The arrogance of power is directly proportional to bad judgment. The more blunders, the more arrogance. That makes me think of Rahm Emanuel, a master at marginalizing others in games of petty politics at the very times the judgments of others are most necessary to success.
|By: Marta Evry Friday December 18, 2009 6:02 am|
Chris Matthews, surely you don’t mean me? Of course, I do blog, and yes, I do get most of my news and information from blogs. Mostly because of pundits like you – who may or may not eat cheetos, but who surrendered their journalistic integrity a long, long time ago.
But Chris, if you’re laughing at me, the joke’s on you.
|By: Gregg Levine Wednesday December 16, 2009 8:00 pm|
This time (not for the first time, and probably not for the last time), it is Joe who gets to play Lucy. And, again, we are not wanting for Charlie Browns.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday November 17, 2009 4:34 pm|
A study by George Washington University represents a huge repudiation of the “we’re just following current law” talking point that Stupak has been peddling. According to these experts, it’s bogus. The Stupak amendment would represent the biggest barrier to abortion services since the passage of Roe v. Wade, without question.
|By: David Dayen Monday November 9, 2009 7:29 pm|
Today on Hardball, Jim Cooper was on to discuss the Stupak amendment and how the House and Senate can work through it to reach a compromise. He had a long conversation with Chris Matthews about how conservative Democrats needed this vote to sign on to the bill. He said that people were confused about how to best maintain the Hyde Amendment status quo, among other things. He said that the bill is likely to be changed, and that the Senate could choose to move it away from the Stupak amendment in the end. He chastised the Rules Committee for distributing language that the Stupak Amendment codified the Hyde Amendment when that was the language from Stupak himself, and he said that the amendment would in fact, for the first time, restrict indirect taxpayer subsidies of reproductive choice services, rather than direct ones. He said that employers get a deduction of health care expenses on corporate taxes, and yet the Hyde Amendment doesn’t cover that employer-based health care even though there are indirect subsidies for it.
He talked like a college professor, weighing the pros and cons from afar, without mentioning that he voted for the Stupak Amendment.
|By: Tula Connell Thursday October 9, 2008 1:30 pm|
How appropriate Sen. John McCain didn’t mention the words “middle class” in this week’s presidential debate—or in the first presidential debate.
Because as a proponent of and heir to the greedy, corrupt, rich-first regime of the past eight years, McCain and the conservative ideologues he’s trying to distance himself from to win the election, are reaping the rotten fruits of policies that have systematically devastated the sound financial foundations of America’s working families.