It's All In The Game

Income taxes rose for everyone at midnight New Years Eve/New Years Day and then, almost instantaneously, fell as Congress approved the fiscal slope deal.  Though candidate and President Obama vowed to raise the rates for household incomes above $250,000, he eventually settled with the GOP for $400,000- and declared victory, albeit in his standard understated way.

Also declaring victory (though not so understated), ironically, was Americans for Tax Reform founder, director, lobbyist and chief spokesperson Grover Norquist.  He tweeted “The Bush tax cuts lapsed at midnight last night. Every R voting for Senate bill is cutting taxes and keeping his/her pledge,”  Upon retiring for the night, he was more explicit:    “gdnight. When Dems wake up they will realize they just made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent and lost their leverage for the next 4 yrs,”

The Democratic President and the originator and keeper of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which kept- no, has kept- any Republican from voting for an income tax increase since 1981 both applauded the budget agreement.  At first impression, one must be lying or at least mistaken. That would, however, be only at first impression.

Obama apologists, such as the once principled liberal/progressive Ed Schultz on the Obama Cable Network, argue that Democrats should be pleased with the deal because a) additional revenue will be raised from most of the wealthy while taxes were cut for middle incomes; and b) earned benefits were held harmless.

But  It was nearly inevitable that taxes would be kept at the lower rate for moderate incomes- $250,000, according to the pre-negotiations Obama.  Via negotiations, the upper limit moved to $400,000, closer to the figure (infinity) favored by Republicans.  In return, the GOP relieved the President of the discomfort of requiring them to be sufficiently responsible and patriotic to raise the debt ceiling.   And because the debt ceiling will be re-litigated by Congress in two months, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are imperiled by the GOP-controlled Congress, the latter two legs of the social insurance tripod additionally by President Obama.

Don't take it from Grover Norquist, though he uncharacteristically spoke the truth in his late-night tweet.    Consider also the words on MSNBC of Representative Tom Cole (R-OK), who remarked

Again, I would prefer not to raise taxes on anybody. But we protected almost every American. We did it at a higher income level than the President campaigned on. And again, frankly, we’ve denied him I think his most important piece of leverage in any negotiation going forward. So I particularly like that part. I understand unemployment extension. I prefer, you know, a more focused effort in that regard. But we do have parts of the country where that’s necessary and it’s a fair compromise. 

The entitlement issue, just too much to deal with I think in one piece of legislation. But again, still sequester is in front of us. The continuing resolution runs out the end of march and obviously the debt ceiling. All of those things honestly are Republican leverage not Democratic so I think there will be opportunities to deal with the spending issue next year. Honestly I expect that will be the dominant issue along with trying to overhaul the tax code going forward. So that’s usually pretty good ground for Republicans.

From the upper chamber came this from South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, who remarked Tuesday on GOP TV

We're gonna make him a historic president whether he wants to be or not. Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt. The debt ceiling is a chance to get those programs out of bankruptcy and to put the country on a path to sustainability.

...I've never seen a better chance for Republicans and Democrats to come together reform entitlements in a way to save these programs... The good news is we're one big deal away from dominating the 21st century... We have leverage at the debt ceiling to make this president face up to the fact that we're spending our way into oblivion and most Americans don't want to borrow any more money unless we get their kids out of debt and start saving programs that we're all gonna need down the road like Medicare and Social Security. This is the best chance, Steve, I've seen since I've been in Congress, to do something big.

Debt and sequester negotiations will transpire in two months and, according to Cole, "the entitlement issue" will "be the dominant issue" now that the President has been "denied" what is "his most important piece of leverage in any negotiation going forward."   (Why is everything these days expressed as "going forward?"  Is anyone actually jumping into a time machine and going backward?)  Echoing his fellow Republican, Graham maintains "we have leverage at the debt ceiling" and will "come together (to) reform entitlements in a way to save" Social Security and Medicare.

Graham is being singularly dishonest about these programs, but that's an issue for another day.    Schultz and his compatriots are giddy that Social Security and Medicare were untouched in the recently concluded deal.  Yet, Graham and Cole, who are clear that reduction in earned benefits will be the price Democrats will have to pay for raising the debt ceiling, also are satisfied that agreement was reached.  With eyes fixed firmly on cutting the legs out from the sick and the elderly, they voted in favor of the measure, apparently because they realize that these programs are safe only until, as the Oklahoma congressman notes, the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling run out at the end of March.

It's tempting to suggest that Barack Obama did not drive a hard enough bargain, that he gave more than he needed or wanted to, in order not to go over that 'cliff' (below) Cenk Uygur has located  (and says "doesn't look so bad").  But as Uygur wrote nearly two weeks ago

There is only one person who can rescue the Republican Party now -- Barack Obama. And he will... Here's what you have to understand -- it's because he doesn't want to "win." Winning is different for him than it is for me and you. To us, winning is passing progressive priorities. To him, it's passing a deal where he seems like he is above party politics. 

Uygur believed that the President would sacrifice in this round any combination of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to prove to the Establishment his bipartisan bonafides.   That, it now appears, comes later.  Susie Madrak, who evidently recognizes that this President sees the chessboard two steps ahead, explains

President Obama is playing Br'er Rabbit to the Republicans' Br'er Fox. "Oh please, please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me in that briar patch!" If he ends up in a squeeze where the only deal Republicans will accept includes cuts to Social Security and Medicare, it's because he wants to be there.

Share |

Misstep In Colorado


At Fox News, Charles Krauthammer said that polls should tighten a bit with Mitt Romney's solid debate (transcript, here) performance in Denver.  The Republican demonstrated to voters bombarded by ads attacking him that he "does not have horns"  while, Krauthammer observed, Barack Obama unwisely sat on a lead.

Sat on a lead, indeed.   There were at least ten instances in which President Obama stated or strongly implied agreement with his opponent, including

When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high.

On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we've got to boost American energy production.

Now, Governor Romney and I do share a deep interest in encouraging small-business growth.

When it comes to corporate taxes, Governor Romney has said he wants to, in a revenue-neutral way, close loopholes, deductions — he hasn't identified which ones they are — but thereby bring down the corporate rate. Well, I want to do the same thing, but I've actually identified how we can do that.

You know, I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position. 

Now, in fairness, what Governor Romney has now said is he'll maintain traditional Medicare alongside it.

Now, Governor Romney has said he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, and, you know, I appreciate, and it appears we've got some agreement that a marketplace to work has to have some regulation, but in the past...

And it happens we've got some agreement that a marketplace to work has to have some regulation.

...the irony is that we've seen this model work really well in Massachusetts, because Governor Romney did a good thing, working with Democrats in the state to set up what is essentially the identical model. And as a consequence, people are covered there. It hasn't destroyed jobs.

There's a reason why Governor Romney set up the plan that he did in Massachusetts. It wasn't a government takeover of health care. It was the largest expansion of private insurance. But what it does say is that insurers, you've got to take everybody. Now, that also means that you've got more customers.

At MSNBC, Ed Schultz noted that Obama said nothing about Bain Capital, the 47%, offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands or elsewhere.   Schultz noted that Romney was animated, yet not angry, and appeared to want the job, whereas the incumbent appeared almost indifferent to remaining president.   Mitt Romney, Chris Matthews recognized, "seemed to endure the evening while Romney seemed to relish it."    Chris Hayes, who also realized that Romney helped himself in the debate,  asserted that the President's people believe that Obama's biggest asset is his personality and feared that a more aggressive approach would have undercut that.     Left unsaid: Team Obama worries constantly about the President appearing to be an angry black man.

Reverend Al Sharpton argued that, despite initial impressions of the debate, Romney in the next couple of weeks will have to answer for "his lies."   At Salon, Joan Walsh notices a few of Romney's conflicts with objective reality: the candidate denied proposing a $5 trillion tax cut, contended he is "not going to cut education funding," claimed the Affordable Care Act had raised taxes by a trillion dollars, and, describing inaccurately the Independent Payment Advisory Board, maintained Obama has established "a board that will tell people what kind of treatment they're going to get,"   Whether fact checkers will have much of an impact on the public's perception of the veracity or integrity of the challenger remains to be seen.

Still, there is a major opening for the Obama campaign in Romney's declaration "But you make a very good point, which is that the — the place you put your money makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is."  That would make for a delightful campaign ad given, as Walsh's Salon  colleague, Alex Seitz-Wald, notes, "The obvious rejoinder, ready-made for a DNC attack, is that Romney’s heart must be in the Cayman Island, Bermuda or Switzerland, where Romney has put his money.

It's on to the vice-presidential debate and the following two presidential debates.   Before this encounter, many pundits had argued that the first debate between Obama and Romney would be the most important of the three, and few if any maintained that either of the last two would be more important.   Fortunately for the incumbent, that will prove false.  Voters will tune in to Obama-Romney II and III to determine if their first impressions were correct.  If so, that bodes ill for the President; if not, his election will be almost assured.  In either case, the first debate, despite an almost unanimous decision for the challenger, thankfully will not prove pivotal.




Share |

At Most, An Obama Network



Progressive blogger and (Hilary) Clinton enthusiast Taylor Marsh explains today why Barack Obama never has been a shoe-in for re-election.    One problem, she notes, is

That Obama hasn’t made solid relationships inside the Democratic Party and in the progressive community, beyond his die hard fans and supporters, makes it rougher for him. I don’t know anyone who thinks Obama runs the Democratic Party, with more evidence today that he doesn’t. He’s the un-Lyndon Johnson, a man who gets by on his own steam, not through relationships inside Democratic or progressive circles. The attitude of Robert Gibbs is brought to mind and just what a bad beginning the Administration made toward their base. Obama is another in a long line of presidents who don’t feel compelled to build the political party that made his rise possible. The feeling is Pres. Obama’s a one man ego band.

Tuesday, however, Marsh had slapped The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf, who had mistaken MSNBC's Chris Matthews for an objective journalist and therefore was aghast at Matthews' criticism of Mitt Romney over his Bain Capital involvement.   Marsh similarly criticized Politico's Dylan Byers because he had naively slammed Matthews for exhibiting "partisan loyalties" when he "accused the Obama surrogate of 'sabatoge' and 'betrayal' of the campaign."

Matthews, Marsh argues, lost his journalistic credentials when he became an enthusiastic cheerleader for Obama's 2008 campaign, most infamously for his "thrill going up my leg" comment.        Marsh observes "Chris Matthews has been a die hard Barack Obama supporter for over four years now, which is his choice."   Then, however, she draws a false parallel, claiming

Fox News Channel is a ratings juggernaut doing partisan coverage. Are Friedersdorf and Byers really the only ones who don’t know MSNBC is now the bookend to Fox News Channel? 

Friedersdorf and Byers may be confused about MSNBC but, to a lesser degree, so is Marsh. MSNBC is not the Democratic alternative, nor is it the liberal or progressive alternative- that would be Al Gore's Current TV, especially with the Young Turks' Cenk Uygur. With little more than two exceptions (staunch liberal/progressive Chris Hayes on weekend mornings, populist Dylan Ratigan on weekday afternoons),  MSNBC is the pro-Obama network.     That is hardly synonymous with "liberal," "progressive," or (as Marsh obviously understands better than most) even "Democratic."  

Matthews' pro-Obama slant during the 2008 campaign was far more noble, with far more benevolent effect, than his approach to the 2000 presidential campaign, when he functioned as an unofficial surrogate for the Republican.   Bob Somerby describes Matthews' role in the Bush-Gore campaign:

Of course, it was Matthews’ remarks about Campaign 2000 which provided the comic relief. “I think he ran a terrible campaign in 2000,” Matthews said, skillfully keeping his straight face. Just last Friday, we gave you a small idea of what this big nut-case meant (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/17/11). What made Gore’s campaign so “terrible?” For one thing, he wore a three-button suit—and those buttons had Freudian meaning. Beyond that, he had hired a woman to teach him how to be a man. He was “today’s man-woman,” “a man-like object;” he “didn’t have his gender straight.” He would lick the bathroom floor to be president. Over and over and over and over, he was “Bill Clinton’s bathtub ring.”

Matthews behaved like a genuine demon for the campaign’s twenty months, offering ugly, bizarre complaints about Gore’s “terrible campaign.” He told Gennifer Flowers how hot she was when he dragged her out on the air; she then spent a full half hour denouncing the Clintons’ murders. Presumably, Matthews did this to serve the pleasure of Welch; his salary was $1 million in 1999, but it soon went up to $5 million. (This type of largesse cannot be explained by Hardball’s ratings, though the show was influential at that time within the mainstream press.)

Somerby typically is too harsh toward Matthews, who conducts some searing interviews which would (or should) put nearly everyone else on TV news to shame.    Still, Somerby's suggestion (there and elsewhere) that the host was doing the bidding of his corporate sponsor has its parallel in today's MSNBC.  

After the network's Rachel Maddow defended Obama's recent remarks about Bain Capital, she interviewed Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who had criticized the campaign (though, significantly, not Obama himself).      Maddow served as public relations flak for Booker, one of Wall Street's favorite Democrats, arguing that he had been misunderstood.    Fawning over Booker (whom Somerby says is a buddy of hers from Stanford), she chose not to emphasize the impact of the Bain Way upon the employees of the companies it took over.     Somerby commented

If Maddow would stop her absurd attempts to defend her appalling friend, maybe she could report on what Romney actually did at Bain! Maybe she could report the looting of those pension funds, in ways her viewers could grasp and pass on.

Or is she keeping her trap shut too? Despite what your lizard brain is saying, corporate-picked multimillionaires may not always be on your side.

Rachel Maddow does, at times, question corporate power, as does Ed Schultz.     (O'Donnell does so infrequently and Sharpton is little more than Obama's mouthpiece.) Other hosts, especially Matthews, on the network are hardly reticent about criticizing Democrats, a wise tactic for a pro-Obama operation intent on avoiding being typecast as "pro-Democrat." MSNBC surely is not impartial, and does not claim to be, but neither is it the partisan counterweight to the cable network representing the public relations wing of the Republican Party.

Share |

Schultz Wisdom

Bob Somerby of Daily Howler frequently criticizes "our side" for failing to build a progressive politics. He comes down especially hard on Washington Post columnists, New York Times columnists, and MSNBC anchor persons for various sins, including an emphasis on the sexual (Maureen Dowd among the offenders), racism of white conservatives (Keith Olbermann among the offenders), and distorting and manipulating the statements and record of Vice-President Gore, leading to the Bush presidency (Chris Matthews, Eugene Robinson, and a whole lot of others).

But he was wrong last Wednesday about MSNBC's Ed Schultz:

SCHULTZ (6/14/10): And here’s what I don’t want to hear tonight. I don’t want to hear anything about bipartisanship. Liberals, we’re supposed to be in the majority here. I don’t want any more olive branches. I don’t want any more reaching across the aisle—didn’t we do that dance during health care and where did it get us? Don’t be offended by this, conservatives, but damn the Republicans, this country can’t afford any more political games. We are in crisis. The majority of Americans believe we are in crisis right now and we have to stop what is happening in the gulf.

Say what? Whatever could have made Schultz thought that liberals are in the majority? For a small reality check, just review the polling numbers on the Obama health plan, which is now law. Review the polling on the Arizona immigration law, a measure which liberals have denounced as strongly as any in recent memory. In no way are liberals/progressives in the majority, and it’s stunning to see that major liberals and progressives don’t know that. How can we build a winning progressive politics if we are thus deluded?

Somerby correctly asserts that there currently is no liberal majority in the country, the mandate for progressive politics existing in autumn of 2008 having evaporated, or been squandered or destroyed. But Schultz is recommending that liberals/progressives not behave defensively- "I don't want any more olive branches. I don't wan't any more reaching across the aisle. Didn't we do that dance during health care and where did it get us?"

Where it got us, indeed. Somerby argues that a review of the numbers on the health care plan refute the idea of the popularity of liberal initiatives. But as the health care debate wound on, the President "reached across the aisle," seeking bipartisanship and compromising with Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats for one more (pleeese!) vote. All the while, support for reform eroded. And deals with the pharmaceutical and hospital industries, hardly liberal or pro-Democratic interest groups, hardly enhanced reform's popularity.

While Somerby accurately suggests that Arizona's new immigration law is popular, it is far from clear what that support implies. Results from polling questions on immigration/illegal immigration are notoriously susceptible to wording of the question and, given little analysis of the actual content of the Arizona legislation, it is unlikely that the American people are aware of critical details of the bill. Ask respondents what they think about immigrants not being able to speak English, and the results would be depressingly (to the left) conservative; ask them about the idea of "rounding up" illegal immigrants, and the result would be depressing for conservatives. Or at least the conservatives who want illegal immigrants deported which, for example, would not include Rush Limbaugh.

There is nothing which has eroded President Obama's popularity more than the still-lingering recession. Nothing succeeds with the public more than success, and Obama has not had much bringing unemployment numbers down.

But it didn't have to be that way. Liberal economist Paul Krugman blogged in January 2009 and reiterated in October 2009 "This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for — and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes." It would, he expected in January, limit the rise in unemployment, whose rate eventually would decline, but slowly.

The inadequacy of the stimulus was unsurprising to major economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Budget Director Christine Romer. But a larger stimulus, the President reasoned, would prompt attacks from the right and little cooperation from Republicans. And with the relatively measly stimulus, Obama got- attacks from the right and little cooperation from Republicans.

Obama's positions generally have been too timid, in terms of the policy and the politics If the President's radio message Saturday is any indication (which it probably isn't), the message may have finally gotten through to the administration- stake out a position, fight for what is right, project strength, and compromise only when necessary.

Share|

What's She Going To Do?

Soon after Sarah Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell either came up with a great scoop utilizing her sources- or was suckered. As many of us heard live and thinkprogress.org reports here, Mitchell maintained

Talking to people who are very close to Sarah Palin, I have been told that she has told her supporters that she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels like she has to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital and she really does not want to run for higher office. This is not the case where she is stepping down in order to figure the way for a presidential run. In fact, she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012.

This runs counter to what most others are predicting. Veteran Republican fundraiser and Palin adviser Fred Malek told Rick Klein of ABC that the Governor is not precluding a return to politics and

She’s not going to go hide in a cave. She’ll continue to be a major friend and force for Republican figures in this country.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote definitively

I have covered politics for a long time. I can tell when someone is running for president. Sarah Palin is running for president.

Ed Schultz of MSNBC, arguing that Palin has decided to run, insightfully referred to this passage in the Governor's speech

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that...

A response of "hell yeah!" (ain't she folksy?) is not elicited by asking one's loved ones "should I resign as governor so I can spend more time with you?" or even "should I resign so you and I can travel around the country while I work for the election of other conservative politicians?" It might, though, be the response to "how about if I drop everything so we have a chance to go live in that big white house in Washington surrounded by good-looking bodyguards and servants?" And if that sounds superficial, why is she (allegedly) relying on her children's advice? And who are we dealing with, anyway?

A few people in the media have contended that because Sarah Palin cares so much for her family and is such a good mother, that perhaps she wouldn't do anything, such as a run for national office, which would detract from the time she can spend with her children. But consider this possibility: Palin already has decided to go for the top job, or at least to build up iou's she can cash in later if she wishes; given that, which affords her more time to spend with her family- functioning as governor or not?

Maybe Sarah Palin has decided against a run for the presidency. But if so, given the evidence and educated opinion to the contrary, Andrea Mitchell deserves to be considered one of the finest correspondents of our time.

Reaction To Palin-Letterman

Evolution? First Amendment? U.S. military women and men? Who would have thought Sarah Palin is an advocate of all three?

The Alaskan Governor's response on June 16 was chock full of non sequiturs:

Of course it's accepted on behalf of young women, like my daughters, who hope men who 'joke' about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve," the statement read.

"Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. And this is all thanks to our U.S. military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's right to free speech -- in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect.

When Governor Palin expressed her support for teaching both evolution and creationism to public school students, the assumption set in that, a firm opponent of abortion rights and skeptic of gay rights, she was a flat-out creationist. Such assumption appears invalid, with Palin now suggesting that men of offensive humor "will soon evolve."

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann rhetorically asked "Governor, how many times do we have to go through this? The first amendment does not apply to stuff people say on television." One would have thought the governor of a state (let alone a former vice-presidential nominee) would realize the First Amendment guarantees only that the federal government (and the state government,via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) does not abridge the right to free speech. (And even with that, there are limits.)

Palin also was criticized by Ed Schultz, who in turn was blasted by the conservative Repub website newsbusters.org, which then was condemned by Schultz.

With little sense of irony, Governor Palin uses the term "evolve;" demonstrates little or no concept of the First Amendment; and tries to manipulate the patriotism of the American people by conflating her conflict with a talk-show host with the "U.S. military women and men putting their lives on the line for us." There is little, presumably short of violence or brazen illegality, that she will not do to keep herself in the news. And Mrs. Palin does so by using the symbolism of the American soldier for relatively trivial purposes as a prop in her pursuit of political influence.

Where Is Barack Obama?

A commenter named "marksb" on firedoglake.com displayed impressive eloquence Monday when he speculated, probably accurately, on the reaction a Senator Obama would have were he attacked as has Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

The Speaker flubbed this. Imagine Obama in the same situation: “Folks are saying I was briefed and I didn’t say anything in protest. Well that’s just a shiny object to redirect your attention from the fact that our government, the leaders of our government, demanded, approved, and conducted torture in the name of the American people. Now they can point their fingers at Congress all they want about this or that technicality, but the shame and responsibility of violating international and US law, of conducting torture and maybe murder, is on their hands alone, and we need to get to the bottom of this mess.”

But Barack Obama can speak up: in fact, he is more credible than Nancy Pelosi on the matter of the intelligence briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency because he is not in the same situation. He would be recognized as more objective than Speaker Pelosi, embroiled as she is in this faux controversy drummed up by the GOP and its enabling mainstream media. And he is far more popular than the Speaker and can trade on that popularity. Further, he has the stature, as President, to make a statement- perhaps even more eloquent than the one posted by marksb- on behalf of the country: Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and unregistered individuals.

Thus far, that voice, or statement, is lacking. The sentiment expressed on Monday's The Ed Show on MSNBC by Ed Schultz was right on target:

Now, the key question for the White House tonight I also think is, what is the downside for the White House when it comes to supporting Nancy Pelosi? They are ominously and curiously silent on all of this, just hoping this all goes away. And I don‘t think that‘s a good play for the Democrats.

Mr. Obama may figure that Mrs. Pelosi can gut it out, muddle through, through Memorial Day. Perhaps he is reasoning that if the controversy has not abated by then, he can intervene rhetorically, even dramatically, on her behalf. But with each passing day, the suspicion grows that though the President's silence surely is not a good play for Democrats, that President may believe it is a good play for him.

Attacking A Smear

By now you have probably heard of, and possibly seen, the dust-up between Cliff May and Ed Schultz on Anderson Cooper 360 on Thursday, July 3, 2008 in which May charges "some on the left who would like to see America defeated in Iraq as a demonstration exercise that U.S. power never, never can be used for good." This is the relevant portion of the argument:


MAY: Yes. And I think also on some of the more left-wing blogs, Obama is taking some hits.

But this does move him to the center. And, look, I want to put -- I'm not a big fan of his, but I'm going to put the best spin on it, which is that he understands the situation fairly well, certainly better than the Daily Kos does and some of those on the left who would like to see America defeated in Iraq as a demonstration exercise that U.S. power never, never can be used for good.

SCHULTZ: Whoa. Whoa.

That is absolutely outrageous. That is outrageous for you to say that people on the left want to lose in Iraq. I'm not going to sit here and listen to that. This is the Fourth of July. We are Americans. We don't believe in fighting in Iraq the way we are doing. We're depleting our resources. That's ridiculous.

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: Well, Ed, just tell me how you're going to win in Iraq if we have no troops there.

SCHULTZ: You don't even know what the definition of win is.

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: Tell me the definition of win is. If I don't know it, you tell me.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: We don't have enough money doing this. We are absolutely hurting ourselves staying in Iraq. The Iraqi people need to step up. The real enemy here is in Afghanistan.

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: And they are.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: For you to sit here and say that liberals don't want to defend this country is unconscionable.

MAY: I didn't say it of you.

(CROSSTALK) SCHULTZ: That is absolutely outrageous.

MAY: There are those on the left who would think that a U.S. defeat in Iraq would be like a U.S. defeat in Vietnam, an object lesson for Americans about the use of force.

SCHULTZ: Listen, Mr. May, I don't know where you get your information, but I spoke to Barack Obama face to face today.

MAY: Congratulations to you.

Schultz did well in denouncing this scurrilous charge, not unique to Cliff May. However, in a race in which the presumptive Democratic candidate has promised "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," the Democratic side can do even better. Perhaps something like this: ".... now that the Republican Party is carrying water for OPEC and endorsing price-gouging middle-class Americans" or "the Republican Party, working to keep oil prices high." Hopefully, some strategist, consultant, or public relations firm can come up with something snappier but, given the action by the Senate GOP on June 10, 2008 in blocking a bill which would have "opened the way for antitrust actions against the OPEC oil cartel" and "made energy price gouging a federal crime," the charge seems only fair.

Quote Of The Week

"The 300 million dollars is more like a game show."

-Talk show host Ed Schultz on 6/26/08 on MSNBC's "Race For The White House," commenting about John McCain's 300 million dollar offer to anyone who develops an automobile battery "to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars"