December 2008 Archives

I'm about to head out to the airport in ninety minutes or so, so this will probably be my last post of 2008.

I want to thank everybody who has read and supported Jed Report -- without you, this blog wouldn't have been possible, and it wouldn't have been worth it. So thanks for everything.

I'm looking forward to a big year ahead of us in 2009, and in the coming days and weeks I'll be rolling out a couple of major new initiatives that I think you will like very much.

I am also looking forward to stepping up my video production output, back to the levels I was at during the campaign. Since the election, most of my energy has been focused on the aformentioned initiatives on the theory that things wouldn't kick into gear again until mid-January as the inauguration approaches.

Like you, I want to be ready to help the Obama Administration get its agenda through Congress, and I'm looking forward to all of us working together starting on January 20th to bring about the change that we fought for during the campaign.

So with that all said, happy new year! See you in 2009!

Following up on my earlier post about Burris on Blago, here's a before and after video:

(h/t: Progress Illinois for finding the "before" video.)

What a difference two weeks and a senatorial appointment makes, eh?

Anyone appointed by Blago would be tainted, but the fact that Burris has reversed course on his condemnations of Blago only makes the appearance of taint all the more severe.

Roland Burris is never going to be a U.S. Senator. At this point, the right thing for him to do is step aside, unless he wants to be forever linked to to Rod Blagojevich.

This is the most absurd defense in the world for allowing Blago to make a senatorial appointment.

First, there's no question but that Blago aimed to sell the U.S. Senate seat. Just listen to him, in his own words.

That being said, I of course agree that within the context of the criminal justice system, Blago should not be sentenced to prison until convicted.

But let's not forget that when someone is indicted, they very often go to jail, and they either post bond or sit in prison while they await trial.

It's true that they are presumed innocent, but it's also true that they are not free and clear to roam the streets as they please.

Even when released on bond, the court has the power to impose on them restrictions regarding their activity.

So here's the point I'm making: even in the criminal justice system, when somebody is presumed innocent, they still have restrictions placed up on them.

We can debate the merits of that, I suppose, but I cannot for the life of me see an argument for why Blagojevich should be able to make an appointment to the Senate when there are perfectly legal means of stopping his appointment.

And let's not forget that the standards for evidence here are different than in a criminal trial.

Bottom-line: I don't care who it is that Blago appoints. As long as he's doing the appointing, that appointment is tainted, and it should not stand.

A couple weeks ago, Roland Burris was calling Blago's actions "reprehensible" and "appalling."

Now, he's defending Blago, saying he is "innocent until proven guilty" and refusing to take a position on resignation.

It goes without saying that innocent until proven guilty is an important criminal justice concept, but this isn't about putting Blago behind bars, it's about whether he should be able to appoint a U.S. Senator to a senate seat he tried to sell.

There's just no way around the fact that anyone he appoints is tainted by the fact that he tried to sell the seat, and the fact that Burris changing his tune on Blago makes it seem even worse.

Update (7:17PM): I've written a more thorough version of this post for Daily Kos, copied below.

I've barely been following the news today -- I'm preparing for a trip to Florida to visit my grandparents and mom (I leave in the morning) and I've been on some other projects that I'll be talking about in more detail pretty soon.

But I did just tune in and caught a few minutes of the coverage of this whole appointment by Blago, and maybe I'm being cynical, but my first thought was: "Well this is good political news for the transition team."

Within moments after news of Blago's appointment came out, Obama already announced he opposes seating Blago's appointment, as do Senate Democrats.

The upshot is we're in a new phase of the coverage, and the question now is about how will Illinois pick its next Senator. And it is now clear for all to see that it really is Blago vs. the world.

The real drama here is about how Blago will be forced from office. It doesn't have anything to do with the incoming administration, nor does it have anything to do with Senate Democrats.

According to Politico, Chip Saltsman's "Magic Negro" attack CD is actually helping his bid for RNC Chairman.

And his old pal, Mike Huckabee is rushing to his defense:

Chip should have been more careful in his selection of Christmas gifts, but no one who knows him would ever suggest that he in any way would purposely disparage other people.

Ummm...so calling the president-elect a "Magic Negro" doesn't qualify as disparaging other people?

Let's get real here: what's going is that Chip Saltsman is tickling the GOP funny bone. They love this kind of stuff.

It's why their party is nearly 100% white.

And it's why the GOP reeks of the stench of yesterday. They are the past.

Over at Politico's Arena, former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith has decided to go on the warpath against Daily Kos contributing editor Greg Dworkin. (As you may know, I'm also a Daily Kos contributing editor, although I haven't communicated with Greg about this post.)

It all started when Greg said he hoped to see people working together to solve problems after eight long years of Bush:

I agree with (fellow Nutmegger) Mickey Carroll and look forward to having some of the hyper-partisanship fade away. Since much of it was in reaction to Bush and Rove's strategy of running a country as if only their base counted, Obama's approach should not elicit an 'equal and opposite reaction'. If it does, it will be dismissed as 'politics as usual', a lesson I suspect his political foes will need to learn the hard way.

Out of nowhere, Smith then offered this screed:

Is it not at least a little unseemly to have a contributing editor to one of the most visciously partisan sites on the web discussing how much he looks forward to a fading away of "hyper-partisanship," now that his preferred candidate is in office?  Should not pleas for lowering the tone come from those with a shred of credibility on the issue - like almost anyone else here at the Forum?

So I was taking care of a network wiring project in my house this evening -- upgrading the wiring to handle gigabit transfer speeds (important for copying large video files, which I've been known to do from time to time).

Tonight, 60 Minutes devotes the entire hour to Barack Obama's two-year journey to the White House. Here's a preview -- I'll post the full video when it's available. Here's the full video:

...because if you are, you're going to hate me for saying that the Eagles are in the playoffs. We're just four minutes into the third quarter, and this game is o-v-e-r: the Eagles have a 31-point lead over the Cowboys.

Update (3:26PM): Looks like I really went out on a limb. Now the Eagles lead by 41, about nine minutes into the third quarter.

A somewhat predictable response by the media to "Waikkiki-gate":

I understand that reporters are frustrated by the fact that Obama left for the marine amusement park without bringing them along, and there is actually a reasonable case to be made that it was a mistake on the part of the Obama team.

But if it was a mistake, it was a small one, and the media does itself no great service by getting petty and whining about it it in public.

The best way to win an audience is to tell good stories and report on debates about things that matter. Navel gazing about protective pool protocols might just be the worst.

In the space of about 5 minutes, two games with playoff implications were decided by a late field goal: Vikings over the Giants, and Panthers over the Saints.

Good news: MoveOn.org has selected the climate crisis as one of its top goals for 2009.

Specifically, MoveOn has decided to focus on "building a green economy and stopping climate change."

This is great news. In my view, building a green economy is the number one opportunity we have before us. It's not just about the environment, either.

Access to cheap, efficient energy is perhaps the single most important component of economic growth. Even in California, where energy usage per capita is the lowest in the nation, overall energy usage has increased -- because its population just keeps on growing.

I do, however, have one nit to pick with MoveOn.org -- the use of the phrase "climate change" instead of "global warming."

Since MTP is now all but unwatchable, I present to you David Gregory in a far more entertaining (and illuminating?) moment: serving as a backup dancer for MC Karl Rove last year.

This won't do me much good in Las Vegas, but it's still pretty neat: a home that stays warm without a heater.

Decades ago, attempts at creating sealed solar-heated homes failed, because of stagnant air and mold. But new passive houses use an ingenious central ventilation system. The warm air going out passes side by side with clean, cold air coming in, exchanging heat with 90 percent efficiency.

"The myth before was that to be warm you had to have heating. Our goal is to create a warm house without energy demand," said Wolfgang Hasper, an engineer at the Passivhaus Institut in Darmstadt. "This is not about wearing thick pullovers, turning the thermostat down and putting up with drafts. It's about being comfortable with less energy input, and we do this by recycling heating."

Have you heard of "Waikiki-gate"? It's the amusing name a reporter gave to an episode yesterday in which President-elect Obama headed out to a marine amusement park with his daughters and friends before the media's "pool" could catch up with the group.

This is the kind of thing that wingnuts may try to turn into a controversy, but when you look at the details, you realize that there isn't any there, there.

In a nutshell, yesterday morning the pool journalist was told to head on back to his hotel because Obama's schedule for the day had been completed. A little while later, Obama decided to head out to the theme park, and rather than wait for the pool journalist to make his way back to the where the Obamas are vacationing, Obama and his entourage headed out to the amusement park.

The pool caught up with Obama about an hour later, and for the first time on vacation, Obama actually spoke with the pool journalist. Obviously, Obama hadn't "snuck off," but he probably knew the pooler would feel spurned, so he gave him some TLC.

It was no big deal, but given how Washington works, I wouldn't be surprised if some folks decided to try to make a big deal about this.

To that end, here are the actual pool reports filed yesterday, so you can see what actually happened:

TO: Republican spinners, flacks, and concern trolls

FR: Jed Lewison

RE: NEW RULE

Real Time With Bill Maher is currently on hiatus until February, so I hope it's okay that I borrow his "new rules" concept for a brief second. Here goes:

New rule. If you're a Republican media operative, and you want to see the Obama administration fail, don't say while you think that Obama had nothing to do with Blago's corruption, that you think it's "unfortunate" that Obama will be tainted nonetheless.

First of all, you're wrong. Obama won't be tainted. People have seen your stupid GOP tricks before, and they won't fall for them again. While you were busy talking about how "unfortunate" it is that the Blago mess drags on and on, President-elect Obama was busy dealing with the nation's real problems -- and racking up an 82% approval rating for having done so.

While you were disengenously prattling forth about transparency in the wake of the most secretive administration in American history, Barack Obama was putting all the cards on the table, holding nothing back.

While you were dreaming of another Whitewater, Obama was becoming the most admired man in America. (And by the way, Hillary Clinton -- not Sarah Palin -- is the most admired woman in America.)

And most importantly of all, while you were busy doing everything possible to avoid discussing the fundamental economic challenges that we face, Barack Obama and his administration were busy working on a plan to start the recovery from the Bush Recession.

If you learned one thing from the last election -- and you apparently haven't -- it's that people are sick and tired of the typical partisan Republican games and distractions, especially when we're facing such enormous problems.

This is a big moment in our nation's history. You have an opportunity to do the right thing and get on board and help us fix the disaster that eight years of highly ideological conservative governance have brought to the United States of America.

Or you can cement your irrelevancy by standing on the sidelines and throwing partisan potshots and imagining fires where there isn't even any smoke.

It's your choice. Choose wisely.

Weird:

The developer, Isaac R. Toussie, who was listed Tuesday as one of the beneficiaries of the president's constitutional power to wipe away a criminal record, is not being pardoned "based on information that has subsequently come to light," the White House said late Wednesday afternoon.

The terse White House statement did not elaborate, but officials familiar with the case said that presidential aides -- and perhaps President Bush himself -- were concerned about appearances, because Mr. Toussie's father, Robert, donated $28,500 to the Republican National Committee last April, for what apparently was his first political contribution. He also donated $2,300 to the presidential campaign of Senator John McCain.

I guess it's the right thing to do. But how in the world did they issue the pardon in the first place?

And now that the've retracted it, are they still considering offering it? This part of the the NYT article suggests they may yet issue the pardon:

But the White House's announcement on Wednesday noted that the United States pardon attorney, Ronald L. Rodgers, had not made a recommendation on the Toussie case, and that President Bush believed he "should have an opportunity" to do so.

...Another of Mr. Toussie's lawyers, Bradford A. Berenson of Washington, said his client was pleased that a pardon was initially announced Tuesday and held out hope that it might still come true. "Mr. Toussie looks forward to the pardon attorney's expeditious review of the application," Mr. Berenson said.

As I said...weird.

I'm one of the 7% of of Americans who aren't celebrating Christmas this year (like a famous carpenter, I'm Jewish), but to all who are, Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays to all!

(This is a post I wrote for Daily Kos, but thought I'd also share it here. I haven't commented yet on the whole Rick Warren thing, but I think this captures pretty much where I'm at: it realy sucks that Rick Warren will be featured at the inauguration, but the inauguration will still be a wonderful thing. However, it is a reminder of the work that we have yet to do.)

That 52MPG Ford Fusion I mentioned yesterday?

It just got rated for 41MPG, which means real-world mileage in the 30s. I wonder where the hell the writer of the article I linked to got 52MPG?

In case you're interested, here's a copy of the Obama team's contacts report on the Blago mess.

A collage of photos from an e-mail going viral:

On the other hand, make sure you take a look at the pic below the fold...

Damn, that's impressive. Funny thing is that Bush is always yammering on about how much he likes to work out, so much so that it's practically the only thing he talks about with people he interviews for jobs. And he couldn't hold a candle.

Update (9:58AM): Check it out -- more shirtless presidents.

It's almost over in Minnesota, and it really looks like Franken will win.

Sarah Palin is busy giving interviews saying that she felt the McCain campaign's biggest mistake was not letting her do more interviews. There was a time that I agreed with her. As I wrote on September 5:

Todd Harris, a GOP strategist who is close to the McCain campaign, says Palin won't be available to the press for about two weeks. His defense? She might make "a mistake."

If she goes out and makes a mistake, that is something that [voters will] care about, and that's something that will haunt [McCain] for awhile, so I think this is a smart move.

This has got to be one of the craziest messaging decisions ever: Harris is conceding that Palin's not even ready to be a vice presidential candidate, let alone be president.

I just don't see how they can sustain two weeks of keeping Palin in hiding. Every day the McCain campaign keeps her away from reporters just highlights the fact that they don't think she's ready.

This strikes me as a pretty impressive strategic blunder.

In retrospect, the strategic blunder wasn't keeping her away from reporters. It was picking her in the first place.

I know it looks like I placed an ad for the 2010 Ford Fusion in the headlines part of the blog. You can be rest assured that it's not an ad -- I've taken no money for it (or any other consideration, for that matter). I just think it's cool that a car with that kind of horsepower could get such good mileage.

I drive a Toyota Camry Hybrid, which I just love -- it's my favorite car ever, and I've had a few. But the new Ford car looks like it will beat the Camry hands down on price/performance, not to mention mileage (I get in the mid-30s).

Politico reports that the person who bigfooted all over Matthew Yglesias's blog is may be the next DOD spokesman:

Jennifer Palmieri - a Clinton White House veteran who is now acting chief executive officer of the Center for American Progress Action Fund and senior vice president for communications at American Progress - is being considered for assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. This is different than the job how held by Geoff Morrell, who briefs journalists as Pentagon press secretary. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is remaining from the Bush administration, has said Morrell will stay in that role.

So Matthew Yglesias calls the domestic policy agenda of some organization called Third Way -- which I had never heard of until tonight -- "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit."

That was on Friday.

Today, at 10:33PM, his acting boss felt compelled to author a post -- on his blog -- stating the obvious: that his views are his alone. Moreover, she defends Third Way.

You should take a gander at the comments on her post. I counted at most 3 comments that supported her -- and over 200 saying she should not have interefered.

Yglesias will end up fine -- he's smart, and thinks for himself, no matter who might try to intimidate him.

But the thing that really strikes me here is that (a) clearly his boss made the most at the behest of Third Way; and (b) because Third Way demanded an apology, far more people are going to know what Yglesias said they were lame.

And now Third Way has supplied the evidence to prove their lameness. They couldn't possibly be more stupid.

Behold, the first thing to come into Dick Cheney's mind when asked to name the highlight of the Bush Presidency:

Transcript:

WALLACE: Highest moment the last eight years?

CHENEY: Hmmm. Highest moment in the last eight years? Well, I think the most important, the most compelling, was 9/11 itself, and what that entailed, what we had to deal with. The way in which that changed the nation, and set the agenda for what we had to deal with as an administration.

Wallace nudged the vice president to add that 9/11 was also the low moment of the Bush years, but it tells you something about the darkness of Cheney's mind that this was the first thing to come to his mind when looking for bright spots over the past eight years was 9/11.

CNN quotes a House leadership aide thinking really small:

The aide insisted no decisions have been made on the price tag, and pushed back on the higher numbers floating around on the stimulus, which have ranged from $850 billion $1 trillion. "It's not going to be that. I just don't see it going up to $850 billion," said the aide, who pointed to the range cited by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier in the week -- $500-600 billion -- with a majority of the money devoted to infrastructure projects, and the rest designated to fund a middle class tax cut.

If this is the attitude top House staffers are going to take -- waving the white flag of surrender before the battle gets underway -- we're going to be in for a longer recession than is necessary.

Keith Olbermann has taken to calling Blago "B-Rod." But isn't "R-Blag" the way you're supposed to do it?

Yes, it's Friday afternoon. You can tell important issues are on my mind.

Maybe the Palins are the ideal family to represent the Republican Party after all. At the very least, they demonstrate the complete and utter failure of the GOP's war on sex and the GOP's war on drugs.

...and by the logic of the Bush Administration, the fact that I'm Jewish is totally irrelevant.

President-elect Obama has now held 12 news conferences -- which as Politico's Michael Calderone points out, is more than any other incoming president in history. As Calderone said yesterday when the count was 11:

48 Questions

That's how many Barack Obama has taken at press conferences since Election Day. The Washington Times Christina Bellantoni is keeping a running count, and reports that Obama's easily shattered the transition record with 11 press conferences.

In other words, just because he is creating a path for direct communication with the public doesn't mean he's cutting out the press corps.

Moreover, I'm sure that however much he might be tempted to bypass the media, he understands that to do so would ultimately be not just irresponsible, but also political suicide.

Reporters and journalists have an important role to play in our political process; but so to does the public.

Helene Cooper of The New York Times worries that by talking directly to the American public, President-elect Obama is bypassing the media.

WASHINGTON--President-elect Barack Obama says that he wants to make his administration more responsive to the American people. To that end, his aides are introducing a host of YouTube and other efforts aimed at bypassing the media and communicating directly with voters.

It remains to be seen whether this effort will yield satisfaction on either end of the spectrum--John Q. Public may have as difficult a time getting answers out of government officials as representatives of the mainstream media do. But to get a glimpse of how bypass-the-press might work, look no further than the Bush administration.

Fair enough. Let's take a look.

George W. Bush held 9 news conferences during his transition.

Thus far, President-elect Obama has held at least 12.

It's true that Bush had an abbreviated transition schedule due to the Florida recount.

On the other hand, we're still more than a month away from the inauguration.

...Drudge is pimping the snow in Las Vegas (he must think it supports the case of the global warming deniers, when freak weather is actually a symptom of it), but the other Vegas story is on the real estate market there. Check out these stats:

• November saw the fewest new home permits on record, down 58% from one year ago
• New home sales are at a 20-year low. Overall, new home sales are down 47% for the year.
• The annual total for existing home sales is up 17%, though this November new home sales dropped 20% from last November.
• The median home price has dropped 31.5% from one year ago, only slightly below prices from 5 years ago.

This was a funny response by John Harris to reports that David Plouffe treated Mark Halperin and Politico with disdain:

Late Late Update: Politico editor John Harris emails over this response:

I'm outraged on The Page's behalf.

By the way, Plouffe wasn't dissing Politico and Halperin, he was merely recognizing their role in setting the tone for political coverage, and telling staff not to let it get inside their heads. So it was actually a compliment.  If anything, it was an insult to Drudge, with whom he had little concern, in large part because Halperin and Politico have basically replaced Drudge as assignment editors for the political press corps.

Neither is perfect (though Politico is far better than Halperin), but both are a vast improvement over Drudge's fact-free approach.

Even conservatives like Michelle Malkin can't resist kicking George W. Bush with the shoe that missed him.

I am basically neutral on the question of who should succeed both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, other than I would want to see a good Democrat who will support the Obama economic and energy agendas.

But if the news that Jesse Jackson, Jr. should be a big boost to his hopes to go to the Senate.

In a way, Jackson and Caroline Kennedy are quite similar: both have gotten where they are in life because of their names, and both have taken advantage of what their names have offered them.

Caroline's father was more famous and influential than Jesse's, but Jesse has a longer career of service in public office.

It seems fairly likely that Caroline will be the next Senator from New York, and probably the same logic that puts her in that spot could be used to put Jesse Jackson Jr. in the Senate. Then in two years Beau Biden can take Joe Biden's seat, and maybe Ken Salazar's brother can grab the Senate seat in Colorado.

It's democracy in action, baby!

President-elect Obama pushes the case for his jobs stimulus plan to put 2.5 million people back to work and turn this economy around:

I just realized that if Caroline Kennedy is appointed to HRC's seat, that will mean for the second time in Ted Kennedy's career he will serve in the Senate at the same time as a close family member. From 1965-1968, he served with his brother, and now he may serve with his niece.

Lawrence Lessig vigorously defended himself yesterday from allegations by the Wall Street Journal that he had softened his support for Net Neutrality. Sayeth the WSJ:

But Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able to pay for faster service.

Lessig's response is that there's nothing new about his position.

It is true, as the Journal reports, that I have stated that network providers should be free to charge different rates for different service -- "so long," the Journal quotes, "as the faster service at a higher price is available to anyone willing to pay it."

But the whole punch of the story comes from the suggestion that my position is something new. ...

...Missing from the article, however, is the evidence that my view is a "shift" or "soften[ing]" of earlier views. That's because there isn't any such evidence. My view is the view I have always had -- whether or not it is the view of others in this debate.

...You can hear what I said beginning at minute 18:20 here. There I distinguish between "zero price regulations" (such as Markey's bill (which I say I am against)) and what I called "zero discriminatory surcharge rules" (which I say I am for). The zero discriminatory surcharge rules are just that -- rules against discriminatory surcharges -- charging Google something different from what a network charges iFilm. The regulation I call for is a "MFN" requirement -- that everyone has the right to the rates of the most favored nation.

This is precisely the position that the Journal breathlessly attributes to me today. It represents no change -- no "softening" no "shift" in my views.

Now no doubt my position might be wrong. Some friends in the network neutrality movement as well as some scholars believe it is wrong -- that it doesn't go far enough. But the suggestion that the position is "recent" is baseless. If I'm wrong, I've always been wrong.

Lessig invited readers to review his past statements, linking to his February, 2006 testimony before Congress on Net Neutrality. In that testimony, Lessig said:

But the problem that we've identified, in the network-neutrality work that I've been a part of, is the problem with access tiering, where you start saying to large companies like Google, ''Here, you can buy the reserved lane, so that the reserved lane serves your content well.'' And I know Google can afford it. But when Google then rolls out something called Google Video that tries to compete with the other video services out there, like YouTube TV or YouAreTV. Those competitors will never have the opportunity to compete effectively against Google Video if Google Video can buy the fast lane. So, if you want to preserve the kind of competition that made Google possible, you have to do what Google suggested this morning, in the words of Vint Cerf, you have to preserve the end-to-end neutrality principles that define the Internet and, in my view, define telecommunications law for the last 40 years.

Another quote:

Senator BOXER. Now, my question is to Professor Lessig. Suppose in the 1990s Microsoft was able to pay to get faster service for consumers accessing its search engine. What would the impact have been on the development and expansion of Google?

Mr. LESSIG. Well, it would have been negative. It would have restricted the opportunity for Google or new competitors to enter into this marketplace. Now, whether it would have been enough to stop it or not, who knows? But there's no doubt of the effect. The effect would have been to restrict application competition, which is exactly what we should be encouraging in this context.

Getting the drift? Here's another:

And the fourth point that I don't think anybody can really deny, the changes that are being described, not by the very reasonable people who testified in the earlier panel, but by the leaders of Verizon and the leaders of AT&T, the changes that are being described would radically reduce competition in applications and content on the Internet, radically reduce that competition because as they set up fast lanes on the Internet, the only companies that could afford to buy access to the fast lanes on the Internet are companies like Google and Yahoo! and Microsoft and the content companies that already have succeeded in the marketplace. The next generation Yahoos! and Googles cannot buy access to the fast lane, because they would face a barrier to entry that would restrict competition. This restriction in competition would fundamentally weaken the growth of the Internet.

And:

Access-tiering will create an obvious incentive among the effective duopoly that now provides broadband service to most Americans. By effectively auctioning off lanes of broadband service, this form of tiering will restrict the opportunity of many to compete in providing new Internet service. For example, there are many new user generated video services on the Internet, such as Google Video, YouAre.TV, and youTube.com. The incentives in a world of access-tiering would be to auction to the highest bidders the quality of service necessary to support video service, and leave to the rest insufficient bandwidth to compete. That may benefit established companies, but it will only burden new innovators.

How did Lessig define access-tiering?

By "access-tiering," I mean any policy by network owners to condition content or service providers' right to provide content or service to the network upon the payment of some fee. These fees are independent of basic Internet access fees. No one questions the right of network owners to charge Google for the bandwidth it uses. Instead, "access-tiering" adds an additional tax on network innovators based upon the particular service being offered.

Today, Lessig says that he is comfortable with charging content providers higher access fees for different service tiers so long as everybody pays the same price:

The zero discriminatory surcharge rules are just that -- rules against discriminatory surcharges -- charging Google something different from what a network charges iFilm. The regulation I call for is a "MFN" requirement -- that everyone has the right to the rates of the most favored nation.

So Lessig's current view is that so long as all providers are treated equally -- that none are given better pricing than others -- then everything is fine and dandy, even if some content providers are in a better position to pay the surcharges than others.

Just a couple of years ago, his position was that any access tiering that allowed wealthier companies to enjoy an advantage over other companies was problematic.

It seems fair to say then, that his views on Net Neutrality have changed, and that he's softened his views on access-tiering.

Lessig could very well be right to take the position that he does today. But it certainly doesn't seem like the position he held 2 years ago.

In May, 2007, Kansas businessman Phil Ruffin sold the New Frontier, one of the older properties on the Las Vegas Strip, to Elad Group for $1.24 billion. Elad Group bought the property for the sole purpose of tearing the New Frontier down and building a new casino on the land.

Now he's getting back into the Sin City casino business with a much nicer property in a slightly better location -- for nearly a half-billion less. Ruffin is buying Treasure Island from MGM Mirage for $775 million. In 2000, MGM bought TI as part of its $6.4 billion purchase of Mirage Resorts.

It's just another amazing example of how quickly the economy has come crashing down, and of how (Blago-obsessions aside) it's still the most important issue facing the nation.

The news conference should be starting any minute now. You can watch it live on MSNBC.com.

Update (2:10PM): I just heard the phrase "scientific leadership" come from the lips of Dr. Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winning phsyicist Obama has tapped to lead the Department of Energy. Music to my ears.

Update (2:26PM): Only one question about Blago, the others focused on the topic of the day. Seems pretty reasonable. Obama hammered home the message that his economic recovery plan is a twofer -- it is both a stimulus to get our economy going, and a long overdue downpayment on finally achieving energy security.

Update (12:20PM): A commenter linked to this post by David Isenberg, which convincingly argues that what Google is doing is not a threat to Net Neutrality, but still raises concerns about monopoly/largess. I think this paragraph in particular reflects what my concerns are about Google:

I have some concern here that since the caching servers that Google proposes to install, and their associated access pipes, are expensive, and they do provide an advantage to Google-as-Video-Provider, that it may make it more difficult for other video platforms to get a start. But I must say it is the same concern that I have for new search providers and new on-line advertisers. Once you get big like Google is big, you're a barrier.

But this has very little to do with the Internet, and nothing to do with Network Neutrality.

:::

Original post:

WSJ reports:

The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly losing powerful defenders.

Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.

Google retorts that they are just "edge caching":

Some critics have questioned whether improving Web performance through edge caching -- temporary storage of frequently accessed data on servers that are located close to end users -- violates the concept of network neutrality. As I said last summer, this myth -- which unfortunately underlies a confused story in Monday's Wall Street Journal -- is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which the open Internet works.

Edge caching is a common practice used by ISPs and application and content providers in order to improve the end user experience. Companies like Akamai, Limelight, and Amazon's Cloudfront provide local caching services, and broadband providers typically utilize caching as part of what are known as content distribution networks (CDNs). Google and many other Internet companies also deploy servers of their own around the world.

Google says edge caching does not violate the principle of "net neutrality" so long as internet providers don't ink any exclusive deals.

Leave aside for a moment the question of whether edge caching is a useful technology (as it seems to be), it is laughable to suggest that the standard for whether or not edge caching is compatible with net neutrality is merely whether or not an internet providers enter into exclusive arrangements with content providers to offer it.

Unless they mean that internet providers should offer anybody access to edge caching free of charge, Google's standard is quite self-serving. From the perspective of their deep pockets, there is no practical difference between having access to a service or feature and actually being able to use it. Google can afford just about anything.

In this particular case, Google's ability to fund edge caching projects for Google services like YouTube put it at a big advantage over other services that might not be able to afford edge caching deals with internet providers.

The difference between edge caching and "faster lanes" is that faster lanes means that some data packets going into consumer homes are favored over others. This isn't exactly what's happening with edge caching, where the service improvement happens inside data centers, but the net effective result is similar.

To my eyes, Google seems to be engaging in a game of parsing here. As long as internet providers and content providers can team up to allow certain websites to deliver a better quality of service than others, then the spirit of net neutrality is being violated.

Perhaps Google has a compelling argument against net neutrality, but approaching the issue as a parsing problem deepens suspicions rather than resolving them.

Only Bush could turn something like the shoe-tossing incident into a humiliating experience as opposed to an opportunity to gain a little bit of sympathy and respect.

I am glad he's okay. Nobody anywhere should have to suffer through the indignity of having a foreign journalist hurl a sneaker at them, especially in a land they Liberated(TM).

And I will give him this: that man sure can duck.

John McCain on "This Week" said the economy today was the worst in his lifetime. Keep in mind that he was born in the middle of the Great Depression. The unemployment rates for the first few years of his life:

• 1936: 17.0%
• 1937: 14.3%
• 1938: 19.0%
• 1939: 17.2%
• 1940: 14.6%
• 1941: 9.9%

Just to be clear, I'm only posting this because I think McCain's penchant for exaggeration is hilarious. For the most part, he was gracious towards Obama on the broadcast, and he even indicated the possibility that he'd support the stimulus plan (though I can't imagine he actually will).

Once upon a time, John McCain called talk like this elitist:

In "Praying for Recession: The Business Cycle and Protestant Religiosity in the United States," David Beckworth, an assistant professor of economics at Texas State University, looked at long-established trend lines showing the growth of evangelical congregations and the decline of mainline churches and found a more telling detail: During each recession cycle between 1968 and 2004, the rate of growth in evangelical churches jumped by 50 percent. By comparison, mainline Protestant churches continued their decline during recessions, though a bit more slowly.

The little-noticed study began receiving attention from some preachers in September, when the stock market began its free fall. With the swelling attendance they were seeing, and a sense that worldwide calamities come along only once in an evangelist's lifetime, the study has encouraged some to think big.

"I found it very exciting, and I called up that fellow to tell him so," said the Rev. Don MacKintosh, a Seventh Day Adventist televangelist in California who contacted Dr. Beckworth a few weeks ago after hearing word of his paper from another preacher. "We need to leverage this moment, because every Christian revival in this country's history has come off a period of rampant greed and fear. That's what we're in today -- the time of fear and greed."

Over at Daily Kos, Adam B makes the case:

Assuming he doesn't do the right thing, then impeachment and conviction by the Illinois Legislature under Article IV, section 14 is the superior approach.  Legislators are more accountable to the people than are judges -- even elected judges -- and they are more sensitive to the ramifications of a bad decision here.  Some things are better left to the political branches.

Think of it this way: who would you rather have decide on whether to remove Bill Clinton from the Presidency on the charges upon which he was impeached -- the United States Senate which existed in 1999, or the Supreme Court of the United States?

One understands that it might be quite a feather in Madigan's cap to be responsible for Blagojevich's removal from office, and it certainly could aid her in pursuit of higher office.  But the gain to her personally, and the righteousness of the end result, shouldn't obscure the fact that this is a bad path to follow.  This is the legislature's responsibility, and Blagojevich's own -- not the Illinois Supreme Court's.

Just because Rod Blagojevich showed reckless disgregard for the principles and laws of our system of government doesn't mean we have to.

...and maybe Tom Friedman too. John Cole presents the idea:

We need to invade Michigan and rebuild the state from the ground up. We will be greeted as liberators, we have clear supply lines, and we can easily rebuild the auto industry with the kind of money we spend on other countries we invade.

From a press conference just now, Chris Dodd says he thinks the Treasury Department will make TARP funds available for emergency loans to the auto industry.

Of course, this also means that the Bush Administration has even more leverage to get the second tranche of $350 billion (though that would probably have happened anyway).

ABC reports that the the Bush Recession is getting worse, with the the most new jobless claims in a generation -- 573,000 last week alone.

It is against this backdrop that Senate Republicans are fighting their hearts out to destroy the American auto industry.

Update 3 (9:44PM): The Senate held a vote on the emergency loan package, and the vote failed 52-35. Except in the screwed up world of the Senate, failing 52-35 means 52 Senators voted for the legislation -- and just 35 voted against. So 35 Senators were willing to gamble away the future of an American industry -- all to avoid having to support a $14 billion emergency loan package. They are all worthless clowns.

Update 2 (8:04PM): No deal, and the negotiations have fallen apart. Republicans will not budge on their demands for immediate wage cuts by autoworkers. Even though Democrats have enough votes to pass the bailout on a simple majority, Republicans are invoking the 60 vote filibuster rule.

According to the new NBC/WSJ poll, 79% say they won't miss Bush when he leaves the White House. Moreover:

the Republican Party's fav/unfav is 27%-52%, which is its lowest rating ever in the poll (by comparison, the Democratic Party's is nearly reversed, 49%-28%.

President-elect Obama at his news conference earlier this morning announcing the appoint of Tom Daschle to HHS, commenting on Blago:

"I was as appalled and disappointed as anybody by the revelations earlier this week," he said. "I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I'm confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact. I've asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor's office about this vacancy so we can share them with you over the next few days.

"Finally, on this matter, let me say that this senate seat does not belong to any politician to trade. It belongs to the people of Illinois. They deserve the best possible representation. They also deserve to know that any vacancy will be filled in an appropriate way so that whoever is sent to Washington is going to be fighting for the people of Illinois. I hope and expect that the leaders of the legislature will take these steps to ensure that this is so."

Update: Full video here.

A new web video from the Al Franken campaign shares the heart-wrenching personal stories from of Franken voters whose ballots have been illegitimately tossed out:

This isn't just about Al Franken vs. Norm Coleman, or the number of Democrats or Republicans in the U.S. Senate: this is also about counting every vote cast by American citizens.

Is says something about Norm Coleman's campaign that they think this video represents "a new low."

The state's canvassing board meets on Friday to consider the fate of challenged ballots.

According to Daily Kos diarist EZ writer, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff's home was cleaned by workers in the United States illegally. Apparently, the article will  be splashed on A1 of the WaPo's Thursday edition. It seems the workers sailed through the DHS screening procedures (as opposed to Chertoff knowingly breaking the law).

Nevermind Ted Stevens, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, etc., none of whom were immediately asked to resign (video below the fold):

President-elect Obama's remarkable 79% approval rating.

WaPo:

The congressional panel overseeing the $700 billion economic rescue plan laced into the Treasury Department today for misleading Congress over how the money is being used.

And yet Senate Republicans can't find it in their hearts to make available $14 billion in emergency loans to keep the auto industry alive?

$700 billion later, they are freaking out about a $15 billion loan package to save people's jobs during the holiday season.

As shocking as Blagojevich's scheme was, he was unable to carry it out. The system worked -- as it should.

If only we could say the same thing about other recent scandals. But at least it's a start.

Without doubt, some GOP hacks across the country have smiles on their faces right about now. They think the arrest of Rod Blagojevich is a godsend for their party, a chance to talk about something other than the daunting task of recovering from the Bush Recession.

And for a short bit of time -- perhaps only a few hours -- they might just be right. This might well serve as a distraction.

But they should keep in mind that as disgusting and deplorable as Blagojevich's actions were, it is also remarkable and wonderful how swiftly the wheels of justice have spun. Thanks to the workmanlike efforts of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Blagojevich has been caught in the act -- before he was able to appoint a U.S. Senator.

For that, we should all be thankful.

Still, even though Fitzgerald prevented the appointment from ever happening, Blagojevich deserves the harshest possible punishment.

From the indictment, Blago complaining about the Obama team's refusal to play ball:

Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them."

The first portion of the U.S. Attorney's press conference on Blogojevich:

<$MT:Include module="flowplayervideo"$>

Politico's Politico's Carol E. Lee and Nia-Malika Henderson make the following claim:

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy

I'd like to see evidence of him making such a pledge, because I haven't found it. The closest that I've seen is this op-ed by Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, but it doesn't say anything about 'immediate' repeal.

If I recall correctly, since early 2007 Obama has supported repealing the tax cuts by allowing them to expire. A review of 11 New York Times articles ranging from April 21, 2007 to October 19, 2008 support my recollection, but perhaps there's something I'm missing.

If so, I'd love to have someone explain it to me. Otherwise, it's time to stop pushing this narrative.

Here's the list of articles:

On Countdown, Arianna Huffington pointed out that this passage from David Horowitz's article urging fellow conservatives to get over Obama Derangement Syndrome is itself deranged:

Bleh:

NBC Expected to Give 10 P.M. Show to Leno

NBC is expected to announce Tuesday that it has signed its late-night star Jay Leno to a new contract that will keep him at the network in a new format that will give him the 10 p.m. time period each weeknight for a show similar to the one he has done on NBC's "Tonight Show" show since 1993.

...The offer of a new weeknight show for Mr. Leno at 10 p.m., an idea that NBC executives said Monday came from the NBC chief executive, Jeff Zucker, not only allows NBC to retain Mr. Leno's services, but also means the network may be able to greatly reduce costs of developing and producing other prime-time shows.

One thing that I don't think I spent much time talking about during the campaign was the way in which Barack Obama used his seemingly deferential attitude towards John McCain to effectively set McCain up for the great fall he took.

As you'll remember, on the campaign trail Obama constantly spoke of how we "honor" McCain's "lifetime of service" -- until late August. Many supporters thought this was a huge mistake because they felt Obama was being too nice to McCain. Others thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread because they felt it showed Obama was being respectful of McCain.

In my view, neither group was right. I think Obama was actually positioning McCain, and trying to define McCain in terms that would not play well in November.

The CEO of Merrill Lynch wants a $10 million bonus despite losing $11 billion and cutting 30,000 jobs.

This report sounded like B.S. to me when it appeared. Krugman clears the air and says that it was false:

The Bush WH is upset because they don't think Obama-land is doing enough to release the next $350 billion in TARP funds:

Treasury officials believe Obama aides are being short-sighted in their refusal to offer more policy and lobbying assistance, while the transition team sees an administration looking to be rescued from its own miscues.

Apparently, Obama is insisting on radical ideas like the proposition that the money should actually make a real difference in people's lives -- you know, do things like helping stabilize the housing market.

It's not that I'm unalterably opposed to the money being released. But I am opposed to another blank check for the Bush Administration. It's good to see they don't appear to be getting one.

A remarkable exchange from Lesley's Stahl's eye-opening 60 Minutes report on Saudi Arabian oil:

STAHL: So what do you say to people out there, like Al Gore and now Mr. Obama, that say we have to devote ourselves, devote ourselves, to reducing our dependence on oil?

ABDALLAH JUM'AH, CEO OF LARGEST SAUDI OIL COMPANY: My answer to this is we have to be realistic. We don't have the alternatives today. If there are alternatives, be my guest and come and bring them in. They are not there.

STAHL: You're saying whatever the world does in terms of wind, nuclear, coal, we're still going to need oil, and a lot of it?

JUM'AH: You're still going to need oil, and...a lot of it.

STAHL: Politicians use this all the time that. We're addicted, addicted to foreign oil. And addiction has a dark connotation, because if you're addicted, there's a suggestion that there's a drug dealer who's trying to keep you hooked. And it's in the air that you want to keep us hooked.

ALI AL-NAIMI, SAUDI OIL MINISTER: There is nothing addictive about oil. If you look back 100 years, what would the world be without it?

STAHL: Even President Bush, who's an oilman, even he has said we're addicted to this, and we have to get off this oil.

AL-NAIMI: But listen to what the professionals say and what do they advise: it's not going to happen today. It's not going to happen ten years from now. It's probably not going to happen 20 years from now. It's not going to happen 30 years from now. Okay? Because you are still going to be using fossil fuels.

In many respect, them's fightin' words -- both Jum'ah and Al-Naimi are basically daring us to try to give up our addiction to oil. We should take them up on their challenge.

You can watch the video of this exchange on YouTube. For full video, go to CBSNews.com: Part 1, Part 2.

I don't like the Cowboys and I still hold a (petty) grudge against the Steelers for their questionable Super Bowl victory over the Seahawks. But that being said, this is an incredible game.

Update (4:41PM): Was an incredible game...the Steelers eked out an amazing come-from-behind victory.

From all the various headlines I'm seeing around the internetz, you'd think that President-elect Obama is all doom and gloom about the economy.

To be sure, on Meet the Press he did warn of further pain, but that was only part of his message. The other part was about the way forward, and while he acknowledged the tough situation we are in, he also was clear about the path we should take. Here's one such example:

One last point I want to make on this is that we are inheriting an enormous budget deficit. You know, some estimates over a trillion dollars.  That's before we do anything.  And so we understand that we've got to provide a, a, a blood infusion into the patient right now to make sure that the patient is stabilized, and, and that means that we, we can't worry short term about the deficit.  We've got to make sure that the economic stimulus plan is large enough to get the economy moving.

Yesterday, Obama pledged his commitment to the biggest investment in our nation's infrastructure since the 1950s. And during today's press conference, he again repeated his view that things could get worse in the next few months, but more importantly, he expressed his optimism that his plan for a massive public works program would work, saying he was "absolutely confident" that it would get the economy back on track.

So although the headlines are accurate as far as they go, they don't tell the whole story, and they don't -- at least in my opinion -- tell the most important story, which is that we're going to turn things around.

<$MT:Include module="flowplayervideo"$>

Here's the full video of PEOTUS* on MTP:

<$MT:Include module="flowplayervideo"$>

* Acronym decoder: PEOTUS = President-elect of the United States of America.

Update, 11:02AM: You can watch the appointment of Gen. Shinseki live on MSNBC right now.

Congratulations to David Gregory! You are now the most boring host on Sunday talk shows. I'd rather watch Cris Wallace.

I still can't get over the fact that he's just 38. Yikes!

I had meant to say something about this, but Eli Sanders did a much better job than I would have.

In yet another symbolic break with the outgoing administration, this president-elect speaks to the nation from a skyscraper, the glow of the evening city receding behind him.

...This latest backdrop is the one he should stick with--floating above the chaotic metropolis (which looks so tame from on high), tucking the nation in, welcoming the night with a plan for tomorrow.

Mike Huckabee thinks the big problem with Republicans is that they spend too much time in "the mushy middle." Huckabee's solution for the GOP: move to the right, and try to ban gay marriage in every state. He's affable...but what a nutcase.

Seventy-five years ago yesterday, on December 5, 1933, the United States of America repealed its ban on alcoholic beverages.

But even though you won't find a soul alive who thinks the repeal was a bad idea, we continue to live day after day with the disastrous consequences of a drug policy that is as misguided as was prohibition.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Ethan Nadelman, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Nadelman wrote:

Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.

And look abroad. At Afghanistan, where a third or more of the national economy is both beneficiary and victim of the failed global drug prohibition regime. At Mexico, which makes Chicago under Al Capone look like a day in the park. And elsewhere in Latin America, where prohibition-related crime, violence and corruption undermine civil authority and public safety, and mindless drug eradication campaigns wreak environmental havoc.

All this, and much more, are the consequences not of drugs per se but of prohibitionist policies that have failed for too long and that can never succeed in an open society, given the lessons of history. Perhaps a totalitarian American could do better, but at what cost to our most fundamental values?

Just like you can't find a soul who will say that repeal of prohibition was a mistake, you won't find a soul who will tell you our current drug policy has erased the drug problem.

Yet we continue to treat drug policy as a hypothetical issue, focused on the potential consequences of reform, rather than the disastrous consequences of what we are doing now.

The question isn't just about the pharmacological impacts of drugs. The question is also about the damage our current regulatory regime is inflicting on our society, economy, and criminal justice system. The question is whether we are getting our money's worth from the $50 billion we spend each year on the drug war. The question is whether there are better ways to allocate our resources than by focusing the bulk of that money on drugs -- like marijuana -- that are probably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

But until we collectively -- as citizens -- make it clear to our political leaders that it is acceptable to talk about the consequences of our drug policy, as opposed to a blind focus on nothing but the consequences of drugs, we're never going to make any progress.

If we don't change, we're going to continue having hundreds of brutal murders occuring not just across the border, but also right here at home. And we're going to continue to have American citizens addicted to drugs, wasting their futures.

So we need to rethink this drug policy of ours, because it just isn't working. It never has, and until we find the courage to change, it never will.

A couple of quick notes on video.

First, I've gotten a couple of questions about whether the new design reflects a change in my emphasis on video. In short, the answer is 'no.' I'll have more to say about it later, but video is definitely central to my plans both here and as a contributing editor at Daily Kos.

Second, specifically on the new video player that I tried out in the previous two posts: it seems to work for most, but some people have reported problems. I think I may have figured out what the problem is for most folks having trouble.

From what I can tell, the issue relates to those who use Flashblock. Fortunately, there is a very easy fix. All you have to do is enable the Flash after clicking on the splash image.

Keith O. spends an enjoyable 9 minutes with Mark Shaiman, the brilliant creative mind behind "Prop 8 - The Musical," and two of its co-stars, Jack Black (who knew Jesus was Black!?) and John C. Reilly.

<$MT:Include module="flowplayervideo"$>

This is protest, 21st century style...and it couldn't be more fun.

Rachel Maddow and Barney Frank had a good discussion on the interim bailout deal, starting about 5 minutes into this clip.

<$MT:Include module="flowplayervideo"$>

(On a side note, this is my second attempt experimenting with a new video player. The last one had a few glitches, and if you experience any trouble with this one, I'd love to know, either in the comments or by e-mail.)

The NYT says Congress has struck an interim deal to save the auto industry until President-elect Obama is sworn into office:

Details of the rescue package were not immediately available but senior Congressional aides said that it would include billions of dollars in short-term loans to keep the automakers afloat at least until President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

Ending a weeks-long stalemate between the Bush administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, senior aides said that the money would likely come from $25 billion in federally subsidized loans intended for developing advanced fuel efficient cars.

This strikes me as a reasonable approach. If we've learned one thing from the TARP-disaster, it's that we are better off with stop-gap measures than agreeing to the demands of the Bush administration.

Hopefully this will cool the inane attempts to blame the auto mess on the incoming Obama administration.

Awesome:

Here's President-elect Obama's statement on today's job loss numbers, focusing on the need to transform our economy for years to come by rebuilding America's infrastructure and developing the clean energy solutions we need.

The 533,000 jobs lost last month, the worst job loss in 34 years, is more than a dramatic reflection of the growing economic crisis we face. Each of those lost jobs represents a personal crisis for a family somewhere in America. Our economy has already lost nearly 2 million jobs during this recession, which is why we need an Economic Recovery Plan that will save or create at least 2.5 million more jobs over two years while we act decisively to maintain the flows of credit on which so many American families and American businesses depend.

There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis, which has been many years in the making, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better. But now is the time to respond with urgent resolve to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. At the same time, this painful crisis also provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people by rebuilding roads and modernizing schools for our children, investing in clean energy solutions to break our dependence on imported oil, and making an early down payment on the long-term reforms that will grow and strengthen our economy for all Americans for years to come.

With Brian Krolicki out of the picture, Nevada Republicans are without an obvious challenger to Harry Reid. Jon Porter might be their best shot, but he just lost his re-election bid to Dina Titus. Dean Heller is a Republican congressman, but he represents the northern part of the state, and is virtually unknown in Las Vegas.

It's always a bad idea to pick a majority leader from a swing state, but hopefully this indictment means that Reid can breathe a bit easier -- and stop being so cautious.

The Democratic leadership in Congress is having trouble putting together votes for the auto industry bailout and somehow it's Barack Obama's fault? Are you kidding me?

Obama has consistently favored giving the auto industry a boost. In fact, he helped put the issue on the table. Shortly after the election, when he met with President Bush, the PEOTUS raised the issue with the POTUS:

At their private Oval Office meeting on Monday, President-elect Barack Obama urged President Bush to support billions of dollars in aid for the struggling auto industry during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress, according to three officials briefed on the meeting.

The officials said Bush privately expressed skepticism about taxpayer money for automakers on the heels of a string of government bailouts for other industries, and the president also urged Obama to help push through a free trade pact with Colombia - a key legacy item for the outgoing administration that is facing stiff resistance from Democrats on Capitol Hill.

So no matter what Barney Frank, who I normally love, might say, Barack Obama has been doing his part to put this issue front and center. The President-elect is not the problem here. He doesn't have some sort of secret magic sauce that will suddenly allow Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to put together a majority.

The problem is that you've got a bunch of Republican Senators and House members who are eager to lose the auto industry so that they can make an ideological point about the supposed evils of labor unions (which would be a whole lot less relevant if we had decent national health care and retirement systems), and you've got a bunch of Democratic members of Congress who won't stand up to them.

Keep in mind that Democrats are the majority party in Congress right now. If they can't stand up against these right wing bullies without the intervention of the President-elect, then there's no hope for them.

Remember, all this fighting is over a $34 billion loan package. Loans, not grants.

Compare it to the $500 billion - $1 trillion stimulus package that we're going to need to get through Congress, hopefully by the end of January.

That's going to be some real spending, and it won't be easy to pass. So if they think getting this loan package passed is too hard, how in the world are they going to get a stimulus done?

Here's the scary part of this list of the top 10 stupid gifts: Potty Putter: Toilet Putting Green is only 4th on the list!

But hey, I guess it does come with a FREE! Do Not Disturb Sign!

Now, I have to be honest -- I didn't expect that my first non-housekeeping post on the new TJR homepage would feature a picture of guy putting while sitting on the throne.

But that's exactly what happened.

And unfortunately for you, it's a inspired a stupid pun. Yes we can...put. On the can. Rimshot!

Anyway, there you have it. TJR has a new home page, and I've clearly lost my marbles.

At last! The new TJR homepage is here.

(I say homepage because the pages for individual posts still haven't been updated, though they will be over the next few days.)

As you can see, what's new is the return of the "Stuff I Should Have Blogged" sidebar...but it's more like "Stuff I Should Have Blogged" on steroids.

Other than that, not much will change. I'll still continue to blog both here and at Daily Kos, and the commenting system -- Disqus -- remains the same.

Also, those of you who used the feeds widget on the old TJR homepage can now find the same feature in the "On The Wires" tab of the new homepage.

There's still work to be done. As I mentioned, the individual pages need to be updated to the new look, and I also need to fix a very annoying problem with RSS whereby videos weren't getting included in RSS feeds.

But as for the new homepage, it's here, and I hope you enjoy the new look!

Politico reports that the anonymous hold on the inspector general for the financial bailout has been lifted, clearing his way for Senate confirmation.

TPM notes that it was rumored that Senator Jim Bunning had placed the hold.

And that gives me an excuse to link to this audio clip of Bunning complaing that at a state fair, "little green doctors were pounding on my back."

It's sort of like bottled hot water, only weirder.

The campaign now says Al Franken leads by 10 votes based on the original rulings of the impartial election judges. According to the campaign:

RECOUNT UPDATE: FRANKEN HOLDS 10 VOTE LEAD OVER COLEMAN

By our count, Al Franken leads Norm Coleman by 10 votes with roughly 56,000 ballots left to be hand counted. Many media outlets are calculating the margin by a different method, relying on raw data from the Secretary of State's website to conclude that Coleman holds a lead of over 300 votes. However, that calculation assumes that every challenge will be upheld by the state canvassing board, whereas our calculation assumes that the original call by the impartial election judge will stand. So, if the judge calls it for Franken, we say it's a Franken ballot. Likewise, if the judge calls it for Coleman, we treat it as a Coleman ballot - even if we have challenged it.

You can watch them live on MSNBC. Floyd Norris has a liveblog for those (like me) who aren't watching every moment.

Also, a praiseworthy moment of television on Morning Joe...by Joe Scarborough (!), Bob Shrum, and Mike Barnicle. They debunk the false $70/hour autoworker wage number.

In other news -- I'm getting closer to posting that long-promised update to the site. I'm nearly certain it will happen today. As I've said before, the goal is to make TJR a better platform for the kind of blogging that I'm doing. I'm looking forward to having it up, because then I can focus again on content rather than plumbing. (I'm going through a similar process for the video work that I do, and that project will be ready in a month or so.)

Sweet.

He'll be Secretary of Commerce. If I were flogging a certain meme, I would also note that like Biden and Clinton, Richardson is a former rival.

Now perhaps the true test is whether Obama puts John Edwards in the cabinet. (I kid, I kid!)

BTW, I think this marks the third cabinet level post for Richardson -- UN ambassador, Energy, and now Commerce. Plus he was a Congressman, Governor, and presidential candidate. Not a bad career, eh?

Nate Silver's favorite punching bag makes fun of himself again, telling Alan Colmes that he thinks it's "rational" to believe Barack Obama is a Muslim.

We all know Barack Obama is Christian, but it's important to also say that it wouldn't matter if he were Muslim, or Jewish, or any other religion, because in this country, we don't impose religious tests.

At the same time, it's a smear to maliciously claim someone holds a religious faith other than their own, and to defend believing those smears as "rational" says more about how McCain nearly managed to get 46% of the vote than it does about anything else John Ziegler might choose to whine about.

Notorious smear merchant Senator Saxby Chambliss looks like he'll hold onto his seat in Georgia, giving the GOP a lock on 41 Senate seats. Meanwhile, Al Franken and Norm Coleman are still locked in a tough recount battle.

Try to decode this logic from The Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes:

BORGER: You just can't say no, because that won't go over with the American people.

HAYES: I'm not sure, I think there's a strong part of the country -- more than 50% in a lot of polls -- that are just opposing right now, that are very skeptical of these bailouts, and I think that if you have somebody like a Sarah Palin or another Republican who can articulate that opposition by presenting alternatives...

BORGER: But what are the alternatives? That's the point. You have to have 'em.

HAYES: Well, one would be not, y'know, $7.4 trillion giveaways.

Unless I'm missing something, Hayes is saying:

1. Actually, you can just say no.
2. You should say no by "presenting alternatives."
3. The alternative is to just say no.

When they talk about the intellectual deficit on the right, this is the kind of thing they are taking about. (By the way, Hayes seemed to think passing the bailout was a political plus for McCain during the campaign.)

I make the case over at Daily Kos:

Here's the deal: we won, and they are declaring victory.

In the same breath that they are saying that this is a center-right nation, conservatives like Limbaugh and Reagan are highlighting the appointment of Hillary Clinton as a victory for the right.

In 1998, they were impeaching Bill Clinton. Now they are claiming Hillary as one of their own.

The center has shifted....to the left.

Josh Orton debunks a false rumor about HRC's replacement, and he might just have inadvertantly started a grasroots movement for Jon Stewart for Senate.

Count me in!

President-elect Obama addressed the nation's governors earlier today in Philadelphia:

NBC selects David Gregory to host 'Meet the Press.'

Could they have managed a less inspired pick? I mean, Gregory (who is only 38) is possibly the most boring TV host on the market.

Apparently, Bush is going to be doing a series of exit interviews as he finds his way off the national stage, and he got things off to a pretty wild start with ABC.

Unfortunately, ABC hasn't yet posted the full video, but I'm dying to see this exchange:

GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?

BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.

BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.

That's a pretty remarkable exchange right there. If you follow it out to its logical conclusion -- as Gibson and Bush almost did -- Bush would effectively have to admit that the Iraq war was a mistake.

:::

In other news, I'm still hoping to post the new look TJR today, but I ran into a couple of snafus yesterday, so it might not be ready until tomorrow.

You know how some folks are always trying to make the U.S. out to be a center-right nation?

Well, when picking Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State is seen as a "center-right" decision...doesn't that mean the center has shifted quite a bit towards the left?

Number of references on Mark Halperin's website, thepage.time.com, for each of the following, according to Google:

A friend of mine wrote me this:

i hope napolitano gets rid of these stupid 'threat level orange' announcements
(i'm at the airport)

Here's the first part of today's national security team introduction:

Here's the Q&A portion of today's national security team introduction:

As you may have noticed, I took a few days away from blogging after Turkey Day and spent some time up in Seattle with my family. I had a great time, and hope that you had a good few days as well. But even though I was away, I couldn't keep myself totally away from doing blog-related work. As a result, I've mostly completed a long-planned overhaul of TJR, and hope to post it later today or tomorrow.

As you no doubt know, at 10:40AM Eastern time President-elect Barack Obama will announce his national security team: Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense, Jim Jones as National Security Adviser, and Susan Rice as Ambassador to the UN.

I was more than a little surprised when it became clear that Clinton would be the Secretary of State, but now that it's a done deal, it's easier to see that the proof will be in the pudding. Barack Obama has generally made good staffing decisions, and hopefully this one will be no different.

At this point, my basic view on Clinton is the same as it is with Gates: what really matters is accomplishing the goals Obama set forth as a candidate -- starting with leaving Iraq and rebuilding our relationship with the world. As long as we are making progress towards those ends, I'm happy -- especially given the monumental economic challenges we face.

At the end of the day, Barack Obama is responsible for accomplishments -- and failures -- of his administration, and if he thinks this is the best way to get things done, then I'm cool with that. At the same time, of course, we should all be watching with an eagle eye to make sure things stay on course.

One thing that I will say is that I do believe there has been a bit too much focus on the whole "team of rivals" thing. I know it's a great story line, but I just can't bring myself to believe that Barack Obama has such a sense of vanity that he would select Clinton merely because it fits Doris Kearns Goodwin's narrative of Lincoln.

I also don't believe that Obama is selecting Clinton to 'get her out of the way.' To the extent that she was a political threat to Obama, that time has long passed.

So why did Obama select Clinton? Obviously, I can only guess, but my guess is that he picked her for a very straightforward reason: he believes she's the best person to carry out the job.

And while her management skills are not the greatest, in a turbulent global environment, Hillary Clinton has the  stature to speak with authority anywhere in the world. And now that Bill Clinton has agreed to severe restrictions on his own independent activities,  she comes with an important spouse, to put it mildly. President Clinton has access to some of the most important actors in the global economy, and having him on board could be a tremendous asset.

This is one of those decisions that can't be fully appraised until the results are in. But this much is clear: Barack Obama wouldn't be selecting Hillary Clinton unless she were the woman he wanted to be Secretary of State, and he wouldn't be picking her unless he thought she could advance the interests of the country and the world.

Now that he's made his choice, the tough part is about to begin.