(via xkcd: Congress)
And this is the cause of my life — new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American — north, south, east, west, young, old — will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege. - Ted Kennedy, 2008 DNC Speech
Why can’t Republicans let go of the welfare issue? The answer, I’m afraid, isn’t nice. For nearly half a century, the party has derived at least some of its appeal by scapegoating the poor as dusky, lazy good-for-nothings undeserving of your tax dollars. Today’s Republicans continue that tradition by inviting whiter and more affluent Medicare and Social Security recipients to feel superior to the welfare hordes (even as they edge toward trimming their benefits). Even Ronald Reagan paid lip service to the “social safety net.” But in today’s GOP, the only reason to mention that net is to suggest we cut there first.
Rachel Maddow: A weird night in Washington (by adalrich00)
House Minority Leader Pelosi on “Fiscal Cliff” (by CSPAN)
Obama To GOP On Susan Rice: “If They Want To Go After Somebody, They Should Go After Me” (by Adalrich William)
Challenges - Obama for America TV Ad (by BarackObamadotcom)
If Mr. Obama wins, he’ll presumably go back to pushing for modest stimulus, aiming to convert the gradual recovery that seems to be under way into a more rapid return to full employment.
Republicans, however, are committed to an economic doctrine that has proved false, indeed disastrous, in other countries. Nor are they likely to change their views in the light of experience. After all, facts haven’t gotten in the way of Republican orthodoxy on any other aspect of economic policy. The party remains opposed to effective financial regulation despite the catastrophe of 2008; it remains obsessed with the dangers of inflation despite years of false alarms. So it’s not likely to give up its politically convenient views about job creation.
And here’s the thing: if Mitt Romney wins the election, the G.O.P. will surely consider its economic ideas vindicated. In other words, politically good things may be about to happen to very bad ideas. And if that’s how it plays out, the American people will pay the price.
“
| — | Paul Krugman, Triumph of the Wrong? - NYTimes.com |
The vice-presidential candidates engaged on the issues that matter most, a change for voters starved for substance.
“This election is a choice between two fundamentally different visions for America: President Obama is fighting to grow the economy from the middle out, not the top down. Mitt Romney wants to go back to the exact same policies that caused the recession and hurt the middle class.”
“The pundits and a majority of uncommitted voters have spoken: according to them, Mitt Romney won the wonky yet substanceless snoozefest that was the first Presidential debate of 2012. We are told that Romney seemed lively, warm and aggressive, and that the President seemed distracted and defensive. Perhaps that’s true. The President’s neoliberal policy approach and failure to adamantly defend Social Security and progressive budget priorities didn’t help. The news media certainly wants a closer horse race between the candidates for ratings, and the snap post-debate poll numbers favoring Romney will help them try to deliver that.”
