussions for obstructing the Democrats' agenda because the President doesn't make them pay a price. Mitch McConnell is putting his political interests above the well-being of the nation. We're in two wars and slowly climbing out of the Great Recession (maybe.) But, there's no price to pay for blocking everything and anything in the Senate. Obama should be picking the GOPers off one-by-one. And, he should spend some time in Maine to let everyone up there know the games that the two alleged Republican moderates are playing with our nation's future.

Thern there are the Democratic obstructionists who not only don't get called out, they get rewarded for their bad behavior. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Joe Lieberman come to mind.

Remember how George Bush whined about the mathematical impossibility of doing anything when he only had 49 GOP Senators for most of the first two years of his first term? I don't either. As John noted earlier this month, during Bush's presidency, the most Republican Senators he had to work with was 55.

On the good news front, Chris Bowers reports that David Axelrod seemed somewhat amenable to efforts to supporting a change in the filibuster rules for the next Congress. Read the rest of this post...

US proposes 17% emissions cut by 2020

Not a bad start but will the administration actually make an effort to fight for this or will we see the familiar big talk and then fold? The Republicans will no doubt spin this as a cost that's too high for an economy in trouble. Business can't afford it, they will charge. So what about families? Can they afford it? What about their health care costs due to pollution? Why are business costs more important than family costs? If anyone has more cash in their pockets today, it's business. Unless Obama and the Democrats decide to fight, it won't matter.

The United States pledged Thursday to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels under an international climate agreement, though it made its commitment contingent on passing legislation at home.

The Obama administration submitted its much-anticipated reduction target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat under the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding deal brokered by the United States last month at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks. Under the deal President Obama helped secure in Copenhagen, major emitters of greenhouse gases are expected to "inscribe" their reduction targets by Jan. 31.

Read the rest of this post...

Rahm says we'll get to health care reform later

Not sensing that fierce urgency. Mind you, Scott Brown hasn't been seated yet. The Republicans would have taken their 60 seat majority and just passed the bill and be done with it. Yes, several Dems are being a pain. Because they can. Perhaps now would be a good time to teach them a lesson, and set the tone for rebooting the presidency. (H/t Greg Sargent) Read the rest of this post...

Pentagon already backing off President's promise to repeal DADT this year

Maybe President Gates should have given the State of the Union. Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Capping off his busy week, Obama is heading to Baltimore today to meet with the House Republicans at their "Issues Conference." The President is committed to bipartisanship. The House Republicans are committed to destroying his agenda. But, this will undoubtedly be a productive meeting with lots of smiles and good photo ops for both sides. They can resume the battle when they're all back in D.C.

Next week is critical for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The President submits his budget to Congress on Monday. That's where Obama can send the signal that he's serious about taking action to repeal the law -- and that's where the repeal language needs to be according to SLDN. Then, the Senate Armed Service Committee's first hearing on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell are scheduled for Tuesday at noon. Chairman Levin promised hearings and he's keeping that promise. We'll have a good sense by Tuesday afternoon of how this is going to play out.

Let's get threading... Read the rest of this post...

Bernanke approved for second term

How much more change can a person really handle? Was the vote really about "market stability" as some suggested or is it all about maintaining the same status quo that brought us to this crisis in the first place? Somehow it's "populist" (as if that too is a bad word) to be disgusted with this failed system.

Bernanke was completely wrong about the economy even before he was Chairman the first time and he hardly deserves lavish praise for his efforts. Maybe he wasn't Chairman when the crisis was building but there's nothing that suggests he would have acted any differently from Greenspan. Another wasted opportunity to bring the previously discussed (but now missing) change to Washington. Once again, this is why voters think so little of everyone in Congress and the White House.

Bernanke's nomination was approved 70-30 by the Senate after clearling a procedural roadblock with a 77-23 vote. A simple majority of 51 votes in the 100-person chamber was needed for approval.

Senators debating his nomination credited Bernanke with steering the U.S. economy through a wrenching financial crisis but leveled withering criticism at him for policies they argued sowed seeds for the turmoil and for an initial slow response.

Read the rest of this post...

Bill Gates slams Berlusconi for being stingy

If I can date myself a bit, I remember when Gates was at the top of the stingy list. He was brutalized in the press for making millions (at the time) and holding onto every penny. It took him a while but when he came around, he really came around. Today he does an impressive job with spreading his billions around the world to help those in need. Berlusconi, who is much older, never had an "ah ha" moment when he decided to help make a difference.

"Dear Silvio, I am sorry to make things difficult for you, but you are ignoring the poor people of the world," he told the Frankfurter Rundschau.

And in a clear reference to the notoriously image-conscious Berlusconi, Gates told Süddeutsche Zeitung: "Rich people spend a lot more money on their own problems, like baldness, than they do to fight malaria."

In an annual report issued on Monday by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Italy's aid was listed in 2008 at 0.21% of GDP, compared withthe UK's 0.48%. Italy then decided to halve aid in 2009, which made it "uniquely stingy among European donors", Gates wrote.

Read the rest of this post...