American Prospect writer:

Is believing in the American Taliban the new progressive orthodoxy?

Heh. Yeah, that's the issue, as opposed to The American Prospect writers deciding it is "obscene" to speak of an "American Taliban." Meanwhile, I'm old enough to remember when The American Prospect published an article titled "American Taliban". It was all of 7 months ago.

And yet, American Prospect writers, who like to preen about their supposed "intellectual honesty", have yet to acknowledge the existence of this American Prospect article. Let's be intellectually honest - the American Prospect writers are being less than honest, intellectually or otherwise, in their discussions of this subject.

Speaking for me only

Open Thread.

Christine O'Donnell wouldn't have won in November anyway, but even conservatives won't like this one. She's already canceled two Sunday news show appearances.

From one of her 22 appearances on Politically Incorrect (this one is 1999.)

"One of my first dates with with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it," she added. "I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar."

The White House has released the transcript of President Obama's remarks at a Greenwich, CT DNC fundraiser. Among his comments, this one is causing ire among progressives on Twitter today:

....Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get -- to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.) If we get an historic health care bill passed -- oh, well, the public option wasn’t there. If you get the financial reform bill passed -- then, well, I don't know about this particularly derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven’t yet brought about world peace and -- (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are.

Is the White House sending a message in releasing the transcript? What is it? Shouldn't Obama be encouraging progressives to feel included in the Democratic party and get out and vote, rather than belittling their concerns? Or, does he believe they'll come out to vote against Republicans no matter how they're treated by their own, so there's little downside?

Here's Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher's take yesterday on the speech.

On Monday, Paris Hilton will plead guilty to two misdemeanors to settle her Las Vegas felony cocaine possession charge.

It's a very harsh deal. She's agreeing to two suspended six month jail sentences, a year of unsupervised probation, and if she merely gets arrested (no conviction required) for anything other than a minor traffic offense, she agrees to immediately go in and serve the year.

The complaint against her will be amended to add a charge of obstruction of a police officer. The factual basis? She lied when she told the arresting officer that the Chanel purse she was carrying (that had less than a gram of cocaine inside it) did not belong to her. How do police know that was a lie? Because she posted a Twitpic of the purse on her Twitter feed a few weeks before the arrest with the caption, "Love My New Chanel Purse I Got Today." [More...]

The debate over the use of the phrase American Talban, which was always absurd, now reaches new heights of absurdity. The American Prospect's Adam Serwer writes:

I've written pieces with the intent of breaking down the very kind of arrogance that presumes the bad acts of our countrymen are different from those of our enemies, so I can hardly be thrown in that camp. I have no problem with pointing out individual instances in which conservative figures embrace the premises behind the arguments of religious extremists; I do it all the time. That doesn't mean that conservatives are "indistinguishable" from the Taliban "in their tactics and on the issues."

Serwer's argument appears to be it's ok if he, or some other American Prospect writer (Serwer, like all of the American Prospect writers, still ignores the fact that the American Prospect published Robert Kuttner's article "American Taliban") makes comparisons of American figures to foreign theocratic reactionaries, but it is not ok if Markos Moulitsas does. Of course, this makes no sense. Alternatively, one could argue that Serwer is saying pointing out one instance where American theocratic reactionaries resemble foreign extremists is ok, but pointing out serial instances of resemblance is not ok. Serwer does not explain this argument, so I'm not sure what reasoning underlies it. And again, since the Kuttner article published by the American Prospect does not focus on a single instance of resemblance, it seems to me that Serwer needs to address why it is ok for the American Prospect to do that which he is condemning. Glenn Greenwald writes:

I was 7-5 last week and now stand at 13-12-1 for the year. I start to take off today. Here are the picks:

Arkansas (+1.5) over Georgia; Army (-5.5) over N. Texas; Ga. Tech (+2.5) over North Carolina; Vandy (+12.5) over Ole Miss; Hawaii (+13) over Colorado; BYU (+10.5) over FSU; USC (-12) over Minnesota; Arizona St (+12) over Wisconsin; Nebraska (-2.5) over Washington; Air Force (+17.5) over Oklahoma; Auburn (-7) over Clemson; Miss St. (+7.5) over LSU; Mich St (-2.5) over Notre Dame; Boise St. (-24) over Wyoming; and Iowa (+1) over Arizon.

Go Gators!

Open Thread.

President Obama, hampered by political buffoons in the Democratic Congress, is sticking to his guns:

"I am urging the leaders of the other party to stop holding middle class tax cuts hostage and extend this relief to families immediately."

Obama can not say what we all know -- that a large part of his problem right now is found at Dem headquarters in the Congress. Josh Marshall explains:

Politico reports:

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who heads Democratic campaign efforts, has argued behind closed doors for taking a political issue off the table by giving a short reprieve to wealthy folks before the midterm elections.

(Emphasis supplied.) Chris Van Hollen wants to take the issue off the political table, according to Politico. And he leads Dem campaign efforts. This is why the Dems are going to get creamed in November.

Speaking for me only

Think Progress has the money quote:

BAYH: [A]ll these other issues involving, oh, fairness and things like that can wait.

Bayh is retiring this year from politics. Thank gawd.

Speaking for me only

In the U.S. it would be a crime to enter a prison to visit an inmate under a false name. Apparently, it's not in Peru.

That's what Beth Holloway did , pretending to be a journalist, not using her real name, hoping to sneak in a camera to tape Joran Van der Sloot for yet another hyped TV movie by Dutch tabloid journalist Peter de Vries. The visitor's log does not contain her name. But even her lawyer confirms she entered Castro Castro prison in Peru and got into his cell -- for five minutes.

Good for Joran that he refused to discuss anything with her and handed her his attorney's card. Holloway and De Vries were thrown out when the camera was discovered. The Dutch media initially reported she was detained, but her lawyer says she wasn't and that she broke no laws.

Holloway's attorney says she didn't tell him she was going and is being "guarded" about the meeting. Sounds like she just wanted to threaten him:

"I think it was more to deliver the message that he might be in Peru but she hasn't gone away.

[More...]

Paul Krugman writes:

[B]ack in 2001, the Bush administration bundled huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans with much smaller tax cuts for the middle class, then pretended that it was mainly offering tax breaks to ordinary families. Meanwhile, it circumvented Senate rules intended to prevent irresponsible fiscal actions — rules that would have forced it to find spending cuts to offset its $1.3 trillion tax cut — by putting an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2010, on the whole bill. And the witching hour is now upon us. [. . .]

In response, President Obama is proposing legislation that would keep tax rates essentially unchanged for 98 percent of Americans but allow rates on the richest 2 percent to rise. But Republicans are threatening to block that legislation, effectively raising taxes on the middle class, unless they get tax breaks for their wealthy friends.

I think that is an accurate description of the state of play. But what is the policy rationale for tax cuts for the middle class? Krugman argues: