February 6, 2009
FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:
* A surprisingly good day on Wall Street. Apparently, investors have more confidence in the Senate than I do.
* Speaking of Wall Street, they appear to owe us about $78 billion.
* President Obama will hit the road next week, traveling to Indiana and Florida in support of his economic stimulus package.
* The Supreme Court's next session begins in two weeks, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg plans to be there.
* Chart of the day.
* Speaker Pelosi is not at all pleased with some of the Senate's cuts to the stimulus bill. I don't blame her.
* Obama "guaranteed" that he will sign an executive order overturning Bush's ridiculous policy on embryonic stem cells. He added, however, that he wants to coordinate with Congress, so that lawmakers codify his order, making it harder for future presidents to reverse the progress.
* Labor is getting more than a little tired of Republicans blocking Hilda Solis' cabinet nomination. On a related note, GOP demands relating to Solis are so absurd, they're hard to believe.
* The Bush administration's "burrowing" will be a serious problem for a quite a while.
* Leon Panetta has made some very encouraging comments about torture and national security policies, but he also said he's not inclined to support prosecution of CIA interrogators.
* I've been wondering the same thing the last several days: "[S]houldn't Obama have made a much bigger plan, say $1.3 trillion, his opening gambit? If he had, he could have conceded to the centrists by cutting it to $1.2 trillion, and still have had a plan with a good chance of really controlling this slump. Instead he made preemptive concessions, only to find the centrists demanding another pound of flesh as proof of their centrist power."
* Olbermann's latest "special comment" considers Dick Cheney's new round of demagoguery.
* Shouldn't Goodyear, at this point, go back and restore Lilly Ledbetter's back pay?
* I'd love to see Sam Seder get the 10pm gig at MSNBC. I could just Tivo MSNBC from 8 to 11 and be both happy and well-informed.
* Ever wonder why bloggers (including me) make reference to "the Village"? It has nothing to do with a mediocre Shyamalan movie, and everything to do with an old line from Digby.
* And finally, I didn't realize that Sarah Palin named one of her children after the ESPN headquarters. She explained this week that she wanted to be an ESPN journalist at one point. "Until I learned that you'd have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away," Palin said. "So instead, I had a daughter and named her Bristol."
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
—Steve Benen 5:30 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (52)
Good thing ESPN isn't headquartered in Schenectady.
Posted by: clonus on February 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK
On a related note, GOP demands relating to Solis are so absurd, they're hard to believe
No more absurd than Holding up demanding AG Holder not prosecute republican criminals. It will take a while to squeeze the hubris out of these arrogant asses.
Posted by: Stuck on February 6, 2009 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK
Actually, I think Shyamalan's The Village was underrated.
Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 6, 2009 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK
Job losses were worse in both 1982 and 83, as percentage of workforce, than last year.
Yes, let's be concerned. This is a more serious recession by far than the last two.
But, for anybody under 35, stop the apocalypticism already.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly on February 6, 2009 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK
It has nothing to do with a mediocre Shyamalan movie...
How dare you call that movie meidocre.
It was awful.
Posted by: doubtful on February 6, 2009 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK
: "[S]houldn't Obama have made a much bigger plan, say $1.3 trillion, his opening gambit? If he had, he could have conceded to the centrists by cutting it to $1.2 trillion, and still have had a plan with a good chance of really controlling this slump. Instead he made preemptive concessions, only to find the centrists demanding another pound of flesh as proof of their centrist power."
Don't worry, I'm sure there's still some top level positions he can appoint Republicans to. Maybe even Ginzberg's Supreme Court post!!!
Obama really is a smart guy. So smart that he apparently can proceed in contravention of common sense and all principles of statecraft since the beginning of recorded time. That's change for you!!!
Give him time! Liberals need to make concessions now so they will be in an even better position to make even more concessions in the future. You will never live to see healthcare reform but maybe your great grandchildren will. In any event, you can preen yourself as morally superior and avoid being rude when you are invited to social functions.
Posted by: Duncan Kinder on February 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK
Duncan -- I hear that Doug Kmiec is available.
Posted by: John on February 6, 2009 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK
Digby may have coined the term "the Village", but Richard Ben Cramer had them pegged way back in "What It Takes," when he referred to them as "the Karacter Kops."
Posted by: Chris on February 6, 2009 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK
The Bush administration's "burrowing" will be a serious problem for a quite a while.
Wherever the burrowers are, they need to be assigned to exhaustively research ways to promote the liberal position of whatever issue they hold most dear.
Posted by: SteveT on February 6, 2009 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK
So that's what the Palins named the kid after? Why not just name her ESPN? Life in Palinland must be very strange.
Posted by: PaminBB on February 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK
Steve Benen: I've been wondering the same thing the last several days: "[S]houldn't Obama have made a much bigger plan, say $1.3 trillion, his opening gambit? If he had, he could have conceded to the centrists by cutting it to $1.2 trillion, and still have had a plan with a good chance of really controlling this slump. Instead he made preemptive concessions, only to find the centrists demanding another pound of flesh as proof of their centrist power."
Hopefully, we've ALL learned our lesson, right?
Posted by: Econobuzz on February 6, 2009 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK
Ahhh, Sarah Palin again! Hey, she is supposed to be a gramma now, but "Tripp" seems nowhere to be found, no pictures are out there (?) - what gives? Shall I call her Office again and ask?
Posted by: Neil B ◙ on February 6, 2009 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK
I have to disagree with all you bashers of M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village." I enjoyed the movie thoroughly.
--and now, back to your regularly scheduled Great Depression in progress.
Posted by: independent thinker on February 6, 2009 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK
[S]houldn't Obama have made a much bigger plan, say $1.3 trillion
Is the suggestion here that he would have found more shovel ready projects? Or that Republicans would have found even fewer pieces of minutia to attack? The idea that Republicans and Blue Dogs will just take any "first number" and reduce it by 10% is pretty naive.
Posted by: Danp on February 6, 2009 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK
"[S]houldn't Obama have made a much bigger plan, say $1.3 trillion, his opening gambit? -- Krugman
Sure, he should have; I would have. But, for all he has called himself Baruch Obama on occasion, he's still missing that gene which tells you how to sell or buy a carpet in the Middle Eastern bazaar. I guess he misunderestimated the Republicans' penchant for haggling.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn't realize that Sarah Palin named one of her children after the ESPN headquarters. -- Benen
Neither did I. Always thought it was after "Bristol cities", in hopes that the child would follow her Ma's path in the swim suit contests, where a good pair of Bristols is the most obvious "talent" on display.
Posted by: exlibra on February 6, 2009 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK
good to see that sarah "you can see russia from alaska" palin's grasp of geography is still as strong as ever. i mean, who knew that if you wanted to work for espn, you'd actually be expected to live near espn? and who knew connecticut was far away from alaska!?
Posted by: mellowjohn on February 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK
Wasn't it Tina Fey who said that?
Posted by: John on February 6, 2009 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK
RE Palin. I don't believe it. Bristol Bay is where she has salmon fished for many years and its an amazing and beautiful place. Story sounds bogus.
Posted by: jvoe on February 6, 2009 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK
Pat Buchanan repeats his rant on 1600 that was discredited this morning on Morning Joe by Krugman.
Shouldn't regulars be required to come up with something new for each show, and shouldn't host enforce this by calling them out on their failed rants?
Posted by: tomj on February 6, 2009 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK
A surprisingly good day on Wall Street. Apparently, investors have more confidence in the Senate than I do.
Nah -- they just love layoffs and high unemployment. They're convinced it's a sign that companies are "getting tough" with their employees and cutting back to improve profits. Because, as we all know, there's nothing healthier than a company that lays off several thousand people.
Posted by: Mnemosyne on February 6, 2009 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK
"Until I learned that you'd have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away,"
Wasilla to Bristol CT: 3334 miles
Wasilla to Washington, DC: 3352 miles
Do we tell her now, or wait till 2012?
Posted by: Dwight on February 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK
The Dems are wheeling in Ted Kennedy for the vote tonight.
Posted by: John on February 6, 2009 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK
Wow. Palin. The last time I saw someone sucking up that hard, it was interrupting the Super Bowl.
INRE: The stimulus.
Why are we freaking out over whatever gets cut out of this bill? Can't we just put it in another bill, later?
Posted by: Cazart on February 6, 2009 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK
Thanks for doing such a great blog, Steve! You rock! :-)
Posted by: thanks Steve Benen! on February 6, 2009 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK
Olbermann is forgiven for not voting. He does a lot more than only vote, I suppose.
Posted by: Olbermann votes in his own way on February 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK
Palin is the last thing we should be talking about.
The woman has no sense of anything relative to reality.
ESPN has hired some stupid folks, but they have their standards.
Too bad the repups dont. Rush and Sarah, sitting in the GOP...
Posted by: vwmeggs on February 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK
The market is up on the news that "mark-to-market" rules are being suspended. A good idea, unlike the bill you are all so enthusiastic about.
Posted by: Mike K on February 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK
The market is up on the news that "mark-to-market" rules are being suspended.
No, that's not the opinion of the majority of market analysts. You were corrected on this last night. Nice try at trolling, though.
Posted by: trex on February 6, 2009 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK
I am not excited about any part of the Stimulus Package that doesn't create jobs / promote growth.
Posted by: John on February 6, 2009 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK
I just heard the breakdown of 42% tax cuts, 58% spending in the final Senate version of what used to be the Jobs Bill. Anyone able to confirm that?
Posted by: Keori on February 6, 2009 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK
Don't forget the $350 billion "left-over" from TARP to be announced Monday.
Posted by: John on February 6, 2009 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK
I'm worried about Obama's political chops. By failing to push for a big enough stimulus to get this $14-trillion-a-year economy moving again, and to allow it to get larded up by Pelosi and Reid with easy targets for Republicans to attack, and by allowing centrists to fill it with non-stimulative tax cuts, Obama has handed his opponents a fantastic strategy. The worse this bill does, the more the economy tanks, the more the Republicans can blame Obama.
In other words, the more they wreck the effectiveness of the stimulus with Hooverite small-government arguments, the more fodder they have for blaming the bad economy on Obama and his liberal stimulus bill. Then, in 2010 or 2012, they can come back in and clean house--and finally achieve their goal of turning the US into Argentina.
Posted by: Josh on February 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK
"Don't cry for me, Argentina."
Posted by: John on February 6, 2009 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK
I read somewhere that Todd Palin said Bristol Palin is named after Bristol Bay in AK, which - as someone else has already mentioned - is where she and the First Dude have their commercial fishing enterprise. I think if the ESPN asperations was involved, she would have named Bristo Espinmerelda or something equivalent.
Posted by: TuiMel on February 6, 2009 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK
august 31, 2008: "Palin said the eldest girl was named after Bristol Bay, where the family fishes."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/08/30/2008-08-30_whats_in_the_palin_childrens_names_fish_.html
and, yeah, it would be nice if she would go back to alaska and stay there.
Posted by: karen marie on February 6, 2009 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK
josh: "to allow it to get larded up by Pelosi and Reid with easy targets for Republicans to attack"
what specifically are you referring to?
pay attention, dear. the republicans are objecting simply to object. all the stuff i have heard them objecting to is only objectionable if you're a halfwit.
Posted by: karen marie on February 6, 2009 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK
To extend the game of "Good thing ESPN headquarters aren't in ..."
A favorite town name in my state of Washingtons is Humptulips.
Humptulips Palin. Too precious.
Posted by: TuiMel on February 6, 2009 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK
Re S Palin: who friggin' cares???? She's an idiot and should be ignored.
Same with Samuel the non-joe-plumber.
Wow, the Rs are just chock full of talented people. ::snort::
Posted by: Too funny on February 6, 2009 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK
Joe was his middle name.
Posted by: Sam on February 6, 2009 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK
"On a related note, GOP demands relating to Solis are so absurd, they're hard to believe."
There is no limit to the amount or degree of absurdity of which Republiscum are capable.
Posted by: digitusmedius on February 6, 2009 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK
Diane Feinstein: "So I reserve the right at the end of the day to vote against the package that I don't think puts those jobs out there. That's my point."
Is this an abstract defense of senators who have doubts about the stimulus, or does Sen Feinstein doubt that the stimulus will produce jobs?
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on February 6, 2009 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK
Me thinks a bottle of Harveys Bristol Creme had a part to play.
Posted by: ray on February 6, 2009 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK
Thanks for helping to bring attention to the fact that Lilly Ledbetter won't get a dime from Goodyear unless we all work on her behalf to make that happen!
Posted by: PunditMom on February 6, 2009 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK
fienstein wants more stimulus money and less repub tax cuts.
“It’s supposed to be a stimulus bill. If this ends up being a tax cut (bill) I won’t vote for it,’’ Feinstein, D-Calif., said yesterday. “The money is much better spend on infrastructure.’’
Posted by: jer on February 6, 2009 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK
Karen Marie, thanks for your comment to my comment, karen marie, I do appreciate it.
(I'm referring to your posting that said, among other things, "pay attention, dear. the republicans are objecting simply to object. all the stuff i have heard them objecting to is only objectionable if you're a halfwit.")
First of all, how sad that we are all spending our Friday nights doing this...
Anyway, I suspect both of us are on the same side here and neither of us are halfwits. And I agree with you that Republicans will object to the stimulus no matter what's in it, it's true.
But when Republicans object, they are staying true to their coherent small-government principles, and they come off well to uncommitted voters. They seem principled.
By contrast, when the Democrats simply throw everything they like into the bill, without regard to how stimulative their provisions are, it looks unprincipled.
For instance: although I do personally support federal funding for birth control, and funding for the NEA, and pretty much everything else in the bill, I can't justify all of it on the grounds that it's a "stimulus." To do so would be unprincipled. I would need different justifications--which don't have anything to do with a stimulus bill.
Instead, the Democrats should have only inserted provisions they can specifically justify to the public, and they should have posted every single one of them onto the Web. And Obama, Reid, and Pelosi should have collaborated on a clear set of talking points to explain the bill in a consistent way. Doing that would have shown the public that the Democrats are adhering to their principles and holding onto the high ground. Plus, it would be consistent with Obama's principle of open government.
They did not do this. And they are paying the price.
Dear.
Although Republicans
Posted by: Josh on February 6, 2009 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK
Goodyear needs to start paying their men less.
If they're going to be stingy, be consistently frugal.
It seems so odd that Goodyear wasn't more annoyed that it seems they're human resources were putting stockholder profits into some type of favoritism at least partially based on sexism
These guys need training to squeeze every employee as hard as they can. If women are still making less, they'll need some proof that guys are
a) tougher negotiators
b) could not be replaced by a cheaper employee who's more of a doormat.
What empirical measures could one use to prove a company is uniformly putting the screws to everybody.
Women are stockholders too, I would think this type of potential waste on excessive men's salaries would make them mad.
Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on February 7, 2009 at 5:11 AM | PERMALINK
Josh -- thank you for holding true to your principles.
Posted by: John on February 7, 2009 at 6:43 AM | PERMALINK
"Leon Panetta has made some very encouraging comments about torture and national security policies"
You were encouraged by him saying that renditions will continue and that he would press Obama for more leeway on interrogation practices ?
Well I guess what else could you say after your treatment of the LA Times, warning about precisely this a mere week ago. I guess this is what you call taking a "wait and don't see" attitude.
Posted by: Kilo on February 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM | PERMALINK
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Posted by: John on February 7, 2009 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK