For It ... Until They're Against It

The reality of the political flip-flop -- as opposed to the comfy flip-flop that's popular in the summertime -- is nothing new; politicians have been changing their positions on issues for decades, particularly when an election approaches and a candidate is trying his or her best to pander to a segment of the electorate.

How else can one explain once-moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty tacking further to the right as the Republican Party tries to decide who's going to run against President Obama in the 2012 election?

But we've seen a ton of filp-flopping in the last three years, and just about all of it has centered around the Republican Party's deep-seeded mistrust (I'm reluctant to say hatred) for the president. Elected GOP leaders and their corporate backers are so set on making sure President Obama doesn't succeed that they're willing to abandon their own ideas once the president gives his stamp of approval.

Rather than list all of the examples myself, I'll allow Rachel Maddow to take over from here. She outlined this recent phenomenon on her show on Monday, noting the party's priorities of making President Obama look bad -- even if it means risking the country's economy.

Because let's face it, a broken economy benefits the GOP in the coming elections, suffering Americans be damned.

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

'As I Was Saying ...'

"This is to be a newscast of contextualization, to be delivered with a viewpoint that the weakest citizen of this country is more important than the strongest corporation. That the nation is losing its independence through the malfeasance of one political party and the timidity of the other."

With that mission statement on Monday, June 20, 2011, one of the most reliable and forceful progressive voices in America returned to the airwaves. Keith Olbermann returned with the debut of the newest edition of Countdown With Keith Olbermann on Current TV Monday night, and save a new set, a new channel and some other small tweaks, the show seems to have changed little in the six months since it last aired on MSNBC.

Which is a good thing.

The theme music is (largely) the same, as is Olbermann's "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?" opening. The format of the show is largely unchanged -- though "Oddball" is now called "Time Marches On." His "Worst Persons in the World" segment, complete with organ music, returns, though Olbermann seemed to be trying to make it extra-clear this segment is supposed to be sarcastic.

Olbermann had three of his contributors as guests -- filmmaker Michael Moore, author and former Nixon administration member John Dean and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (now that he no longer had to worry about crybaby Joe Scarborough) -- and the topics ranged from Libya to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the state of the GOP presidential candidates to a little MSNBC-bashing, for good measure.

By and large, this was the Countdown progressives knew and loved. Olbermann wasn't kidding in the press leading up to the premiere that the show would remain largely unchanged. This might've been simply because it was his first episode on a new network and Olbermann didn't want to stray too far from the familiar; it'll be interesting to see how the show evolves in the coming weeks and months.

I have two minor quibbles with Olbermann's return on Monday, the first of which actually has nothing to do with Olbermann himself. Current TV is not available through my cable provider, and seeing as how I live in an area where my cable company has a monopoly, my choices are either the cable company or satellite.

Current TV's website allows you to enter your zip code to find where the network is carried in your area. If it is not offered, Current gives you three ways in which to convince your provider to carry Current TV. Time will tell how successful those efforts are, but in the meantime, those of us without the network will have to find other ways to get our dose of Keith.

Secondly, when Olbermann and Dean were discussing Justice Thomas' glaring conflicts of interest, Olbermann raised the question as to why Congressional Democrats were not screaming for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from cases in which there are conflicts of interest and/or resign. It was a fair question to ask, considering how Republicans would smell blood in the water if a liberal justice were accused of the same thing; however, one very important point was ignored.

There was a member of Congress -- a Democrat, no less -- who was hounding Justice Thomas regarding his conflicts of interest. But he resigned last week, in part because his own party wouldn't support him amid a scandal that was, admittedly, disturbingly tame.

So not only are Democrats not pressuring Justice Thomas, but they kicked out the one guy who was. This is that timidity Olbermann mentioned above.

All in all, it's wonderful to have Keith Olbermann back on television. There are legitimate concerns about Current TV's reach, or what Olbermann can do with a little-known network that isn't available everywhere, but if his previous work in establishing and re-branding ESPN and MSNBC are any indication, it just might work.

Moreover, Olbermann's no-nonsense approach and adherence to the facts is desperately needed in today's media climate, and his frustration gives a voice to progressives who can no longer find such a passionate, forceful voice among their own representatives.

This is why I fill so much space on this blog with Olbermann's work; his voice fills a void that desperately needed to be filled; if the progressive we put in office will not speak up and fight for us, we need someone in the media who will -- and Olbermann, all his personal issues be damned, is that person.

Liberals need Olbermann; more importantly, though, the country needs him.

A Matter of Priorities

You will find no condemnations of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) on this page with regards to his Twitter photo scandal. You will find no sophomoric jokes, no links to any of the stories or calls for his resignation.

You will find no mocking of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump getting together in New York for crappy pizza. You will find no shaming of the former Alaska governor's continued ignorance of all things American -- in this instance, the history of Paul Revere.

Sure, these topics are salacious, amusing and borderline pathetic. But they're not important.

They don't matter as much as the debate over raising the debt ceiling (a prospect that, most of the time, is hardly controversial). Or the debate over the Republicans' plan to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors to purchase private health insurance. Or the latest jobs report, continuing the narrative of a jobless recovery.

The media should instead be focusing on Republican tactics -- both on the federal and state level -- to restrict access to choice and defund Planned Parenthood. Or the upcoming debate on (once again) letting the Bush-era tax rates expire.

The above topics are the sorts of things that need to be reported on and discussed. The beltway media and the rest of the country's journalists (setting aside sports and entertainment reporters, because of the specialized nature of their fields) should be focusing on actual issues right now, regardless of how amusing or sexy they might be.

Rep. Weiner's package has no bearing on this country's unemployment rate, and since Palin has as much of a chance at winning the presidency as I do, she's not nearly as important as making sure we reduce the federal deficit without harming this country's middle class and seniors.

Every journalist or pundit who has spent air time or printing ink or web storage on the likes of Rep. Weiner and Palin instead of any of the other topics mentioned above have failed -- both their profession and this country. It is but another example of everything that is wrong with American media (and, when extrapolated, everything wrong with American politics).

People need jobs. People need to know the economy is recovering and they're not one decision away from financial ruin. People need to be reassured that the banks and the corporations and the insurance companies can't screw them over anymore. People need to know President Obama and Congress are on their side, not the monied interests.

People do not need to know what Rep. Weiner is packing. People do not need to know that many middle schoolers have a better understanding of American history than Palin.

Shame you, mainstream media. Shame every last one of you.

The Problem With Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan

Ezra Klein -- he of MSNBC, Newsweek and The Washington Post, is one of the best writers covering politics in Washington, largely because he's a policy wonk with the uncanny ability to explain complex legislation in such a way that non-wonks (read: just about everyone else) can understand it.

Today, I read on his Washington Post blog a detailed (yet easy-to-read) rebuttal of the Medicare proposal put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) -- you know, the one that would dismantle Medicare and replace it with a voucher program to help senior citizens purchase health insurance.

Rather than engage in partisan talking points (I get the sense that Klein's a fairly liberal dude), he sticks to facts and details. He even supplies charts!

Read Klein's post here -- and feel free to make this thing viral.

Deficit and Unemployment Linked

Even with America still facing an unemployment crisis -- the latest numbers continue pointing toward the narrative of a "jobless recovery" -- politicians in Washington and the media which covers them have instead focused on the deficit.

Whenever federal and state lawmakers argue against extending unemployment benefits, they often frame the argument in terms of the deficit. Instead of focusing on jobs, Congress (including a newly-elected Republican majority in the House) shifts its attention to matters related to the deficit.

The budget plan forwarded by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), which would replace Medicare with vouchers for seniors to purchase insurance from private companies, was introduced in an effort to rein in the deficit.

The debate over the Bush tax cuts that took place back in December was framed around the deficit -- because raising taxes (even on a small percentage of the population) would mean more revenue, which is half the federal budget formula.

Republicans' refusal to raise taxes -- and in some regard, their insistence upon lowering taxes even more -- has made the revenue portion of the deficit debate a dicey one.

The current debate over raising the debt ceiling, which is necessary by August to prevent the country from defaulting on its debts and likely causing another recession, has been accentuated by Republican lawmakers requiring more spending cuts -- you guessed it -- in the name of deficit reduction.

Even debates over America's military action -- officially, we're only at war in Afghanistan (even though we still have troops in Iraq and we're doing who the hell knows what in Libya) -- are framed, in part, along the deficit. Proponents for ending America's wars argue that ending military action would save billions of dollars the country doesn't have.

They're not wrong.

But there's one thing that will help the deficit that almost no one is talking about: lowering the unemployment rate.

Remember what I said earlier about revenue being half the budget equation? Well, taxes are government revenue, and with almost 10 percent of American's working population not working, that's less taxable income available to local, state and federal governments.

It's really quite simple: put more people back to work, that means more people are earning paychecks -- which also means more people are paying taxes. A lower unemployment rate translates into more government revenue.

Think back to when President Clinton was in office; it's no coincidence that he left office with a massive budget surplus while he saw unemployment dip to 5.6 percent. His 1993 Economic Plan, which raised taxes on the wealthiest earners, also had a lot to do with it, but don't discount the simple formula of putting people to work and collecting taxes from their paychecks.

Look at your pay stub; though different states have different tax laws, everyone sees taxes taken out for federal, local and state governments, for Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. If you don't collect a paycheck, you're not contributing tax dollars to those revenue streams.

If you're out of work for a lengthy period of time, you might even be taking money from the government, in the form of unemployment benefits. Also, debates over the solvency of Social Security and Medicare have been steeped, in part, on how many people are working, and thus paying taxes into those programs.

I'm not saying this is the only fix; putting people back to work will not solve all, or even most, of our problems. But if we're taking on the federal deficit, every option that doesn't unnecessarily burden the middle class and/or the elderly deserves consideration.

I realize that job-creating programs will require government spending -- and thus borrowing. Stimulating the economy in this way requires a certain amount of investment, and you know conservative deficit hawks will scream over it, like they scream over everything else.

But a short-term investment would go a long way toward putting Americans back to work (which was the intent behind the stimulus package, and an argument for why it should've been more robust); tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs, but economic stimulus does.

And the more people work, the more taxes they pay. Which reduces the deficit, all without cutting necessary programs.

See how simple that is?

Common Sense or Courage?

If it seems like the modern Republican Party (the elected officials and those who represent them in the media, not necessarily everyday people) is tacking further to the right by the day, you're not imagining things. It is in fact happening.

In a way, it represents a Catch-22 for Republicans; in today's political climate, being a moderate Republican isn't going to win you the party's nomination (in some districts and states, it won't even win you an election). However, being so far to the right will make you virtually un-electable for the vast majority of the population in a general election.

So you might win a nomination, but never an election. Meanwhile, the moderate Republican who might have a chance in a general election would never win a primary.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Newt Gingrich found that out this week after an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. On the program Sunday, Gingrich -- who hasn't held public office in almost a decade -- criticized the budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), which would effectively end Medicare and replace it with a voucher program. He called it "right-wing social engineering" and said it went too far.

Seems sensible enough; why throw out Medicare and leave seniors to fend for themselves in the private insurance industry, where some experts say their health care costs would double? Whatever you think of Gingrich's politics, it was a sensible argument.

Which is exactly why practically the entire GOP establishment lambasted him.

Apparently, Gingrich was hounded so much that he apologized to Rep. Ryan on Tuesday. That's right; Gingrich, essentially, had to apologize for making sense. Only in the current Republican Party would you have to apologize for making sense.

That's not even taking into account for the fact that Gingrich was once a supporter for an individual mandate for health insurance; you know, before President Obama endorsed the idea as part of his health care reform package in 2009. It also ignores a host of statements for the former Speaker of the House has made relating to President Obama that can be seen as racially-charged.

Food Stamp President, anyone?

But if you want to look for courage within the GOP (which Gingrich doesn't have, since he can't seem to stick to one position), how about the Senators from Maine? Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Republicans, bucked their party on Tuesday when they joined 48 Democrats to vote in favor of ending multi-billion subsidies to Big Oil.

That Sens. Collins and Snowe voted against the Republicans isn't anything new; the two women are viewed as moderates within the party -- a dying breed, to be sure. Their votes were not enough to overcome a filibuster, though, as the other Republicans voted in lock-step and had the help of three Democrats: Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Ben Nelson (Neb.).

In explaining her vote, Sen. Collins wrote, "Reducing or eliminating unnecessary subsidies and outdated tax breaks is a commonsense step toward deficit reduction." Sen. Snowe added: "It is difficult to justify oil development incentives given the current level of crude oil prices, and the fact that the U.S. government has to borrow money to pay for these incentives."

It all seems perfectly sensible, doesn't it? Well, then it wouldn't surprise you to know that Sen. Snowe is being primaried from the right, nor would it surprise you if either woman threw her name into the GOP presidential race and found herself flailing at the polls, regardless of how electable either Senator might seem to the country as a whole.

To the modern Republican Party -- and its media enablers -- making sense and acting responsibly within the confines of government is not the goal. Right-wing social engineering and trying to make President Obama a one-term president are the goals, and everything else -- deficit reduction and job creation included -- be damned.

The way things are going for the GOP these days, I don't see 2012 turning out very well for them, because the party is reaching a point where even some of its voters won't want to support it anymore. And when you lose your base, then you're really up a creek without a paddle.

Simply Despicable

Anyone who follows this blog knows I am no fan of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Not simply because he's a Republican (that, I can live with) -- but because of his constant flip-flopping over the years over various positions, as well as the egregious lack of judgement he displayed in picking former Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate in the 2008 presidential race.

That said, I would never question Sen. McCain's love for this country, nor would I take issue with his record as a military man -- and I certainly wouldn't presume to know more about Sen. McCain, a POW during the war in Vietnam, about torture.

Which makes what presumptive GOP presidential nominee Rick Santorum's comments to a conservative radio host on Tuesday both baffling and disgusting. In speaking with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt (sounds like a DC Comics character), Santorum claimed that torture was in fact a big part of gaining the intelligence that eventually led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Never mind the fact that people like Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, and Sen. McCain both said the intelligence never came from the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

So what did Santorum have to say regarding McCain? Read:

"Everything I've read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation. And so this idea that we didn't ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he (McCain) doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they're broken, they become cooperative. And that's when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that's how we ended up with bin Laden,"

That's right ... Santorum expects us to believe that Sen. McCain knows nothing about torture -- never mind all that bugaboo about Sen. McCain spending five and a half years as a POW in north Vietnam. Never mind that Sen. McCain was subject to such vigorous physical treatment that he can never raise his arms above his head again (which is why I will never make fun of the way he moves his arms).

You're right, Rick Santorum; there's no way in hell John McCain knows more than you do about the effectiveness of torture. You are the all-knowing one when it comes to "enhanced interrogation techniques," aren't you?

All this time, I thought you were nothing more than a bigot who likened same-sex marriage to bestiality, adultery and bigamy. Here I thought you were just some self-righteous blowhard who just so happened to have a really disgusting last name (seriously; Google the word "santorum" -- fair warning, it is both disgusting and NSFW).

But no; apparently, you're a national security and torture expert. You're so good, you know more about torture than someone who was tortured for half a decade while serving his country!

Do us all a favor, Mr. Santorum, and go away. It's bad enough you're a bigot and hypocrite, but once you start spouting shit like that about someone who fought for this country, who nearly gave his life for this country, you lose what tiny sliver of credibility you had left. You already had no shot at the presidency, but by speaking so ignorantly of someone who so proudly served this country, you are sure as hell not fit to be our Commander-in-Chief.

I realize Sen. McCain's office refuses to dignify Santorum's slime with a response, but part of me wants Sen. McCain to drag him behind the Capitol and knock out a few teeth -- after giving Glenn Beck a swift ass-kicking for mocking daughter Meghan McCain for her appearance in a recent skin cancer PSA.

Show some damn respect, Santorum -- if you even know what that word means.