In Iran War, Media Sounds the Horn

Tensions are running high between the United States and Iran right now, maybe a bit more than usual. That's the thing though, it's usual these days. Ever since the last president invaded Iraq to rid that regime of its' imagined weapons of mass destruction, the Middle East has become increasingly destabilized. Iraq, for all its faults, at least kept the far more radical Iranian government in check. But with Saddam Hussein's overthrow, Iran was left with few obstacles to grab a more prominent position in the Middle East and the world. And now we're in the midst of a struggle with Iran over nuclear weapons. They want nuclear capability and contest they do not seek a nuclear weapon. The United States, much at the behest of Israel, seeks to keep them from obtaining any sort of nuclear weapon, while simultaneous diplomacy is working to not over extend our influence in a wary Middle East and allow them nuclear capacity for energy if they so choose.

Throughout the last several weeks, the rhetoric has escalated. Israel is threatening a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran is vowing to strike back. This, for some reason, means they are the aggressors. Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone nails it here:

Virtually all of the Iran stories of late have contained some version of this sort of rhetorical sophistry. The news “hook” in most all of these stories is that intelligence reports reveal Iran is “willing” to attack us or go to war – but then there’s usually an asterisk next to the headline, and when you follow the asterisk, it reads something like, “In the event that we attack Iran first.”

As Glenn Greenwald points out, it's the media (and the Senate) this time frantically beating the drums of war with Iran, not the Presidential administration. Erin Burnett over at CNN seems to me the worst offender. It's Sunday morning as I write this. Of the stories currently listed on the front page of her blog, she has not 1, not 2, but 3 out of 5 stories rabble rousing the public to believe Iran is some sort of serious threat (and why-oh-why is Rudy Guiliani still talking).

The main problem is that Iran is in no way a major threat to the United States, or even to Israel. As both Taibbi and Greenwald point out, James Clapper, head of US Director of National Intelligence, has explicitly stated that he does not believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, in line with thinking Iran abandoned its' nuclear weapons program back in 2003. Even Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary, said, "The intelligence does not show that they've made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon."

So why the drowning media coverage? For one, the media likes war. It's something that can be followed and reported 24-7. War offers filler, and the Republican presidential debates can only fill so much time!

Second, the reporting is also partly to blame on the public (and again, the Republican candidates share some culpability here). The presidential candidates have all talked-up the Iranian threat and how their government can under no circumstances be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. They have called President Obama weak for his diplomatic approach, even though, as we've established, the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is very slim right now. But the problem is that people actually watch these debates and they begin to think Iran actually does have the capacity for nuclear arms and to strike American soil. In fact, nearly 50% of the country currently believes we should use military force to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is the same war-weary public that wants to end the conflict in Afghanistan. This is the ouroboros. The media schedules debates, where they question the candidates' stance on Iran's nuclear program. The candidates then tout their puissance on the issue, how threatening Iran is, and how the United States must stand by Israel. The public then thinks Iran is a serious threat, and the next time the media does a poll, more people are suddenly in favor of military action. The media pretends the issue is dire. They ask more about it and frighten ever-more people.

Rick Santorum's Theocracy: Update

Last time I was left questioning whether Rick Santorum was either willfully ignorant of the stated separation of church and state in the Constitution, or if he knows, but just doesn't care. It seems he does know, and he cares, and it makes him want to "throw up" that there is such a thing. Now I'm terrified.

Rick Santorum's Theocracy

I'm really trying to wrap my head around a Rick Santorum presidential victory and what it might mean for the country. And I find it a frightening scenario. First of all, I honestly do not think it will happen. I believe Michiganders will finally start thinking again before next Tuesday's Republican primary and Mitt Romney will win out after being ahead, then drastically falling, only to come to a tie again the weekend before the voters cast their ballots (that is, if he stops talking long enough...). This win for Romney will once again set him up as the front runner and I don't foresee Santorum coming back again. Much of Santorum's fall, however, is based on his own missteps (more on that momentarily). But should Santorum come in a close second in Michigan, and perhaps steal a few more primaries along the way, he could potentially be the Republican nominee against Obama. And even though many voters claim their highest priority is the economy in 2012, for many more the simple expulsion of Obama from the presidency factors much more and it may mean the President is not elected, giving candidate Santorum the White House. And if this happens, the bitterness still stinging your tongue from the Bush administration will suddenly seem like the most decadent wine you've ever tasted.

The number 1 issue on voters minds right now is the economy. Santorum, to his credit, recognizes he doesn't have the greatest record when it comes to the economy, spending, and earmarks, and his opponents are hitting him hard on it. Santorum's plan of government cuts and tax reductions will actually increase the deficit, just as Gingrich's and Romney's plans will do. In actuality, Ron Paul's deficit reduction plan is the only plan of the 4 remaining Republican candidates that will effectively reduce the deficit. Knowing his economic past may come back to haunt him, Santorum has attempted a debate 'coup' to change what the candidates are talking about. He criticized President Obama last week of practicing a "phony theology," questioning the very nature of the President's beliefs. Many from both sides of the aisle criticized this statement, and those who are incredulous to President Obama's stated Christian beliefs, and excoriated them for their double-standards. Santorum has also loudly drummed the "contraception controversy" and spoken of the President's "war on religion". Santorum is playing to his strengths and what he perceives as his best chance to secure the nomination and the White House: social issues. But there is a larger pretext to all of this: Santorum's want to create law based solely on "biblical law".

Santorum's questioning of President Obama's beliefs and his advocating to outlaw birth control, as well as abortions, and prohibiting same-sex marriage are directly linked to the former Senator's strict Catholic upbringing. Where most candidates and public officials recognize and abide the Constitution's separation of church and state, Santorum seems to be wholly ignorant of it (something many Conservatives might find interesting), or willfully blind to achieve his own selfish ends. The former Senator is running on a campaign that would essentially be the most theocratic administration in power in over 100 years. Santorum has unequivocally stated that civil law should "comport with God's law." Here's a video of him saying just that:

Santorum believes that sex serves no other purpose than procreation. He thinks sex, unless in the act of conceiving, is immoral. He believes this so strongly that he does not think contraception should be legal. He believes this so strongly that he does not think abortions should be legal, even in the cases of rape, incest, or if a woman's life is in danger. He believes this so strongly that, though he claims to have nothing against gay people and purports to "know" many homosexuals, he thinks homosexuality is a sin because there is no biological expedient to homosexual sex, therefore making it immoral. As President, and as a member of the "liberty loving" right wing, Santorum would make all of these things illegal because he believes more strongly in a book written 2,000 years ago than all of the literature, math, and scientific advancements achieved since. In the era where Republicans overwhelmingly bemoan the overreach of government in our daily lives, Santorum seeks to effectively control you to your very bedroom.

And did you notice that bit in the video right at the outset there too? He says, in Islam the civil law and the higher law are the same, what one Newt Gingrich might call 'Sharia Law,' but the United States is different because we have civil laws unrelated to higher laws but they ought to comport with the higher law... Um, what? So, basically, Rick Santorum is promoting that we should have 'Christian Sharia Law'? How is that any better than 'Islamic Sharia Law'? How would that be better than 'Jewish Sharia Law'? A theocracy is a theocracy. Maybe Rick Santorum doesn't exactly know his world history and that thousands of our American ancestors fled Europe to escape theocracies (and still found themselves plenty of theocratic colonies in the New World). But I doubt it. I think he knows full well what he's doing. And that scares me the most.

The Daily Show: Republicans Break Obama's Promises

     

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - President Evil
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

      Part 2:
     

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - President Evil 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

     

Rick Santorum Sinks Low

Rick Santorum has taken his current front-runner status in the GOP primary as a sign that he no longer needs to worry about his GOP contenders, but instead should start focusing his attacks on his presumptive opponent in the presidential race, President Obama. One might think Santorum, a former Pennsylvania Senator, would be attacking the President’s policies over the three years Obama's served in office, or maybe something the President did while in the Senate. No. It seems Santorum wants to forego debating what the President has done for this country (politics aside: staved-off an economic depression; saved the American auto-industry; provided access to health insurance for millions of Americans who couldn’t get it before; the list goes on…) and the administration’s policies and just go ahead and attack the man himself, unbelievably questioning the President’s core religious beliefs. On Saturday, Santorum said the President’s agenda is tied to “some phony theology” not based on the bible. I think in the next couple of days we’ll even see some on the right bemoaning Santorum’s remarks and saying he went too far. So far, of course, the Obama campaign has disavowed the remarks. Robert Gibbs, adviser to Obama’s re-election campaign, said on ABC’s This Week that Santorum’s remark, “crossed the line.” Surely, it did. But I also think this speaks largely to the campaign itself. As the economy continues to improve, it’s going to be harder and harder for the GOP candidates to argue how the President’s economic policies have actually hurt the country. And that’s what this election is all about. It’s about the economy, the most important issue on voters’ minds. What this shows to me, as well as the contraception ‘controversy’ drummed up over the past few weeks, is that the GOP are desperately searching for cultural issues as wedge devices in the upcoming election to pull independent voters their way. Will this Bush-era tactic work? I’m sure that some voters will be swayed, but for the vast majority of them, especially liberals and the all-important independent group, this will only serve to further pull them from ever voting 'right' again.

And speaking of running the country on a campaign ‘based’on the bible,' here’s an excellent clip from The West Wing season 2. Imagine if we did have a President who based how the country should be run only on the words of that outdated text.

Push the Keystone XL Pipeline

Republicans in Congress are stalwart in their push for President Obama to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, a pipeline originating in Alberta, Canada to transport oil to Gulf Coast refineries. They have tried numerous times to tie the approval of the pipeline to various bills in Congress, but have thus far failed at this end-run game, or convinced the administration that the pros in support of the pipeline outweigh the cons. In truth, the pros in conjunction with the pipeline seem to be overall beneficial to the country. Estimates show there will be thousands of temporary construction jobs added over the next two years, both directly in constructing the pipeline and indirectly through the various steel mills and other manufacturing sectors needed in constructing the pipeline. Though these estimates vary, I do not think it’s relevant for those opposed to the pipeline to diminish the importance of adding temporary jobs in a recessed economy. I do, however, take exception with the many overstated estimates of permanent jobs that will be created from those in the media and Congress. Once the pipeline is finished, most estimates put the number of permanent jobs from as low as 20, to as many as 200. That’s not going to put a great dent in the unemployment numbers. The number of temporary jobs estimated range anywhere from about 4,000 to 20,000. 20,000 people back to work, at least temporarily, is rather significant. And when we have record-high unemployment, especially when employment in construction and home-building is so slow, I can’t disregard these numbers as ineffectual.

All of this skips around what is most important here, however: the U.S. consumes too much oil, and adding one more transnational pipeline does nothing to reduce the U.S.’s oil dependence both domestically and abroad. As a nation, the U.S. produces fewer than 5% of the total petroleum mined per year, yet we consume nearly 25% of the world’s oil. That’s a staggering number, but the numbers are improving. We are for the first time since the 70’s exporting more oil than we import, and due to increased fuel-efficiency standards put in place by the Obama administration, we are consuming less oil. Also, I have to think that as alternative fuel sources become more abundant and less costly our dependence on this finite resource will diminish. Finite here is the key word.

Having one more pipeline will not address our countries exorbitant necessity for oil and other natural resources. It is apparent that America overuses, yet with each new pipeline dug and well mined we come no closer to solving ours or our planet’s peril in depleting the natural resources that history has so generously provided. Perhaps instead of scarring the planet, and more importantly our nation, with yet another oil pipeline, why don’t we and our leaders seek alternative fuels to reduce our oil and natural gas dependency and lead the world in a new global economy?

AmericanLP Daily News Brief 2/17/12

AmericanLP covers all the top headlines in politics on both sides of the aisle in this morning’s news brief. Major headlines yesterday once again pointed to a rebounding economy. New applications for unemployment hit a 4-year low. Also, the DNC released a new ad, which you can view at the 1:15 mark, highlighting the diverging ideologies between the Obama administration’s decision to save the auto industry and Mitt Romney’s 2008 Op-Ed “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”. The bailout was unequivocally a successful administrative decision for President Obama, and coupling this with the rate for unemployment applications falling, and last week’s news that the overall unemployment rate has fallen to 8.3 percent, we have public opinion of the President quickly on the rise. 44% of Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll believe economic conditions will be better in 2013 than this year. This coincides with a CNN poll yesterday showing the President’s approval rating is back to 50% for the first time in 8 months. The administration, and the Obama re-election campaign, have really begun hammering home the jobs numbers, focusing not on the unemployment rate so much, as that number is still unfortunately high, but rightly talking about how bad things were when Obama came into office (750,000 jobs hemorrhaging from the economy per month) to how his policies have vastly turned this country around (250,000 jobs added in January; a 1 million point swing) and have created the most manufacturing jobs since the 1990’s.

Switching over, AmericanLP discusses the latest from the GOP presidential campaign. Mitt Romney, on the verge of losing his front runner status in some polls, gave a speech Thursday in which he addressed the concerns of entrepreneurs looking for funding to start their own business. In a swipe at the Solyndra controversy, Romney excoriated the benefits of government funding a start-up business and instead suggested entrepreneurs should apply to venture capitalists, angels, or their parents for funding. A statement such as this is on par with Romney’s “$10,000 bet” and once again reinforces the notion that Romney is so fiscally out-of-touch with the general American public (the average salary for Americans is $26,000/year; Romney makes $57,000/day) that it’s hard to fathom how he’ll win the nomination. Romney was born to the kind of wealth where if he wanted to start his own company, he could go to his parents for the capital to get the project off the ground. However, most Americans cannot. Most Americans struggle to pay their own bills, and many are helping their parents through retirement after the recession. It seems every time Romney opens his mouth, he further ostracizes himself from the general American public. Maybe that’s why he chose to drop out of the CNN Georgia debate scheduled in a couple weeks. Rick Santorum also declined the invitation; his motivations for doing so are less clear. With less money and generally one of the candidates who performs well in these debates, it doesn’t really play to Santorum’s strengths not to participate. But Santorum was not immune to the ‘tax return release’ scrutiny either. Santorum released 4 years of his tax returns and they paint a startling contrast to much of what Santorum has been saying on the campaign trail. Posturing himself as a threat to big government, Santorum has actually made $3.6M in lobbying fees since losing his re-election bid for the U.S. Senate. Try as he might, Santorum seems just as much a “Washington Insider” as Newt Gingrich.

A new segment on AmericanLP, “News From The 14^th Century,” highlights the ridiculous spectacle yesterday from Congress where Darrell Issa barred a woman from testifying on a birth control hearing in response to the contraception controversy. Republicans, for all their talk of individual freedom, want to deny women access to birth control, even though 98% of Catholic women say they have used some form of contraceptive in their life. Issa, instead of allowing one woman to testify, decided to fill the panel with men and priests. Clearly, they’ll have a deeper understanding of contraception than any woman might…

These are just a few of the highlights from this morning’s briefing. Watch the whole video for more news in politics from around the country. ~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker

Obama and the Contraceptive Accommodation

I guess one of the things I find most appealing about Facebook is the access to information and opinion from my friends that I don’t find elsewhere. And I think the impersonal dialogue that exists through the site gives people incentive to write things they might not normally say during a conversation. For me personally it provides a gateway to my friends’ point-of-view that normally I do not think I would know. The contraception “controversy” dogging President Obama through the last couple of weeks has again provided a basis for some personal introspection on my part, some friendly banter on Facebook, and some evolving perspective on the issue.

It started with a link of mine to an article on Truthout.Org describing how this contraception issue is mostly being drummed by a partisan right-wing agenda to shift the upcoming presidential election towards social issues rather than the economy. The reason being this issue of having employers (including religious institutions) provide birth control care in their insurance plans has been law since 2000 and the Bush administration coming into office did absolutely nothing to appeal the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ruling that denying contraceptive care is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination based on sex. So, clearly, this was never a problem until a democrat was in office and then it became an ‘example’ of “government overreach by this administration”.

My point in linking the article was to highlight this GOP hypocrisy, but a friend commented about the ruling itself, having also fallen into the trap that the government is only now overstepping its bounds (and never did in the previous 8 years of the Bush presidency). He mocked that toothpaste will be the next thing the government will require employers to cover in their insurance plans. I responded that that was ridiculous because toothpaste is over-the-counter, and further tried to make my point that I was not addressing the contraception issue per se (for my views on it were initially that I think religious organizations should be allowed to deny birth control coverage based on freedom of religion), but, again, the hypocrisy of the GOP to make this an issue now. My friend then posted this:

“Here’s what I think. I read an article about how England lost their right to own firearms. It started slowly and pitted gun owners against each other. The government first outlawed automatic firearms. This only affected persons who owned automatic firearms so everyone else who owned semi-autos, bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Next the government outlawed semi-autos. So everyone that owned bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Then they outlawed bolt actions and so on and so forth. In England, all firearms owners should have stood together to fight the bans whether it affected them of not, but they didn’t and the government was able to break them down piece by piece. I see this contraception deal as the same thing. Non-Catholics are saying, 'Why do we care? We believe in contraception and preventative pregnancy.' What non-Catholics should be saying is, 'We do not share the Catholic Church’s belief on contraception, but we stand behind them in their Constitutional right to believe and practice their religious views.' This isn’t about me being Republican and you being Democrat. This is about a slippery slope. This is the first step toward the Government impeding the free exercise of religion. This isn’t some conspiracy theory,[sic] it’s just what governments eventually do.”

After pointing out that my friend should read Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came...” quote on the rise of Nazi Germany, I dove into an argument showing how I think President Obama’s shift to exempt religious organizations/businesses from this Affordable Care Act requirement was a “slippery slope” inclined the other way. (Note: the administration is now shifting the burden of covering contraception to insurance companies.) In my view, offering this accommodation to businesses with religious affiliations creates the opportunity for other businesses to deny contraceptive coverage, not only because they might have a moral/religious objection to contraception, but because they might want to save a little money instead of provide care to their employees. What were to happen if one of the largest insurance companies in the country decided that they had moral objections to contraception because some of their top executives suddenly became devout 'Catholics'? And when businesses are granted special privileges, why can’t a state or local government not be offered these same exemptions to discriminate against women for contraceptive use? And the current GOP front runner for the presidential nomination is Rick Santorum, who has been running on a staunchly evangelical platform and wants a Constitutional Amendment banning all contraceptives. This outcome seems like the next step in accommodating one religious group, or in reality what we should classify the Catholic Church as, this one business. The more I think about this issue, the more I side with President Obama’s initial take on this (and the one the EEOC deemed in 2000) is that no one group should be allowed to discriminate from any one group.

And I think it bears to mention, that Ron Paul, who has a strong backing all over the country for the GOP nomination, believes the Civil Rights Act was itself unconstitutional and should be repealed, and by extension would disagree with the EEOC’s ruling. Paul, a long-serving Texas Congressman, seems to me a very dangerous individual to have in office. Congressman Paul thinks that if a business, a person, or really anybody, wants to discriminate against a race, a sex, or any other group they have it within their rights to do so. Paul does not seem to understand that one individual’s freedom cannot be limitless. According to Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher, individual freedom extends only to the cusp of infringing on another’s freedom. Sure, you have the right to own a gun, but if your right to have that gun to kill me infringes on my right to life, then you should have to relinquish that right. Such are the basis for laws. Such balance is the basis for the Civil Rights Act, and the mandate in the Affordable Care Act to require employers to cover contraception. Government has an obligation to protect the citizenry no matter of race, religion, or creed. It has an obligation to thwart any person or entity who wishes to restrict the autonomy of another.

Allen West: The Personal Good

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) took place late last week in Washington D.C. All the biggest names in Republican politics were in attendance, and even some Occupy Wall Street protesters decided to join in on the excitement, or maybe just create some on their own. There were countless speakers throughout the conference, each offering up their litany of excuses not only as to why President Obama is such a bad president, but why he's such a bad person. Frankly, that's all anybody has heard who's been even remotely paying attention through the twenty-something debates the GOP primary has had so far, so as an outsider and liberal, none of that stuff really excited me. Mitt Romney didn't convince me any more than he did Sarah Palin that he's conservative. Rick Santorum gave a well received, though ultimately uninspired speech at the conference, and failed to hold the momentum he gained earlier in the week with a sweep of lat Tuesday night's caucuses. On Saturday, Santorum placed a distant 3rd in Maine's caucus. Ron Paul continues to hold his firm grasp of a decent-sized portion of the GOP electorate, narrowly beating front runner Romney in Maine. And Newt: I'm not too sure he's over the hill quite yet. But there was at least one thing I heard coming from CPAC that interested me.

Florida Congressman Allen West gave a speech on Friday night where he laid out this little tidbit, "We also realize that the public good is a misnomer, created by our liberal friends. It is not the public good that matters. It is the personal good."

I'm quite astonished by this statement. To me, this sounds like one of the most selfish things ever uttered by a man. It is made worse that Rep. Allen West considers himself a christian, a religion that teaches the practice of helping others in need, "do unto thyself as you do unto others," and to "bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ". Not only does this statement fly in the face of West's supposed religious beliefs, but it flies in the face of American values. We are the "United States," are we not? It's difficult to separate the inherent "public" of this nation when 50 territories (and thousands of others still within those) are bound by a simple doctrine of "We the people..." A statement such as West's is so callous and base that it makes me wonder how I grew up in the same society as a man elected to public office who would say this. Personal good means nothing without public good. If the public lacks freedom then the individual is bereft of it. If the public lacks goods and services then the individual is in want of these. If the public lacks safety, the individual is isolated in fear of everyone around them, and the more selfish they become the smaller the island to which they are immured.

President Bill Clinton in 2004 Daily Show Appearance

     

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Clinton Pt.1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

     
Watching some old clips of The Daily Show, I stumbled upon this little gem of the first time former President Bill Clinton went on the show. The segment is dated August 9, 2004, which puts it right in the middle of the 2004 Presidential campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Jon Stewart asks this interesting question: "Why is that a campaign commercial doesn't have to be as truthful as, let's say, a toothpaste commercial?" It's a good question, and Mr. Clinton offers a thorough answer saying, in essence, that the media does fact-check these ads, and is getting better at doing it. But the issue seems to be why are these ads even on the air? We have rules against companies falsely advertising goods and services on TV, on the radio, or any other media format so as not to intentionally lead the public into believing something that is demonstrably false, and this does not seem an issue with many "constitutionalists" as a violation of the First Amendment. But, why do we allow campaign ads such a luxury when, theoretically, they have the potential to be far more damaging to the country as a whole? Shouldn't someone propose a stop to this?

Sucker PAC'ed

President Obama today reversed his long-standing position on super PACs and his supporters donating to them. For a long time Obama has spoken of the dangers of the super PACs and the potential threat they pose to our elections and to democracy as a whole. Since the Citizens United decision back in January 2010, PACs have been able to raise unlimited amounts of money to spend in political campaigns without having to disclose their contributors, nor do the politicians affiliated with these PACs have to admit to any collaboration with them. These PACs have dwarfed the standard PACs of the past, and hence have now become "super" PACs simply based on the financial muscle they can now flex in influencing voters through attack ads. Some have argued that this wouldn't happen, but it's pretty clear the impact super PACs are going to have on the 2012 Presidential election already as evidenced by the brutal Republican primary currently taking place.

Now that Obama has changed his stance on the issue, how will this fair for his campaign and the democratic base. Over at The Huffington Post, Sam Stein writes an intuitive article on the potential impacts it could have on the left and Obama's supporters in general. And I have to agree mostly with what he is saying here. It does not seem likely that the base will abandon the President at all (especially given the choice of potential candidates coming out of the right). Sure, they're going to be angry with the President for a little while, but they will likely see this as consolation for the very nature the Citizens United decision has cast over the country. Just look at what the Koch brothers announced at a dinner this past weekend. The thing is, this presidential election is going to be costly and it's going to be downright ugly. The republicans have already shown their hand. They're attacking one another maliciously. Once the dust settles there, and all these super PACs focus their attention on the left, it's going to be worse. I for one will be happy the President has some allies in his corner to help. I don't like it, certainly, but he can't bring a knife to a gun fight.

But here is what I would hope the President does. He needs to continue to denounce super PACs and the Citizens United decision in general. He needs to reestablish his push for campaign finance reform, even though now it may seem hypocritical and he may have a hard time selling the public in general. But I think if he doubles-down on campaign finance reform he can at least appease the dissatisfied voters that are going to pop up because of this decision. And it's not really being hypocritical. Just because he wants to amend the rules of the game he's playing, doesn't mean he can't play by the rules already established. Mitt Romney made such a case for his 13.9% effective tax rate. After receiving initial criticism for for how little Romney actually pays in taxes, and that he has money in offshore tax havens, he argued not to begrudge him, he's just using the rule of law. And it's true. But Romney has made no mention that he wants to balance the disparities of the tax code (his tax plan will actually make it worse). President Obama still has the chance to do this, to make this argument against his opponents trying to draw him as hypocritical for this decision. Play the game by the rules. If you see a better way for the game to be played, make your voice heard and the people will follow.

Unemployment Rate Falls Once Again

Last Friday, the unemployment rate once again fell, January now the 23rd straight month of job creation for the country. In December, the unemployment rate was 8.5%. In January, the economy added 243,000 jobs, much higher than predicted, and the rate of unemployed fell to 8.3%. While this is certainly good news, there is still plenty or volatility in the economy to create worry and fears of a double-dip recession, as was seen when December's jobs report was released with 200,000 jobs added. However, this time the news is almost unequivocally positive. All major sectors -- agriculture, manufacturing, etc. -- posted better than expected numbers and it's becoming less and less likely that the long-term unemployed are dropping out of unemployment since finding a job is becoming easier and easier. This fact created much trepidation over the past year. The falling unemployment rate was met with incredulity by many. They were argued the numbers were inaccurate because people were not finding jobs, they simply had given up hope. Not this time around though.

Analysts expected January would fair about as well as December, with only the modest sum of 200,000 jobs created again. But the new figures released Friday show an almost 25% increase in the numbers predicted. And this is good news for everybody -- almost.

The Republican Presidential candidates have been berating President Obama on the campaign trail, excoriating his "failed" policies, arguing that the President has done nothing to bring America back out of the Great Recession (never mind an obstructionist Congress, which has yet to pass any jobs legislation since winning back the House, and several Senate seats in 2010). But this argument only holds up as long as the economy continues to move along sluggishly. January's jobs report makes this argument into Swiss cheese and Republicans are already on the defensive.

For months they've talked of failed policy, but now they're changing their tune. Now they argue that it's not so much President Obama's policies have failed, but had a Republican been in office, the economy would have rebounded sooner. With a Republican President, they contend, job growth would have been far more robust, and that with Obama in office, says current front runner, Mitt Romney, "[He] has not helped the process. He's hurt it." If these numbers do continue at this steady clip, Gov. Romney finds himself in an awkward position trying to defend that statement. And even if Obama only gets one or two more months of job growth, that's put him at 24 months, 2 years, half of his presidency at least of job growth in the country. Coming out of the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression, that's not a bad record to hold. In contrast, the last administration created only 3 million jobs in 8 years, and there were two recessions, covering 22 months, during the 96 months George W. Bush was in office. President Obama has seen more job growth under his 3 years in office than Bush saw over the span of 8 years. Say what you want about his ideals, his positions, his place of birth. The President has done some remarkable work in the face of staunch political opposition and the deep crater of a country he inherited.

Private Sector Job Creation

Private Sector Job Creation