Here’s a video round-up of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) from The Rachel Maddow Show explaining Stupak’s Stupak Amendment.

The consensus is that President Obama is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people.

Regardless of what happens with health care reform, Obama has failed to create a rally cry for America. His campaign message of hope and change played well for candidate Obama, but this is the real world now. Now is the time for leadership not campaign speeches.

What Obama failed to realize is that bipartisanship is not going to happen – not today. He foolishly still thinks that if he gives Republicans enough of this or that, they’ll come around. In doing so, he squandered a super-majority in the Senate, weakened health care reform and has made his presidency into a series of false-starts and missed deadlines.

Obama needed to rally his political party around his agenda, but he didn’t. He should have taken a no-holds-bar approach to passing meaningful legislation. He needed to play hard-nose political party politics.

If he had done that, Republicans and Fox News would have labeled him a radical leftist pushing a socialist agenda, but that happened anyway. In the current political atmosphere any Democrat would be labeled a commie. For some reason, we’re back to red-baiting again.

By trying to be the appeaser in chief, Obama has gained nothing. What he’s left with is a watered-down health care bill, an economy that’s still floundering, a radicalized right that’s reaching deafening decibels, two wars and very little political capital left to do anything about any of it.

Here’s what blogger Dana Blankenhorn said about Obama this week.

Barack Obama has no choice. He must play this hand by Nixon’s rules. You can’t impose new rules until you’ve won enough hands that the old rules no longer apply. That means narrow, partisan majorities, and intense organization of his own people against the common enemy that is the modern Republican Party.

Even though he doesn’t believe Republicans have any ill motives, he must in the near term convince the rest of us they do, or we go back to Argentina and America will never come back.

What Blankenhorn means about “Nixon’s rules” is this.

Richard Nixon’s concept of Conflict held that majorities had to protect themselves from various minorities. Only those who were inside the Thesis deserved protection. Outsiders (and this concept eventually extended to all Democrats) were suspect. Their motives were not those of ‘us,’ they were ‘them’ and they had to be defeated for ‘us’ to be safe.

The notion of “the other” was the foundation for Nixon’s “southern strategy.”

And here’s what New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote about Obama today.

The problem is not necessarily that Obama is trying to do too much, but that there is no consistent, clear message to unite all that he is trying to do. He has variously argued that health care reform is a moral imperative to protect the uninsured, a long-term fiscal fix for the American economy and an attempt to curb insurers’ abuses. It may be all of these, but between the multitude of motives and the blurriness (until now) of Obama’s own specific must-have provisions, the bill became a mash-up that baffled or defeated those Americans on his side and was easily caricatured as a big-government catastrophe by his adversaries.

Obama prides himself on not being ideological or partisan — of following, as he put it in his first prime-time presidential press conference, a ‘pragmatic agenda.’ But pragmatism is about process, not principle. Pragmatism is hardly a rallying cry for a nation in this much distress, and it’s not a credible or attainable goal in a Washington as dysfunctional as the one Americans watch in real time on cable. Yes, the Bush administration was incompetent, but we need more than a brilliant mediator, manager or technocrat to move us beyond the wreckage it left behind. To galvanize the nation, Obama needs to articulate a substantive belief system that’s built from his bedrock convictions. His presidency cannot be about the cool equanimity and intellectual command of his management style.

That he hasn’t done so can be attributed to his ingrained distrust of appearing partisan or, worse, a knee-jerk “liberal.” That is admirable in intellectual theory, but without a powerful vision to knit together his vision of America’s future, he comes off as a doctrinaire Democrat anyway. His domestic policies, whether on climate change or health care or regulatory reform, are reduced to items on a standard liberal wish list. If F.D.R. or Reagan could distill, coin and convey a credo ‘nonideological’ enough to serve as an umbrella for all their goals and to attract lasting majority coalitions of disparate American constituencies, so can this gifted president.

At the end of the day, it may be that his critics were right when they said candidate Obama didn’t have enough experience to be the President of the United States. No matter what you thought of President George W. Bush, he got stuff done. We can’t say that about Obama – at least not yet.

Once again Obama uses his Weekly Address to talk about health care reform. Here’s the video, but there is no transcript available yet.

The Washington Independent has a story explaining the politics behind Obama’s wavering over the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The problem for Obama is that no amount of political maneuvering is going to get a substantial number of Republicans, if any, to support any meaningful policy he puts forward. It isn’t going to happen, so why does he keep trying?

Obama is jeopardizing his presidency for that elusive bipartisan support he seems so desperate to want but he will never attain. In the process he’s losing his base and calling into question his ability to be the president.

I just don’t think this is the change people wanted when they voted for Obama. They wanted liberalism not pacifism.

Read the Washington Independent story

Harper’s Magazine has story about this too. Scott Horton makes the case that Rham Emanuel is acting no different than Karl Rove did by pushing the Justice Department to cave in the face political pressure from the White House.

Watching the conservative echo chamber in action is a frightening experience that most people don’t have to stomach on a daily basis.

The latest misinformation parroted by the rightwing machinery is that President Obama is buying votes on health care with judicial nominations.

As usual, it all starts with just a simple question. This time the ultra-conservative Weekly Standard got the ball rolling.

Read the entire story on Examiner.com

Politico broke a scary story today. They’ve un-earthed a PowerPoint slideshow detailing the GOP strategy to use fear and mockery to stop Obama’s “socialist” agenda. It includes pictures of the president as the Joker, House Leader Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as Scooby Doo.

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to “save the country from trending toward socialism.”

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

Read the entire story on Politico

President Obama appears to have finally realized that Republicans will never support any effort to reform health care. On Wed., Obama is expected to release a plan to pass health care reform. According to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the president would like Republicans to not filibuster the bill in the Senate and allow a simple up-or-down vote, but that’s not going to happen.

Now Republicans know they have lost this battle and they’re freaking out. One can only hope there’s a special place in hell for these so-called Christians who lie through their teeth.

At the Blair House Health Care Summit on Thursday, President Obama explains the Democrat’s proposal for Medicare Advantage. Republicans are claiming that changes to the Medicare Advantage are “Medicare cuts.” According to Obama, the only thing being cut are the profits private companies are taking from the Medicare Advantage program.

Here’s the exchange between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Obama. McCain is clearly caught off-guard when Obama agrees with him about the special deal struck to keep Medicare Advantage for Florida.

It lasted more than seven hours. It was often unbelievably boring. A bunch of mostly old white guys sitting around a table bickering at one another. That was today’s health care summit and nothing of substance will come of it.

The bottom line for Republicans is that they want to kill health care reform no matter what. And the bottom line for Democrats is that have to get health care reform through congress one way or another.

So one side is unequivocally opposed and the other a staunch proponent of health care reform.

There was an exchange between President Obama and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley that highlights this deadlock.

“First of all,” Grassley said, “if anybody says that Medicare Advantage is a subsidy going to insurance companies, let me say what the statute says. The statute says that … 75 percent goes to beneficiaries and benefits, and 25 percent to the federal government.”

“I’m sorry Chuck, I just want to make sure about that,” Obama said, “that doesn’t sound right to me because that would mean 100 percent of it is going either to the benefits or the federal government, which means that the insurance companies aren’t making any money of it.”

“Seventy-five percent to beneficiaries and benefits,” Grassley snapped, “and 25 percent to the federal government.”

At which point Obama turned to Vice President Biden and presumably said something along the lines of, “What the hell is talking? That’s 100 percent. The insurance companies don’t get any money for selling prescription drugs to seniors. Is he drunk?”

“Probably Mr. President,” Biden threw his hand up in disgust.

“It takes 60 votes in the Senate to overrule them, so I’m not questioning the CBO,” Grassley said fidgeting in his chair.

Actually, the Congressional Budget Office does not create law and does not rule over the Senate in any way, shape or form. Grassley is making up Senate rules out of whole cloth.

“For the first time in the 225 year history of the country,” Grassley said, “the federal government’s telling you you’ve got to buy something.”

The Iowa Senator said he knows his constituents and “that just doesn’t make a lot sense to people in the grassroots of the Midwest.”

Actually the United States has been around for 233 years and citizens are forced to pay federal income taxes, Medicare and Social Security.

“Do you think we’re going to sit around in rural American, or even urban, downtown urban America, in the poverty parts of the city,” Grassley said, “that we’re going to let hospitals close down?”

Who’s closing hospitals?

At the end of his speech Grassley said, “You’ve got to take into consideration the consequences of the actions, or the unproven promises of cuts that aren’t going to materialize.”

His argument was that the Democrats bill relies on future congresses to make cuts and Grassley said that they aren’t going to have any more guts than we do, and this Congress doesn’t even have the stomach to mess with Medicare.

Obama seemed a bit shocked by Grassley’s remarks and tone, and had this to say.

“If the notion is that we can’t make some hard decisions about how entitlements work, because it’s just not realistic. Nobody’s going to have the guts to do it. Then we’re in big trouble.

Because that means that federal and state budgets, and then business budgets and family budgets, they’re all going to be gobbled up by this thing.

So I hope that we’ve got the courage to make some of these changes.”

Here’s the complete transcript and video of President Obama’s Weekly Address about health care. The transcript was provided by the White House and downloaded on Feb. 20, 2010 at approximately 7:30 p.m.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
February 20, 2010

The other week, men and women across California opened up their mailboxes to find a letter from Anthem Blue Cross. The news inside was jaw-dropping. Anthem was alerting almost a million of its customers that it would be raising premiums by an average of 25 percent, with about a quarter of folks likely to see their rates go up by anywhere from 35 to 39 percent.

Now, after their announcement stirred public outcry, Anthem agreed to delay their rate hike until May 1st while the situation is reviewed by the state of California. But it’s not just Californians who are being hit by rate hikes. In Kansas, one insurance company raised premiums by 10 to 20 percent only after asking to raise them by 20 to 30 percent. Last year, Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield raised rates by 22 percent after asking to raise them by up to 56 percent. And in Maine, Anthem is asking to raise rates for some folks by about 23 percent.

The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. Over the past year, as families and small business owners have struggled to pay soaring health care costs, and as millions of Americans lost their coverage, the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion.

And as bad as things are today, they’ll only get worse if we fail to act. We’ll see more and more Americans go without the coverage they need. We’ll see exploding premiums and out-of-pocket costs burn through more and more family budgets. We’ll see more and more small businesses scale back benefits, drop coverage, or close down because they can’t keep up with rising rates. And in time, we’ll see these skyrocketing health care costs become the single largest driver of our federal deficits.

That’s what the future is on track to look like. But it’s not what the future has to look like. The question, then, is whether we will do what it takes, all of us – Democrats and Republicans – to build a better future for ourselves, our children, and our country.

That’s why, next week, I am inviting members of both parties to take part in a bipartisan health care meeting, and I hope they come in a spirit of good faith. I don’t want to see this meeting turn into political theater, with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points. Instead, I ask members of both parties to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.

It’s in that spirit that I have sought out and supported Republican ideas on reform from the very beginning. Some Republicans want to allow Americans to purchase insurance from a company in another state to give people more choices and bring down costs. Some Republicans have also suggested giving small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as big companies and labor unions do. I think both of these are good ideas – so long as we pursue them in a way that protects benefits, protects patients, and protects the American people. I hope Democrats and Republicans can come together next week around these and other ideas.

To members of Congress, I would simply say this. We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system. We know where the broad areas of agreement are. And we know where the sources of disagreement lie. After debating this issue exhaustively for a year, let’s move forward together. Next week is our chance to finally reform our health insurance system so it works for families and small businesses. It’s our chance to finally give Americans the peace of mind of knowing that they’ll be able to have affordable coverage when they need it most.

What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem. Right now, Americans are understandably despairing about whether partisanship and the undue influence of special interests in Washington will make it impossible for us to deal with the big challenges that face our country. They want to see us focus not on scoring points, but on solving problems; not on the next election but on the next generation. That is what we can do, and that is what we must do when we come together for this bipartisan health care meeting next week. Thank you, and have a great weekend.

–

Please take my Blog Reader Project survey.

Newsweek just published a poll showing that nearly half of all Americans think Obama’s health care reform sucks. When respondents learn more about it, they think it’s actually pretty cool.

“When asked about Obama’s plan (without being given any details about what the legislation includes), 49 percent opposed it and 40 percent were in favor,” reported Newsweek’s Sarah Kliff. “But after hearing key features of the legislation described, 48 percent supported the plan and 43 percent remained opposed.”

So this either means Americans are stupid, Republicans are amazing spinmeisters or Democrats are incompetent. More likely it means that Americans are pretty dumb, Republicans are compulsive liars and Democrats are a gaggle of bumbling fools.

Health care reform is arguably the biggest legislation to wind its way through our dysfunctional excuse of a democratic process in decades. But that doesn’t stop Americans from not giving a shit. Too many happily lap up the bullshit Fox News and the GOP throw in their bowl. Dumb.

Democrats are compulsively incompetent tools. They bicker with each other, each hoping they can be the one on TV tonight. Joe Lieberman was the vice president candidate in 2000. Now he takes any chance he can get to portray himself the biggest egomaniac in the party – the American people and his party be damned.

Republicans, knowing just how disengaged the American public is from politics, glibly spread lies and misinformation that Americans gobble up without nary a question raised. Mmm that’s good chum.

What poll after poll proves is Americans are woefully ignorant of the legislative process, Congress, public policy and they frankly have no idea what the hell is wrong with the country.

What we need to do as members of the media is a better job. What Americans need to do is read. What politicians need to do is go home. Publicly funded campaigns would be a great way to throw the bums out.

Please take my Blog Reader Project survey.

President Richard Nixon warned about the so-called silent majority. It was part of Nixon’s “southern strategy.” The silent majority was made of up white Americans, Sarah Palin would call them “real Americans,” that didn’t cotton to fancy newspapers, books, higher education or black people.

Well today, Nixon would be proud to see his once silent majority is screaming their heads off. They’re shouting on Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and they even have their own cable news network.

But the once silent majority is now a minority. Forty years ago, uneducated, racist, misogynistic, lovers of hate and true believers probably were a majority of Americans – at least in the south – but not anymore.

Demographics have changed considerably since Nixon was running the show. Now more people live in cities and urban areas than they did in the 1960s and ’70s. Doing so, means more people are confronted with living with “those people.” And when they do, many of them realize that “those people” are a lot more like themselves then they had believed. Cities force people to get along.

And while there will always be ignorant racists in the US, racism has been thoroughly marginalized. Hatred of “other” was a key component to the success of Nixon’s southern strategy. If that hatred existed today Obama could not have become president. If Obama had run against Nixon in 1972 rather than McGovern, he would have lost every state in the union.

Obama’s election in 2008 is compelling anecdotal evidence that today most Americans don’t have the energy, desire or time to spend hating other people because of the color of their skin.

And so what we’re witnessing on Twitter and Facebook, blogs and Fox News the once silent majority screaming their heads off because they have lost the war. Progressivism won. Despite the calls by Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck to go back to the good old days when blacks had separate bathrooms and schools, women weren’t allowed to work and white men ran everything – it’s not going to happen.

The United States, along with the rest of the world, is moving forward. We will stutter-step backwards on occasion, but if we take a long view of the path forward, despite the screeching and flailing from the losers, we’re on a path of progress.

This story was originally published on The Neal Jeremy blog and has be republished here with permission.

The fact-averse radical right waged an effective smear campaign against National Labor Relations Board nominee Craig Becker.

At the forefront of the liars and deceivers was Michelle Malkin.

In true radical right fashion, Malkin took past statements out of context to make the case that Becker is a radical leftist seeking to overthrow democracy in America. If confirmed to the NLRB, Malkin tried to make the case that Americans would be sent to forced labor camps before the end of the year. Only death could save us.

To prove Becker is a left-wing nutcase, Malkin refers to an article he wrote in 1993 for Minnesota Law Review.

According to Malkin and Rupert Murdoc’s Wall Street Journal, Becker’s article proposed doing away with democracy in union elections.

In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, written when Becker was a UCLA professor, according to the WSJ story he “believes elections should be removed from work sites and held on ‘neutral grounds,’ or via mail ballots. Employers should also be barred from ‘placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots.’”

How is barring employers from strong-arming employees to prevent organizing a union anti-democratic? Would the US democracy be better off if a sitting president, their staff and members of congress were allowed to dictate where elections should be held, and if partisan observers were allowed to stand by and watch each ballot cast so that they can challenge it?

That’s what the radical right wants in union elections. They want to allow corporations to strong-arm employees to prevent them from organizing. Becker was arguing that that is wrong and the elections should be more fair – not less.

The WSJ also said that Becker made the “extraordinary” argument that new rules should be made to limit the ability of employers to crush attempts by employees to organize. Becker said that if a corporation puts up anti-union propaganda in the workplace, union representatives should be allowed access to the workplace to do the same in favor of organizing.

Wow, Becker really is radical left-wing nutcase – giving labor unions a level playing field with corporations when employees are considering whether to organize … total wacko.

Then Malkin tried to link Becker to the disgraced former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich.

Here’s her logic. The Service Employees International Union allegedly gave money to Blagojevich in return for giving collective bargaining rights to Illinois home health-care workers. Around the same time Becker admits that he provided “advice and counsel to SEIU relating to proposed executive orders and proposed legislation giving home-care workers a right to organize and engage in collective bargaining under state law.”

Oh my gosh, so Becker provided advice to SEIU, a client of his, around the same time that the union allegedly bribed Blagojevich, ergo, Becker must have told SEIU to bribe Blagojevich.

The facts are that nothing the radical right-wing pro-business gustapo have dug up on Becker in any way suggests that he’s some sort of radical union thug seeking to destroy democracy and setup forced labor camps in America.

Becker’s 17-year-old Minnesota Law Review article was the work of a scholar. And the gist of his opinion was to create fairer elections, because the fact is, corporations have undue power over their workers and unions are largely locked out – making it difficult to for employees to even learn about unions, much less organize.

And as for the extraordinarily tenuous connections between Becker, SEIU and Blagojevich – it’s just that – tenuous.

So rather than listen to outright lies being disseminated by the right-wing hit squad, read Becker’s comments to questions posed by Republican Senators on Feb. 3, 2010. Republicans tried desperately to make Becker out to be the subversive radical that they themselves represent – psychologists call that projecting – but it didn’t work. See for yourself.

Obama has said he will appoint Becker during a recess. While the radical right will surely throw a hissy-fit, Bush did this all the time and nary a word from the right could be heard.

President Obama held a news conference following a bipartisan meeting with House and Senate Republicans and Democrats. Here is the full transcript of the president’s remarks and complete video of the news conference. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs spoke for about 30 minutes but that is not part of the transcript. The transcript was provided by the White House and downloaded from WhiteHouse.gov on Feb. 10, 2010 at approximately 10:00 a.m. Eastern.

1:38 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. I am glad to see that all of you braved the weather to be here. A little while ago I had a meeting with the Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, and it went very well. In fact, I understand that McConnell and Reid are out doing snow angels on the South Lawn together. (Laughter.) Can you picture that, Chuck? Not really?

The meeting did go well, and I appreciate them making the trek. We had a good and frank conversation and it’s one that I hope we can continue on a more regular basis.

We all understand that there are legitimate and genuine differences between the parties, but despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree. That’s what the American people are demanding of us. I think they’re tired of every day being Election Day in Washington. And at this critical time in our country, the people sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics.

That’s why I’m going to continue to seek the best ideas from either party as we work to tackle the pressing challenges ahead. I am confident, for example, that when one in 10 of our fellow citizens can’t work, we should be able to come together and help business create more jobs. We ought to be able to agree on providing small businesses with additional tax credits and much needed lines of credit. We ought to agree on investments in crumbling roads and bridges, and we should agree on tax breaks for making homes more energy-efficient — all of which will put more Americans to work. Many of the job proposals that I’ve laid out have passed the House and are soon going to be debated in the Senate. We spent a lot of time in this meeting discussing a jobs package and how we could move forward on that. And if there are additional ideas, I will consider them as well. What I won’t consider is doing nothing in the face of a lot of hardship across the country.

We also talked about restoring fiscal responsibility. There are few matters on which there is as much vigorous bipartisan agreement, at least in public, but unfortunately there’s also a lot of partisan wrangling behind closed doors. This is what we know for sure: For us to solve this extraordinary problem that is so many years in the making, it’s going to take the cooperation of both parties. It’s not going to happen in any other way.

I’m pleased that Congress supported my request to restore the pay-as-you-go rule, which was instrumental in turning deficits into surpluses during the 1990s. I’ve also called for a bipartisan fiscal commission. Unfortunately this measure, which originally had received the support of a bipartisan majority of the Senate and was cosponsored by Senators Conrad and Gregg, Democrats and Republicans, was blocked there. So I’m going to be creating this commission by executive order. And during our meeting I asked the leadership of both parties to join in this serious effort to address our long-term deficits, because when the politics is put aside, the reality of our fiscal challenge is not subject to interpretation. Math is not partisan. There ought to be a debate about how to close our deficits. What we can’t accept is business as usual, and we can’t afford grandstanding at the expense of actually getting something done.

During our meeting we also touched briefly on how we can move forward on health reform. I’ve already announced that in two weeks I’ll be holding a meeting with people from both parties, and as I told the congressional leadership, I’m looking forward to a constructive debate with plans that need to be measured against this test. Does it bring down costs for all Americans as well as for the federal government, which spends a huge amount on health care? Does it provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry? Does it make coverage affordable and available to the tens of millions of working Americans who don’t have it right now? And does it help us get on a path of fiscal sustainability?

We also talked about why this is so urgent. Just this week, there was a report that Anthem Blue Cross, which is the largest insurer in the largest state, California, is planning on raising premiums for many individual policyholders by as much as 39 percent. If we don’t act, this is just a preview of coming attractions. Premiums will continue to rise for folks with insurance; millions more will lose their coverage altogether; our deficits will continue to grow larger. And we have an obligation — both parties — to tackle this issue in a serious way.

Now, bipartisanship depends on a willingness among both Democrats and Republicans to put aside matters of party for the good of the country. I won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but I also won’t hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that’s rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience. We talked about this as well, particularly when it comes to the confirmation process. I respect the Senate’s role to advise and consent, but for months, qualified, non- controversial nominees for critical positions in government, often positions related to our national security, have been held up despite having overwhelming support. My nominee for one important job, the head of General Services Administration, which helps run the government, was denied a vote for nine months. When she finally got a vote on her nomination, she was confirmed 96 to nothing. That’s not advise and consent; that’s delay and obstruct.

One senator, as you all are aware, had put a hold on every single nominee that we had put forward due to a dispute over a couple of earmarks in his state. In our meeting, I asked the congressional leadership to put a stop to these holds in which nominees for critical jobs are denied a vote for months. Surely we can set aside partisanship and do what’s traditionally been done to confirm these nominations. If the Senate does not act — and I made this very clear — if the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess, because we can’t afford to allow politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government.

My hope is that this will be the first of a series of meetings that I have with leadership of both parties in Congress. We’ve got to get past the tired debates that have plagued our politics and left behind nothing but soaring debt and mounting challenges, greater hardships among the American people, and extraordinary frustrations among the American people. Those frustrations are what led me to run for President, and as long as I’m here in Washington, I intend to try to make this government work on their behalf.

So, you know, I’m going to take a couple of questions, guys.

Major.

Q After meeting with you, John Boehner came out and told us, “The House can’t pass the health care bill it once passed; the Senate can’t pass the health care bill it once passed. Why would we have a conversation about legislation that can’t pass?” As a part of that, he said you and your White House and congressional Democrats should start over entirely from scratch on health care reform. How do you respond? Are you willing to do that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s how I responded to John in the meeting, and I’ve said this publicly before. There are some core goals that have to be met. We’ve got to control costs, both for families and businesses, but also for our government. Everybody out there who talks about deficits has to acknowledge that the single biggest driver of our deficits is health care spending. We cannot deal with our deficits and debt long term unless we get a handle on that. So that has to be part of a package.

Number two, we’ve got to deal with insurance abuses that affect millions of Americans who’ve got health insurance. And number three, we’ve got to make health insurance more available to folks in the individual market, as I just mentioned, in California, who are suddenly seeing their premiums go up 39 percent. That applies to the majority of small businesses, as well as sole proprietors. They are struggling.

So I’ve got these goals. Now, we have a package, as we work through the differences between the House and the Senate, and we’ll put it up on a Web site for all to see over a long period of time, that meets those criteria, meets those goals. But when I was in Baltimore talking to the House Republicans, they indicated, we can accomplish some of these goals at no cost. And I said, great, let me see it. And I have no interest in doing something that’s more expensive and harder to accomplish if somebody else has an easier way to do it.

So I’m going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. What I will not do, what I don’t think makes sense and I don’t think the American people want to see, would be another year of partisan wrangling around these issues; another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the House and the Senate in which there’s a lot of posturing. Let’s get the relevant parties together; let’s put the best ideas on the table. My hope is that we can find enough overlap that we can say this is the right way to move forward, even if I don’t get every single thing that I want.

But here’s the point that I made to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell: Bipartisanship can’t be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want, and that’s the price of bipartisanship, right? But that’s sometimes the way it gets presented. Mitch McConnell said something very nice in the meeting about how he supports our goals on nuclear energy and clean coal technology and more drilling to increase oil production. Well, of course he likes that; that’s part of the Republican agenda for energy, which I accept. And I’m willing to move off some of the preferences of my party in order to meet them halfway. But there’s got to be some give from their side as well. That’s true on health care; that’s true on energy; that’s true on financial reform. That’s what I’m hoping gets accomplished at the summit.

Q Do you agree the House and Senate bill can’t pass anymore?

THE PRESIDENT: What I agree with is that the public has soured on the process that they saw over the last year. I think that actually contaminates how they view the substance of the bills. I think it is important for all of these issues to be aired so that people have confidence if we’re moving forward on such a significant part of the economy as health care, that there is complete transparency and all of these issues have been adequately vetted and adequately debated.

And this gives an opportunity not just for Democrats to say here’s what we think we should do, but it also gives Republicans a showcase before the entire country to say here’s our plan; here’s why we think this will work. And one of the things that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell both said is they didn’t think that the status quo was acceptable, and that’s, right there, promising. That indicates that if all sides agree that we can’t just continue with business as usual then maybe we can actually get something done.

Q Mr. President, one of the reasons Anthem said — Anthem Blue Cross says that it’s raising its premiums is because so many people are dropping out of individual coverage because the economy is so bad and that leaves the people in the pool who are people who need medical care driving up costs. One of the reasons why businesses are not expanding right now, in addition to some of the credit issues you’ve talked about, at least according to business leaders, is they say there’s an uncertainty of what they need to plan for because of the energy bill, because of health care. That’s what they say. I’m not saying it’s true or not, but that’s what they say. What do you say when you hear that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the biggest uncertainty has been we just went through the worst recession since the Great Depression and people weren’t sure whether the financial system was going to melt down and whether we were going to tip into a endless recession. So let’s be clear about the sources of uncertainty in terms of business investment over the last several years: A huge contraction, trillions of dollars of losses in people’s 401(k)s; people have a lot of debt coming out of the previous decade that they still haven’t worked out; the housing market losing a whole bunch of value.

So the good news is that where we were contracting by 6 percent the economy is now growing by 6 percent. The CEOs I talked to are saying they are now making investments, and I anticipate that they’re going to start hiring at a more rapid clip. What I’ve also heard is them saying that we would like to feel like Washington is working and able to get some things done.
There are two ways of interpreting the issue of uncertainty. One way would be to say, well, you know what, we’ll just go back to what we were doing before on, let’s say, the financial markets. We won’t have the regulations that we need; we won’t make any changes in terms of “too big to fail.” That will provide certainty — until the next financial crisis.

That’s not the kind of certainty I think that the financial markets need. The kind of certainty they need is for us to go ahead and agree on a bipartisan effort to put some rules of the road in place so that consumers are protected in the financial markets; so that we don’t have banks that are too big to fail; that we have ways of winding them down and protecting the overall system without taxpayer bailouts. That requires legislation. The sooner we can get that done, the better.

The same would be true when it comes to health care. A lot of CEOs I hear from will say, boy, we’d like you to get health care settled one way or another, but they will acknowledge that when they open up their latest invoice for their premiums and they find out that those premiums have gone up 20 percent or 25 percent, that’s the kind of uncertainty that also tamps down business investment.

So I guess my answer would be this: The sooner the business community has a sense that we’ve got our act together here in Washington and can move forward on big, serious issues in a substantive way without a lot of posturing and partisan wrangling, I think the better off the entire country is going to be. I absolutely agree on that.

What I think is important is not to buy into this notion that is perpetrated by some of the business interests that got a stake in this who are fighting financial reform, for example, to say, boy, we’d be doing fine if we just didn’t try to regulate the banks. That I think would be a mistake.

Q Just to play devil’s advocate on that — a small business, let’s say, not somebody who’s going to be affected by the regulatory reform, small business — you have proposed, you would acknowledge, a bold agenda. And a small business might wonder, I don’t know how the energy bill is going to affect me, I don’t know how the health care reform bill is going to affect me — I’d better hold off on hiring.

THE PRESIDENT: The small businesses I talk to — and I’ve been talking to a lot of them as I’ve been traveling around the country over the last several months — their biggest problem is right now they can’t get credit out of their banks so they’re uncertain about that. And they’re still uncertain about orders — do they just have enough customers to justify them doing more.

It’s looking better at this point. But that’s not the rationale for people saying, I’m not hiring. Let me put it this way. Most small businesses right now, if they’ve got enough customers to make a profit and they can get the bank loans required to boost their payroll, boost their inventory, and sell to those customers, they will do so. Okay?

Let’s see, let’s get a print guy here. David.

Q You heard McConnell talk about nuclear power, offshore drilling, free trade — that’s a lot of Republican stuff. Is your party going to go for that if you decide to support that –

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that on energy there should be a bipartisan agreement that we have to take a both/and approach rather than an either/or approach. What do I mean by that? I am very firm in my conviction that the country that leads the way in clean energy — solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal — that country is going to win the race in the 21st century global economy. So we have to move in that direction.

What is also true is that given our energy needs in order to continue economic growth, produce jobs, make sure our businesses are competitive around the world, that we’re going to need some of the old, traditional energy sources as we’re developing these new ones and ramping them up. So we can’t overnight convert to an all-solar or an all-wind economy. That just can’t happen. We’re going to have needs in these traditional sources.

And so the question then is, are we going to be able to put together a package that includes safe, secure nuclear power; that includes new technologies so that we can use coal — which we have in abundance and is very cheap, but often is adding to our greenhouse gases — can we find sequestration technologies that clean that up; can we identify opportunities to increase our oil and natural gas production in a way that is environmentally sustainable? And that should be part of a package with our development of clean energy.

And my hope is that my Republican friends, but also Democrats, say to themselves, let’s be practical and let’s do both. Let’s not just do one or the other; let’s do both. Over time I think the transition is going to be more and more clean energy and over time fossil fuels become less prominent in our overall energy mix. But we’ve got to do both.

Q How confident are you there will be that kind of consensus for that double-edged approach?

THE PRESIDENT: I am just a eternal optimist — (laughter) — and so — it’s the right thing to do. And all I can do is just to keep on making the argument about what’s right for the country and assume that over time people, regardless of party, regardless of their particular political positions, are going to gravitate towards the truth. Okay?

I’m going to take two more. Let’s see –

Q How about the back? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just want to make sure that I was getting a balance here, so — go ahead, Chuck.

Q Awwww –

THE PRESIDENT: Why is everybody moaning about Todd?

Q He’s too good. His questions are too precise. (Laughter.)

Q Iran — we got the news today that they’re doing more of these — trying to enhance this uranium even more. Obviously Secretary Gates today in Paris was quoted as saying basically the dialogue seems to be over and now the question is sanctions. Where are we on sanctions? How close is this? I know you had sort of an end-of-the-year deadline when you stood up there with Sarkozy and Brown. It’s now February. How quickly is this moving along?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s moving along fairly quickly. I think that we have bent over backwards to say to the Islamic Republic of Iran that we are willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules and reenter as full members of the international community.

The most obvious attempt was when we gave them an offer that said we are going to provide the conversion of some of the low-enriched uranium that they already have into the isotopes that they need for their medical research and for hospitals that would serve up to a million Iranian citizens. They rejected it — although one of the difficulties in dealing with Iran over the last several months is it’s not always clear who’s speaking on behalf of the government, and we get a lot of different, mixed signals. But what’s clear is, is that they have not said yes to an agreement that Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States all said was a good deal, and that the director of the IAEA said was the right thing to do and that Iran should accept.

That indicates to us that, despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for civilian use, that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization. And that is not acceptable to the international community, not just to the United States. So what we’ve said from the start was we’re moving on dual tracks. If you want to accept the kinds of agreements with the international community that lead you down a path of being a member of good standing, then we welcome you. If not –

Q Haven’t they responded, though? I mean, by deciding to do what they did, with these –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m getting to that.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: And if not, then the next step is sanctions. They have made their choice so far, although the door is still open. And what we are going to be working on over the next several weeks is developing a significant regime of sanctions that will indicate to them how isolated they are from the international community as a whole.

Q What do you mean by “regime of sanctions”?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, meaning that there’s going to be a –

Q Some will be U.N. and some will be –

THE PRESIDENT: We are going to be looking at a variety of ways in which countries indicate to Iran that their approach is unacceptable. And the U.N. will be one aspect of that broader effort.

Q China will be there? You’re confident?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the — we are confident right now that the international community is unified around Iran’s misbehavior in this area. How China operates at the Security Council as we pursue sanctions is something that we’re going to have to see. One thing I’m pleased about is to see how forward-leaning the Russians have been on this issue. I think they clearly have seen that Iran hasn’t been serious about solving what is a solvable dispute between Iran and the international community.

All right? I’m going to make this the last question. And I’ll take somebody from the back — yes.

Q Me?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Thanks for doing this. It’s been a while. (Laughter.) On health care, the Republicans are asking whether the February 25th session will include economists and public interest groups and people supporting your side, or will it just be the members of Congress? And on Anthem Blue Cross, do you have the authority to go in and tell a private company they can’t charge that — how will you stop them?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t have the authority as I understand it — I can’t simply issue an executive order lowering everybody’s rates. If I could I would have done that already and saved myself a lot of grief on Capitol Hill. That’s why reform is so important. That’s why the status quo is unacceptable.

But there is no shortcut in dealing with this issue. I know the American people get frustrated in debating something like health care because you get a whole bunch of different claims being made by different groups and different interests. It is a big, complicated, tough issue. But what is also true is that without some action on the part of Congress, it is very unlikely that we see any improvement over the current trajectory. And the current trajectory is premiums keep on going up 10, 15, 20, 30 percent. The current trajectory is more and more people are losing health care.

I don’t know if people noted, because during the health care debate everybody was saying the President is trying to take over — a government takeover of health care. I don’t know if anybody noticed that for the first time this year you saw more people getting health care from government than you did from the private sector — not because of anything we did, but because more and more people are losing their health care from their employers. It’s becoming unaffordable. That’s what we’re trying to prevent.

We want people to be able to get health care from their employers. But we also understand that you’ve got to fix the system so that people are able to get it at affordable rates and small businesses can afford to give their employees insurance at an affordable rate. And that’s not happening right now.

To your question about the 25th, my hope is that this doesn’t end up being political theater, as I think some of you have phrased it. I want a substantive discussion. We haven’t refined exactly how the agenda is going to go that day. We want to talk with both the Democratic and Republican leaders to find out what they think would be most useful. I do want to make sure that there’s some people like the Congressional Budget Office, for example, that are considered non-partisan, who can answer questions.

In this whole health care debate I’m reminded of the story that was told about Senator Moynihan, who was I guess in an argument with one of his colleagues, and his colleague was losing the argument so he got a little flustered and said to Senator Moynihan, “Well, I’m entitled to my own opinion.” And Senator Moynihan said, “Well, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” I think that’s the key to a successful dialogue on the 25th or on health care.

Let’s establish some common facts. Let’s establish what the issues are, what the problems are, and let’s test out in front of the American people what ideas work and what ideas don’t. And if we can establish that factual accuracy about how different approaches would work, then I think we can make some progress. And it may be that some of the facts that come up are ones that make my party a little bit uncomfortable. So if it’s established that by working seriously on medical malpractice and tort reform that we can reduce some of those costs, I’ve said from the beginning of this debate I’d be willing to work on that. On the other hand, if I’m told that that is only a fraction of the problem and that is not the biggest driver of health care costs, then I’m also going to insist, okay, let’s look at that as one aspect of it, but what else are we willing to do?

And this is where it gets back to the point I was making earlier. Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That’s not how it works in any other realm of life. That’s certainly not how it works in my marriage with Michelle, although I usually do give in most of the time. (Laughter.) But the — there’s got to be some give and take, and that’s what I’m hoping can be accomplished. And I’m confident that’s what the American people are looking for.

So, all right?

Q Jobs question?

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, since there wasn’t a jobs question –

Q Well, I just –

THE PRESIDENT: I’ll make this the last one, jobs question.

Q At the stakeout, the Republicans were saying, well, the jobs package we’ve seen, it’s not really ready yet, we’re a little worried about the cost. Are you satisfied that there is something that can be quickly moved through Congress on jobs?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, my understanding is — first of all, the House has moved forward a jobs package that has some good elements in it. My understanding is, is that there is bipartisan talks taking place as we speak on the Senate side about some elements of a package.

I think there are some things that a lot of people agree on. Just to give you an example, the idea of eliminating capital gains for small businesses — something we can all agree on. I talked about it at the State of the Union address. My hope would be that we would all agree on a mechanism to get community banks who are lending to small businesses more capital, because that is something that I keep on hearing is one of the biggest problems that small businesses have out there.

So I think that it’s realistic for us to get a package moving quickly that may not include all the things I think need to be done, and it may be that that first package builds some trust and confidence that Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill can work together and then we move on to the next aspect of the package and so forth. It may take a series of incremental steps, but the one thing I’m absolutely clear about is, is that we’ve got an economy that’s growing right now, a huge boost in productivity — that’s the good news. The bad news is, is that companies still haven’t taken that final step in actually putting people on their payroll full-time.

We’re seeing an increase in temporary workers, but they haven’t yet taken on that full-time worker. And so providing some additional impetus to them, right as the economy is moving in a positive direction, I think can end up yielding some good results.

All right? Thank you, guys. That was pretty good, thanks.

END
2:11 P.M. EST

Here’s the complete transcript and video of President Obama’s remarks before the bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders. The transcript was prepared by the White House and downloaded from WhiteHouse.gov on Feb. 9, 2010 at 10:45 p.m.

10:21 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Well, I want to thank both Democratic and Senate Leaders — Democratic Senate Leaders, Democratic House Leaders, as well as Republican Leaders from the House and Senate for joining us.

As I said in my State of the Union, part of what we’d like to see is the ability of Congress to move forward in a more bipartisan fashion on some of the key challenges that the country is facing right now. I think it’s fair to say that the American people are frustrated with the lack of progress on some key issues. And although the parties are not going to agree on every single item, there should be some areas where we can agree and we can get some things done even as we have vigorous debates on some of those issues that we don’t agree on.

A good place to start, and what I hope to spend a lot of time on in these discussions today, is how we can move forward on a jobs package that encourages small business to hire, that is helping to create the kind of environment where now that we have economic growth people actually are starting to add to their payroll. I think there are some ideas on both the Republican and Democrat side that allow us to potentially, for example, lower rates for small businesses on their taxes, to help spur on some growth. And my hope is is that both in the House and the Senate we’ll see some packages moving over the next several weeks that can provide a jumpstart to hiring and start lowering the unemployment rate.

Another area where I hope we can find some agreement is on the issue of getting our deficits and debt under control. Both parties have stated their concerns about it; I think both parties recognize that it’s going to take a lot of work. I have put forward the idea of a fiscal commission and I’m going to be discussing both with my Democratic and Republican colleagues how we can get that moving as quickly as possible so that we can start taking some concrete action. I think the American people want to see that concrete action.

I’m also going to just be talking about some more mundane matters, things like making sure that we have our government personnel in place on critical positions — in critical positions that involve our basic government function and seeing if we can accelerate that and try to find some agreement in those areas.

And then I’m going to spend some time listening because there may be some priorities that both the Republican and Democratic Leaders have that they want to raise at this meeting.

My hope is this is not going to be a rare situation; we’re going to be doing these on a regular basis. And I’m very thankful that everybody here has taken the time to come. I’m confident that if we move forward in a spirit of keeping in mind what’s best for the American people that we should be able to accomplish a lot.

All right. Thank you very much everybody.

END
10:24 A.M. EST

Despite the technical glitches, White House staff answers some pretty good questions about everything from No Child Left Behind, Iran sanctions, felon voting rights, Afghanistan, carbon taxing, the bank bailouts and more.

Answering questions: Heather Higginbottom of Domestic Policy Council, Brian Deese, from the National Economic Council and National Security Council Ben Rhodes.

It’s worth watching, so check it out.

While data and statistics don’t tell the whole story about our flailing economy and unemployment, but this chart created on Feb. 5, 2010 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is pretty cool. Jobs are being created, even if slower than we’d like.

Here we go again. Just like in 2003, groupthink is sweeping the nation. When the war drums were beating their loudest to attack Iraq, the media and pundits were onboard with the Bush administration lies. No one challenged what everyone knew to be true – that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he was going to attack the US. Now seven years later, we’re back at it again, but this time it’s that deadly deficit that will surely kill you and your family before the year is through.

Economist Paul Krugman has been calling for more deficit spending since the recession began. He wrote that “running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.”

And according to Krugman, he’s not a lone ranger supporting deficit spending.

“Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates,” Krugman said in his Feb. 4 column.

So what’s all the fuss about deficits? It’s politics of course. The GOP and their talk radio and Fox News echo chamber have created the illusion that deficit spending is bad and needs to stop now.

Krugman wrote that “the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: it damages President Obama’s image even as it cripples his policy agenda.”

And like the media’s duck-walking in lockstep with Bush’s push for war with Iraq, Americans will suffer if deficit spending is stopped now. Americans need jobs and they need them now. State governments can’t run deficits, but the federal government can.

“For the fact is that thanks to deficit hysteria,” Krugman said, “Washington now has its priorities all wrong: all the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there’s hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction — and millions of Americans will pay the price.”

Read Krugman’s column Fiscal Scare Tactics.”

Here’s the complete transcript and video of President Obama’s Weekly Address. The transcript was prepared by the White House and downloaded from WhiteHouse.gov on Feb. 7, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. Eastern.

Weekly Address
February 6, 2010

Even though our economy is growing again, these are still tough times for America. Too many businesses are still shuttered. Too many families can’t make ends meet. And while yesterday, we learned that the unemployment rate has dropped below ten percent for the first time since summer, it is still unacceptably high – and too many Americans still can’t find work.

But what we must remember at a time like this is that we are not helpless in the face of our difficulties. As Americans, we make our own destiny. We forge our own path. And I am confident that if we come together and put aside the politics that keeps holding us back, we can do that again. We can rebuild this economy on a new, stronger foundation that leads to more jobs and greater prosperity.

I believe a key part of that foundation is America’s small businesses – the places where most new jobs begin.

These companies represent the essence of the American spirit – the promise that anyone can succeed in this country if you have a good idea and the determination to see it through. And every once in awhile, these ideas don’t just lead to a new business and new jobs, but a new American product that forever changes the world. After all, Hewlett Packard began in a garage. Google began as a simple research project.

Government can’t create these businesses, but it can give entrepreneurs the support they need to open their doors, expand, or hire more workers. And that’s what we’ve always done in this country. The folks at Southwest Windpower in Flagstaff, Arizona started their company in a small home. Since getting a loan from the Small Business Administration, they’ve sold 160,000 wind turbines to about 90 different countries, and are hiring even more workers today. When Sam Ko walked into one of the SBA’s small business development centers in Illinois, he didn’t have any business experience at all – just a patent for a new metal manufacturing technology. He was given a loan and a business plan, and today his company is still growing, with offices all over the Midwest.

Last year, the steps we took supported over 47,000 loans to small businesses and delivered billions in tax relief to small business owners, which helped companies keep their doors open, make payroll, and hire workers. But we can and must do more. That’s why I’ve proposed a series of steps this week to support small business owners and the jobs they create – to provide more access to credit, more incentives to hire, and more opportunities to grow and sell products all over the world.

Because financing remains difficult for good, credit-worthy small businesses across the country, I’ve proposed that we take $30 billion from the TARP fund originally used for Wall Street and create a new Small Business Lending Fund that will provide capital for community banks on Main Street. These are the small, local banks that will be able to give our small business owners more of the credit they need to stay afloat. We should also continue to waive fees, increase guarantees, and expand the size of SBA-backed loans for small businesses. And yesterday, I proposed making it easier for small business owners to refinance their mortgages during these tough times.

To give these companies greater incentives to grow and create jobs, I’ve proposed a new tax credit for more than one million small businesses that hire new workers or raise wages, as well as the elimination of all capital gains taxes on small business investment.

Finally, we should provide targeted support to the most innovative small businesses – the ones with the greatest potential to export new goods and products all over the world. A lot of these companies – like the wind turbine manufacturer I mentioned – are the foundation on which we can rebuild our economy to compete in the 21st century. They just need a little help securing the financing they need to get off the ground. We have every incentive to help them do that.

Next week, Congress will start debating many of these proposals. And if anyone has additional ideas to support small businesses and create jobs, I’m happy to consider them. My door is always open. But I urge members of both parties: do not oppose good ideas just because it’s good politics to do so. The proposals I’ve outlined are not Democratic or Republican; liberal or conservative. They are pro-business, they are pro-growth, and they are pro-job. Leaders in both parties have supported similar ideas in the past. So let’s come together and pass these measures without delay. Let’s put more Americans back to work, and let’s give our small business owners the support to do what they’ve always done: the freedom to pursue their dreams and build our country’s future. Thanks for listening.

According to an independent poll, paid for by Daily Kos and conducted by Research 2000, 63 percent of self-identified Republicans believe Obama is a socialist.

Of the 2,000 Republicans polled only 42 percent believe President Obama was born in the US. Only 42 percent said they believe Obama doesn’t want the terrorists to win – that means that 24 percent believe he wants the terrorists to win and 33 percent aren’t sure.

A shocking 33 percent think Obama is a racist and 53 percent think Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president.

The anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-critical thought crowd in this nation is frightening. Most of this misinformation is coming straight from Fox News and “people” like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly.

What’s most alarming is that the trend is very sharply going away from critical thought and thinking for yourself and towards this pack mentality of utter ignorance. Where will this take the US?

Read the Daily Kos poll results for yourself and start drinking.