Harry Reid's Slavery Remark 'Ignorant,' Says Michael Steele

Reid BETTER NOT apologize!



He's set off a great media frenzy. He needs to throw more gas on the fire.



The attempts to gently coax the system into a more ethical and cost-effective one have all failed. Just as with the emancipation of slaves in this country, the entrenched beneficiaries of these reprehensible "industries" fight bitterly to preserve the status quo.



Reid should tell the media those words and state that not only is his previous comment extremely accurate, steele makes himself the embodiment of the old slave-owners who perpetuated a national, immoral system that allowed unconscionable acts resulting in the death and maltreatment of innocent citizens.



Perhaps mr. steele believes that murder by lynching is worse than murder by denial of medical treatment. Perhaps mr. steele believes that the eviction and disbursement of your worldly possessions to pay for medical bills is slightly more moral than the conscription of people into servitude. Maybe so.



But to be completely unable to see the clear parallels between slavery and health insurance industry shows an mora| and 1ntellectua| bankruptcy that doesn't deserve the dignity of an apology - AND once again proves that there is no credible leadership for the Republican party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Right in the Middle

It's sometimes hard to read, uh, "posts" like this and know whether to laugh or cry.



jmpurser and others have explained how the post is inaccurate, but I haven't the patience to add my observations to support theirs - other than to say that equating the works of Noonan to Dowd is all anyone really needs to know about the veracity of the thing.



Instead, all I will offer to you, Mr. Davis, is a little advice. Pat your DLC-self on the back firm and proud today. Enjoy it and celebrate it.



Because when mid-term elections roll around, I doubt very much you'll be wanted by candidates. Similarly, I doubt that any Dem candidates are going to want Obama to come out to campaign for them. Revert back to these comments in order to understand why.



And then, when the next Presidential election rolls around, expect to carry a more befuddled and somber countenance as massive numbers of the folks who so diligently supported Obama defect to support someone who is willing to fix problems instead of the President's stool-polishing approach. Re-read these comments to your past posts and then write for us a touching, "whoops - what was i thinking" retraction.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Poll: GOP Divided Over Party's Direction, Leaders

You've seen toddlers writhing with indignation on the floor of the supermarket? That's pretty much the intellectual equivalent.



An immature intellect knows how to express dissatisfaction, but can't do much else.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Geithner Is "Obama's Rumsfeld": Replace Him With Robert Reich

When the president I voted for finally makes an appointment or initiates a legislative pursuit that doesn't primarily benefit maintenance of the status quo (i.e. keep the absurdly wealthy absurdly wealthy, and the huge corporate interests appeased), then I will revert back to my position of "cautious optimism."



At this point we can't, in good conscience, give Obama the benefit of the doubt for anything on the economy.



With the current track record of clearly prioritizing groups like mortgage companies and banks over working Americans, Obama has provided ample proof that there is no hope that someone like Reich will ever have a role in this administration.



Mark my words, if Geinther was to step down, his replacement will be another Wall Street insider or DLC hack. An American flag cape will be pinned to his/her shoulders and pandering babble about 'cleaning up Wall Street' will follow - and change will be entirely constrained to the name on the office letterhead.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama and Charges of Elitism-Again

This is oddly similar to another equally disoriented post by a different HuffPo blogger a couple days ago.



The hate spew frothing from the limbaughs is meaningless to the vast majority of the country's voters. Them screaming "elitist" means nothing and it's almost bizarre that anyone would make that a key lynch-pin in an argument.



The only issue that is relevant is that Obama was elected to make strong steps toward cleaning up a dysfunctional Executive Branch and lead legislative initiatives to fix the economy and our failed foreign policies.



What we all see - regardless if we listen to Air America or Faux News - is virtually none of that taking place.



We see dithering, stern speechifying about personal responsibility, capitulation to - and even incorporation of (vis a vis Treasury Sec and economic advisor picks) - the forces that have decimated our nation's economy. And virtually no real movement on real issues with real impact on real people.



Calling Obama "elitist" would truly be a most trite and shallow aspersion at this point. And it would most absolutely have only an infinitely microscopic impact on how the public views him, his administration, and his "accomplishments" to date.



I had a sign in my yard for Obama and am a lifelong Democrat. We started last January with an historic opportunity to right so many wrongs. Well, if the first 10 months are any indication of the next 3 years, we picked the wrong guy for the job.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Disconnect

I'd humbly suggest that there is a deeper layer beneath your description of the disconnect more fundamentally driving the effect you describe. And that is media corporatism.



The media, whose visible, on-screen elements you've very clearly described, are just the veneer. The corporations who have literally and figuratively purchased "the fourth estate," have the agenda, the means, and the motivation to move and cheer-lead as the income distribution goes from 11 times to 22 times and if they can, to 100 times. THEY are the problems.



The pundits and the Ken and Barbie dolls aren't driving the agenda and the wedge between haves and have nots as much as they are willing and easily motivated (due to the financial benefits derived from the advertising loot) accomplices in a sick, warped, and ultimately self-defeating fraud. The media conglomerates control the message - it's intensity, frequency, and "analysis." The campaign money helps keep the FCC out of the way. And on goes the game.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Disconnect

To some measurable degree, tho I haven't measured it myself due to the scale required, some of the "Christian" outlook toward the poor is based on blind faith in other subtle ways. Specifically, those who would otherwise be distraught over the plight of others purposefully replace empathy with apathy. In a phrase, "god will help them."



Another is a feeling that a god will reward them with tangible things if they are "good." So the rich people (and even non-rich people!!!!... which I just can't wrap my brain around...) equate wealth with goodness. In a phrase, "god has chosen to reward my goodness with prosperity and if someone doesn't have prosperity, it's because god hates them... and why would I ever want to help someone hated by god?"



Sick.
About Paul Krugman
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost