I agree. I hope they continue to press the issues as they are doing so.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Obama call on Stein (heck, even just mentioning HuffPo threw me for a loop. Would like to see TalkingPointsMemo there too).

The country needs it.

Good point about Rachel Maddow's interview, and I really love her excellent focus on serious matters; also her entertaining Air America Radio show. She enjoys excellent audience ratings among cable news shows.

The Sam Stein question gets even more exposure, by being broadcast everywhere. Hundreds of millions of Americans might see this press event.

This is so cool.

You're absolutely right about the shock of some interviewees when they get on Rachel's show -- apparently their staff work is so poor, they weren't warned to expect tough, thoughtful questions.

I'm also pleased at the ever-increasing number of progressives who are clearly eager to do her show -- in just a few months, it's become the place for progressives to be seen and to be heard.

And, who knows, I expect we're not too far from the day when somebody appearing on her show will have the nerve to come out as a true, old-fashioned "liberal."

wouldn't the legislation be more effective with a higher ratio of spending to tax cuts?

As proof that Nelson isn't used to dealing with questions from the left, he answered this by defending the spending, as though Rachel was suggesting more tax cuts. Unfortunately, she never went back to the tax cuts.

Nelson then went on to blame Republicans for all the compromising. He may as well have said, I don't believe any of this right wing claptrap, but someone had to work with them. What a skunk.

For a brief moment, I thought Ben might "go Zell" on her. But I guess that's not his style.

He was certainly flustered, though.

I hope this sounds reality based, but I think we miss the point when we describe the media as reflecting a Republican tilt. Isn't it more likely that the media, like the Republican Party, are merely reflecting the issues and concerns of a particular set of individuals that have a vestid interest in the current power structure. There is something about democrats weilding executive authority that unhinges this class. I am not too old to remember Clinton's treatment. Truly off the wall, and they are just warming up to Obama. Notwithstanding his moderate policies to date, Obama scares the shit out of this group, like Clinton did. I have no presumptions that Obama is the Messiah or that his adminstration won't make some serious mistakes, but I think the critics are seriously underestimating the fine print of the Geitner proposal, and the overall sophistication with which this Administration has gone about handling the economic crisis so far. Geithner's plan is a roadmap for nationalization (even if temporary) and will require that the private sector absorb a significant part of the losses, rather than the taxpayers. Wall Street knows what just happened. They are going to pay. Look at the market.

The MSM internalizes GOP talking points. Dog bites man.
I'm hoping this starts to shift a little, with Obama and his people giving progressives more attention. The question last night was hopefully just a start. Nice to see Helen Thomas asking questions again too.

At the end of the Spanish heyday, when you'd think the nation and its colonies were so rich that nothing would ever stop them, any criticism of the way things were was banned. The nation was flawless and perfect, protected by God.

That mindset took care of Spanish hegemony quite fast. Happens at regular intervals, lesson never learned.

The GOP thinks it will find power through banishing discourse ... you couldn't create a better enemy of the USA than today's GOP.

Scott F wrote: "I think we miss the point when we describe the media as reflecting a Republican tilt. Isn't it more likely that the media, like the Republican Party, are merely reflecting the issues and concerns of a particular set of individuals that have a vested interest in the current power structure."

You are quite right.

For some reason, "sensible liberal" bloggers like Steve Benen simply refuse to recognize that "the media" in America today is overwhelmingly owned and controlled by a handful of giant for-profit corporations, who use the mass media that they own and control to propagandize the American people in furtherance of their corporate interests and agenda. Instead, "sensible liberal" bloggers whine and moan and express mystification at the media's behavior, scratching their heads over the media's "incompetence" or inability to "get it right", and endlessly psychoanalyzing "the Villagers".

Likewise, "sensible liberal" bloggers refuse to acknowledge that Republican politicians are bought-and-paid-for tools of the ultra-rich corporate aristocracy -- the same people who own and control "the media". And as such, Republicans advocate policies, like tax cuts, that are tried and proven successful at enriching and empowering their rich and powerful owners, usually at the expense of everyone else. Instead, "sensible liberal" bloggers attribute the Republicans' policy proposals to "ideology" or "craziness".

The corporate media's vapid "pundits" and vacuous "on-air personalities" spout the same scripted talking points as the Republicans for one simple reason: they are reading from the same script, a script that has been written for them by America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc.

The most important step towards dealing with this is to stop pretending that there is anything mysterious or inexplicable or "crazy" about the corporate-owned mass media spewing corporate-sponsored propaganda, or the corporate-owned Republicans pushing corporate-sponsored policies.

It's not some mysterious failure of "journalism". It's not "ideology" or "craziness".

It is class warfare, by the ultra-rich corporate oligarchs and their bought-and-paid-for shills, against the rest of us.

It's time to call it what it is.

What Nelson meant was not that making the bill weaker and less effective would lure in the Obstinate Hypocrite Party, but that those cuts were necessary to ensure HIS vote and that of the two Republican negotiators.

All this stuff about having to rewrite the bill to attract Repub support is tiresome. They got no Repup support. What they did, is they negotiated to get it the way THEY wanted it-- which apparently was for some political positioning and not for increased effectiveness.

The truth is that the only thing between passage and non-passage was not bipartisan anything; it was three turkeys refusing to go along unless they were placated; and almost the entire minority party delegation refusing to go along no matter what.

There's lot of talk about broadening the appeal etc. but there was no broadening. All we had was three people putting their foot down. Wd have been better all around if someone just paid them off under the table.

The same lack of principle turns up across the entire Group of Perps, btw. The other day Texas Gov. "Goodhair" Perry (R) said that "Rather than devote an unprecedented number of dollars to expanding government, they should stimulate the economy with something that actually works: tax cuts."

By "expanding government," he means, "having government do something." And by "do something" he means "govern."

SecularAnimist -

That's my gut too, but I can't stand the conspiratorial tone of the suggestion.

When Nelson emphasized the importance of local control of education, Maddow reminded him that school construction crews wouldn't affect the curriculum.

maddow's interview -- respectful, intelligent... what journalism, albeit subjective, is all about.

I thought it was interesting that he tried to blame the republicans for the compromise, but then Maddow asked him to verify that he agreed that some of the cuts would have provided more stimulus than some of the stuff left in. He didn't agree with that. In other words, he didn't compromise with the republicans, he agrees with them. This should be kept in mind.

I think give these guys what they want in this round and essentially penalize them in future appropriations.

One republican made an actual good point about the stimulus bill and about earmarks. The lack of earmarks means that the administration decides which programs get funding. What does that mean? Over the next year or so every politician is going to be trying to get their pet projects funded. That means they will have to work with the Obama administration and with local officials and businesses.

Think about that. Republicans are going to have to work with local officials and businesses and the administration to pick projects to fund. These will be online for everyone to see. This is really going to screw the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship.

When the National Association of Manufacturers AND the Chamber of Commerce, for chrissake, endorse the stimulus bill, you have to wonder just who the ReThugs are listening to.

It is becoming more and more obvious that the ReThugs aren't even listening to business anymore. Business WANTS to get rid of the health care obligation. Business WANTS money in the pocket of spenders. Business WANTS some tax relief, but not across the board tax cuts.

The ReThugs are simply playing anti-Obama politics.

Why Nelson goes along with this is a mystery. Must be because he fears he won't get re-elected if he isn't a DINO. Saving his phony baloney job is even more important now that the private sector won't be paying lobbyists as much.

Let's face it. Ben Nelson is just not very bright.

I found it interesting when Nelson attempted to defend his cuts by referring to and railing against unfunded mandates thrust upon the states by the feds. I had hoped Maddow would have said something along the lines of "Well, Senator, with all due respect, the feds ARE trying to help funding the states and schools. But you are cutting off that funding. It maynot be timely funding, but at least the feds are now trying to help. How is that a problem?"

I'm afraid SecularAnimist has it about right, Scott F. What we shouldn't do is consider that point of view conspiratorial; there's no secret ultra-rich board meeting somewhere, it's just the impact of many dispersed decisions by people with similar values. We need to develop a language with which to talk about economic class - whether it's considered polite or not. Class after all is the root of much of what is confused with racism in the US.

I followed the Obama press conference with a viewing of a BBC drama, The Aristocrats. The 18th century English royal class and our current US CEO Top 1 Percent class have much in common - disregard for the working class that generates the profits that they vacuum up into non-productive wealth, and a breathtaking sense of entitlement. It's gone so far it's destabilized the nation - even risking their own wealth, without their recognizing their own values as a cause. In another generation we could see a merging with Christianist rhetoric that talks about wealth and divine right. Now that's paranoid.

I'm sure it hasn't occurred to anybody here that he might have been taken aback by Maddow's questions because they were so incredibly stupid.

Watch the interview again. At one point, Nelson's response literally made no sense. He was talking pure gibberish in incomplete sentences. I was watching it live and had to replay it on Tivo a few times to even remotely try to follow what the man was saying.

And I agree: Rachel Maddow is da bomb when it comes to intellectual discourse.

Not so crazy if you are a corporate executive responsible for maintaining profits.

Assuring the best care for patients? Not my department!

www.medicynic.com

the only problem is that reporters and anchors would have to know something about which they report...

that sounds like hard work..

can't we just show moving pictures?

Homer: Rachel Maddow is da bomb when it comes to intellectual discourse.

oh yeah?

Pullbockey !!