Fantastic Short Film about GOP Greed by Actor Ed Asner

This is a great short film by Ed Asner, reminiscent of the simplistic Schoolhouse Rock vids from the 1970s, explaining the stock market crash of 2008 in terms of the greedy 1% versus the struggling 99%. We need more clear explanations like this to give everyone some perspective - especially folks who vote against their own self-interests time after time. It's obvious to the Democrats that the super-wealthy just need to pay more taxes and honor the social contract, but it will take years to reverse the damage done by the Tea Party and Grover Norquist.

Still - this is an educational and well-done video. Thanks, Mr. Asner ~ Lou Grant would be proud! :)

Happy Place Diversion ~ What if God was One of Us?

The new Pope Francis from Venezuela is considered a "man of the people" who said the other day he wants a "Poor Church to Feed the Poor." And he is trying harder than any Pope within living memory to prove that early in his Papacy.

Pope Francis ditches bullet-proof "pope mobile" for open Jeep and frequent stops to embrace Easter week crowds. @thenation @hardball

— John Nichols (@NicholsUprising) March 24, 2013

Pope Francis will celebrate Holy Thursday mass in a juvenile detention center rather than the Vatican. @thenation @hardball

— John Nichols (@NicholsUprising) March 24, 2013

From USA Today - the Pope on Palm Sunday

The square overflowed with some 250,000 pilgrims, tourists and Romans eager to join the new pope at the start of solemn Holy Week ceremonies, which lead up to Easter, Christianity's most important day.

. . . Francis even climbed down from the vehicle, kissed a woman in the crowd and chatted briefly with her, and another man in the crowd leaned over a barrier to squeeze the pontiff on a shoulder — an unheard of familiarity in the previous pontificate of the reserved Benedict XVI.

. . . Francis said Jesus "awakened so many hopes in the heart, above all among humble, simple, poor, forgotten people, those who don't matter in the eyes of the world."
Francis then told an off-the-cuff story from his childhood in Argentina. "My grandmother used to say, 'children, burial shrouds don't have' pockets'" the pope said, in a variation of "you can't take it with you."

So lately I've been thinking about Joan Osborne's hit "What if God was One of Us?" When the song came out many people thought it was somehow sacrilegious, but I never understood that criticism. She is asking age-old questions about faith and belief that all real Christians consider. She sings about Jesus being a human, which according to scripture he was, which is the whole point of the New Testament and all his sermons. Jesus experienced human life and let his disciples ask him questions. He was a man of the people and went out amongst the sinners. He didn't shun the poor, the unwell, or the prostitutes (which the GOP would call "sluts"). He led by example. He never said a single thing about hating gay people, or black people, or anyone with a different religion. Yes, the Church has unfortunately had leaders who felt that way over the centuries, but that is not the message of Jesus or a reason to hate all Christians.



Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Exactly. Many so-called Christians have forgotten the actual teachings of Christ, just as many denominations that consider themselves Protestant have drifted away from the simplicity of Martin Luther. Some churches have became more and more ostentatious and outrageous as they try to out-do the churches down the street instead of using their tithes to help the indigent and feed poor children. Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the Temple, and I think he would have the same reaction to all the politics in the church today. For instance, the Tea Partiers are so focused on what they think is "right" about abortion and the unborn that they want to sacrifice those who have been born, who are already existing and need our help: the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden.

Many so-called Christians have spent the last ten years preparing for Armageddon, or the Rapture, or the Mayan Apocalypse. And because they consider themselves to be "The Chosen" because of which church they followed, they became so self-absorbed with either death or survival that they just didn't care about anyone else. That is not what the church teaches at all.


They even made fun of it on the Simpsons several times: once in "Bart's Comet", when Ned Flanders builds a Bunker just large enough to save his family and his neighbors, but then the whole town shows up; and in Thank God It's Doomsday in which Homer is scared by the Left Behind movies and believes the Rapture is coming soon, but discovers he isn't much of a Prophet after all. Unfortunately for modern Christianity, Homer-as-Everyman isn't far from reality. And throughout history the church has dealt with "false prophets." An aunt of mine who recently died said people would frighten children with the same stories back in the 1920s, and my Grandmother told me years ago that Haley's Comet caused the same fear at the turn of the century. Human nature just doesn't change very much.

But I still think it's much more sacrilegious to pretend to be a Catholic, Protestant, Jew - whatever - and ask "What would Ayn Rand do?" Or even worse, "What would Grover Norquist do?" Ugh. The GOP cynicism they spout while expecting us to believe they are devoutly religious has nothing to do with God or Jesus. They are NOT "one of us," nor do they care anything about the slobs on the bus. Christianity did not "create" the Congress we have right now, but I'm happy to say the elections last year when the "people" spoke are a good first step in getting the hypocrite Pharisees out of our government.

Obama Speaks After Congress Votes on Fiscal Cliff

At the eleventh hour, with yet another display of "brinksmanship," and almost 24 hours after the U.S. technically went over the Fiscal Cliff which raised taxes on all Americans, the House GOP finally got themselves together, and with a special appeal to the Dems by Joe Biden, Congress passed a compromise that kept tax rates low for 98% of Americans, saved unemployment benefits, and raised taxes permanently on the top 2%.

What did Obama give away? Not much - he let them raise the "middle-class" tax cut-off to $400,000 (or #450,000 for married couples). That will limit revenue for sure, but the top 2% still have to go back to Clinton-Era tax levels of 39.6%, which the Tea Party vowed wouldn't happen. So this is a win for the President and the country, even though many purists on the Left would say "Obama Caved." I disagree - he compromised to get something done and it worked. That's the way it works, folks, whether you like it or not. Stonewalling will never get us anywhere - the Tea Party proves that!

More Glass-Half-Full or Half-Empty quotes:
Snark Amendment: Fiscal Cliff Compromise Makes Both Sides Unhappy

From Talking Points Memo

The final vote was 257-167. The bill passed thanks to an overwhelming display of Democratic support — 172 Dems voted for the bill, while only 16 opposed. By contrast, only 85 Republicans voted in support of the bill, compared to the 151 — including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) — who voted against.

This was not an easily foretold outcome. Though the legislation was the product of White House negotiations with the Senate’s top Republican, and though it passed the upper chamber overwhelmingly in the wee hours of New Year’s Day, House Republicans nearly submarined the bill and sent the country down an uncertain road toward economic contraction.

. . . They wanted cuts to federal spending. And, with a wink from Cantor, they were nearly prepared to sink the bill directly, or return it to the Senate amended and guarantee its demise.
In the end, a self-preservation instinct took over. Leaders suffocated the rebellion, and decided to place the bill on the floor unchanged, at the risk of alienating the majority of rank-and-file Republicans.

Complete Transcript of Obama's Comments:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release January 1, 2013

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

11:20 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Happy New Year, everybody.

AUDIENCE: Happy New Year, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: A central promise of my campaign for President was to change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy at the expense of working middle-class Americans. Tonight we've done that. Thanks to the votes of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, I will sign a law that raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing a middle-class tax hike that could have sent the economy back into recession and obviously had a severe impact on families all across America.

I want to thank all the leaders of the House and Senate. In particular, I want to thank the work that was done by my extraordinary Vice President Joe Biden, as well as Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell. Everybody worked very hard on this and I appreciate it. And, Joe, once again, I want to thank you for your great work.

Under this law, more than 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses will not see their income taxes go up. Millions of families will continue to receive tax credits to help raise their kids and send them to college. Companies will continue to receive tax credits for the research that they do, the investments they make, and the clean energy jobs that they create. And 2 million Americans who are out of work but out there looking, pounding the pavement every day, are going to continue to receive unemployment benefits as long as they're actively looking for a job.

But I think we all recognize this law is just one step in the broader effort to strengthen our economy and broaden opportunity for everybody. The fact is the deficit is still too high, and we're still investing too little in the things that we need for the economy to grow as fast as it should.

And that's why Speaker Boehner and I originally tried to negotiate a larger agreement that would put this country on a path to paying down its debt while also putting Americans back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges, and providing investments in areas like education and job training. Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough support or time for that kind of large agreement in a lame duck session of Congress. And that failure comes with a cost, as the messy nature of the process over the past several weeks has made business more uncertain and consumers less confident.

But we are continuing to chip away at this problem, step by step. Last year I signed into law $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction. Tonight's agreement further reduces the deficit by raising $620 billion in revenue from the wealthiest households in America. And there will be more deficit reduction as Congress decides what to do about the automatic spending cuts that we have now delayed for two months.

I want to make this point: As I've demonstrated throughout the past several weeks, I am very open to compromise. I agree with Democrats and Republicans that the aging population and the rising cost of health care makes Medicare the biggest contributor to our deficit. I believe we've got to find ways to reform that program without hurting seniors who count on it to survive. And I believe that there's further unnecessary spending in government that we can eliminate.

But we can't simply cut our way to prosperity. Cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can't take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren't available to most Americans. And we can't keep cutting things like basic research and new technology and still expect to succeed in a 21st century economy. So we're going to have to continue to move forward in deficit reduction, but we have to do it in a balanced way, making sure that we are growing even as we get a handle on our spending.

Now, one last point I want to make -- while I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they passed. Let me repeat: We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred. If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic -- far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff.

People will remember, back in 2011, the last time this course of action was threatened, our entire recovery was put at risk. Consumer confidence plunged. Business investment plunged. Growth dropped. We can't go down that path again.

And today's agreement enshrines, I think, a principle into law that will remain in place as long as I am President: The deficit needs to be reduced in a way that's balanced. Everyone pays their fair share. Everyone does their part. That's how our economy works best. That's how we grow.

The sum total of all the budget agreements we've reached so far proves that there is a path forward, that it is possible if we focus not on our politics but on what's right for the country. And the one thing that I think, hopefully, in the New Year we'll focus on is seeing if we can put a package like this together with a little bit less drama, a little less brinksmanship, not scare the heck out of folks quite as much.

We can come together as Democrats and Republicans to cut spending and raise revenue in a way that reduces our deficit, protects our middle class, provides ladders into the middle class for everybody who's willing to work hard. We can find a way to afford the investments that we need to grow and compete. We can settle this debate, or at the very least, not allow it to be so all-consuming all the time that it stops us from meeting a host of other challenges that we face -- creating jobs, boosting incomes, fixing our infrastructure, fixing our immigration system, protecting our planet from the harmful effects of climate change, boosting domestic energy production, protecting our kids from the horrors of gun violence.

It's not just possible to do these things; it's an obligation to ourselves and to future generations. And I look forward to working with every single member of Congress to meet this obligation in the New Year.

And I hope that everybody now gets at least a day off, I guess, or a few days off, so that people can refresh themselves, because we're going to have a lot of work to do in 2013.

Thanks, everybody. Happy New Year.

END 11:28 P.M. EST

Bill Moyers on Grover Norquist - It's About the Money

Bill Moyers tells the truth about Grover Norquist. It's not "conservative principles" or some pledge he invented when he was 12 years old. At this point, Norquist wants to save his gravy train with biscuit wheels, aka, his alliance with the Koch Brothers, He's a bought-and-paid-for puppet who harrasses other puppets in the Tea Party.

For. The. Money. That is all.

Bill Moyers writing on Daily Kos

Norquist's efforts: Keep taxes low for his donor base -- billionaires like the Koch brothers and the plutocrats secretly clustered around Norquist's comrade, Karl Rove.

This past election, Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, spent nearly $16 million to support his favored candidates; that's according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Where did that money come from, and what did it buy? Back in the 1990's, it was the tobacco industry backing Norquist's fight against cigarette taxes; now it's pharmaceutical companies, among others. Not long ago, this same Grover Norquist was using his organization to launder money for the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff. How about that for tax reform!

Check it out yourself in the documentary Capitol Crimes on our website BillMoyers.com. You'll see the story of how the man who has the Republican Party under his thumb came to Washington to start a revolution and wound up running a racket. Now he's the proxy for the powerful interest groups that finance him.

So, not only does the Norquist Pledge symbolize a "political system short on legitimacy," as Christopher Caldwell wrote. It isn't even about principle or ideology. Conservatism, my foot. It's all about the money.

The Best Poll Ever - Grover Who?

Public Policy Polling did a poll which reveals some fun information about our country and the Republican Party. In fact, this is my favorite poll of 2012 so far, with a touch of Schadenfreude and a confirmation that the present-day GOP is out of touch with their own party, which in turn is out of step with the rest of America. And let's face it, some Repubs are just nutty as the proverbial Christmas Fruitcake.

For instance half of the Republicans polled - 49% - see the now-defunct and non-existent since 2010 ACORN group as the reason Obama won - "We Was Robbed by ACORN." OMG. AND they believe Secession is the answer to . . . well, everything. Secede to what, and to where, they seem to have no clue. That's what happens to a party who insists that the Civil War was no big deal, or that we should go back to those wonderful days of slavery, when women couldn't vote, and white men were in charge - oh, and they made a huge mess of things, but women and FREED slaves were there to help them rebuild society.

PPP: Republicans Not Handling Election Results Well

49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore.

Some GOP voters are so unhappy with the outcome that they no longer care to be a part of the United States. 25% of Republicans say they would like their state to secede from the union compared to 56% who want to stay and 19% who aren't sure.

More on ACORN dementia here:
Snark Amendment: GOP Nutters Can't Let Go of Imaginary ACORN

More on Secessionists Here:
Snark Lane: The Sound and the Fury of Secessionist Idiots Signifying Nothing
Snark Amendment: Secession Wars!
To Secede, or Merely "Succeed," that is the Question for Red States

But my favorite part is this gem about Grover Norquist, who seems to have so much power in Washington. In the rest of the country, not so much. Grover Who? Bahahahaha!

-Grover Norquist is largely unknown nationally, and among voters who are familiar with him he is generally disliked. Only 15% have a favorable opinion of him to 37% with a negative one, with 48% not holding an opinion one way or the other. Even among Republicans just 18% see him positively, while 23% have an unfavorable view. Only 23% of voters think it's important for politicians to follow Norquist's tax pledge to 39% who think it's not important and 38% who don't have an opinion.

So Grover is either viewed unfavorably, or indifferently - 38% don't even have an opinion!!!!!!!!!!  The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. So stick that "Pledge" where the sun never shines, Grover baby. You may be the boogey-man or a demigogue or a demon to certain spineless politicians who have signed over their souls to you, but the rank and file in the heartland basically don't give diddly squat!

In fact, Poppy Bush, ex-President and Republican elder-statesman, had his finger more on the pulse of America when he said last year: "Who the Hell is Grover Norquist?"

Snark in Pictures

Nancy Pelosi Will Use "Discharge Petition" to Force Up or Down Vote on Middle Class Taxes

Nancy Pelosi isn't just going to wait for the White Men in the House to save the Middle Class Tax Cuts. In a clip on The Ed Show, Pelosi says if there is no Deal by Tuesday, she will introduce a "discharge petition" forcing a simple up or down vote on the issue and bypassing the Republican leadership.

I love this plan so much! Tea Party folks will be forced to go on the record either For or Against the Middle Class Tax Cuts. They have to decide whether to save the Middle Class or to bow to big business and Grover Norquist.

The Discharge Petition has been used successfully before, according to MSNBC:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Going Down the "Fiscal Slope" in January

What is the Fiscal Cliff?  Or is it more of a Gentle Slope?

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The term refers to the tax cuts that would expire and the automatic spending cuts that would take effect if Congress fails to act by year's end.

Why the deadline? Congress created it to compel action if a so-called supercommittee failed to find common ground on deficit reduction. It failed.

Tax increases: Expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, along with a scheduled increase in the payroll tax, would raise taxes on all Americans by several percentage points.

Spending cuts: Federal spending would be trimmed by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. The few exempted areas include Social Security, Medicaid, military pay and veterans benefits.

Unemployment: About 2 million Americans will lose jobless benefits if the extended safety net program expires on Dec. 29.

Source: The Economist

What has Obama offered the Republicans so far? 
He sent Tim Geitner to Capitol Hill with this plan:

From Huff Post

Geithner's offer would delay the sequester -- automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon and social programs -- for a year, and effectively eliminates the congressional requirement to lift the debt ceiling in perpetuity. The offer included an extension of unemployment insurance, the payroll tax and even money to help homeowners modify mortgages and invest in infrastructure. "I think there was a leprechaun in there somewhere, too," quipped one GOP aide.
The proposal is based on a two-step plan that would decouple the high-end tax and capital gains rates from the middle-class rates, extending only those for the middle class. It would revert estate taxes to their higher 2009 level, and raise an additional $600 billion in taxes elsewhere, according to the GOP summary. It then proposes tax reform required to raise at least as much as the tax hikes, and entitlement reform that would trim $400 billion from the programs.

Are Republicans really going to reject all offers to deal with Obama?
Will they remain loyal to the Tea Party and Grover Norquist?
Most sources behind the scenes say the smart people among them know taxes have to go up and they have to deal. Speaker Boehner seems to be holding to the Tea Party talking points, but interestingly his back-up team are getting the word out, so we can assume he is probably posturing for the camera.

Oklahoma Senator Tom Cole on NPR's All Things Considered:

SIEGEL: . . . a surprise from one of the top Republicans in the House. He broke ranks with his GOP colleagues. While they are holding out for an extension of all Bush-era tax cuts, Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole told members of the leadership team yesterday that they should hurry up and extend tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent of taxpayers.

BLOCK: As for the top 2 percent, Cole argues, Congress can worry about them later. NPR's David Welna caught up with Cole today and has this report.

DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole just got re-elected to a sixth term in the House. He serves there as the GOP majority's deputy whip, and he's a close friend of Speaker John Boehner, which is why a lot of his colleagues were surprised when Politico first reported that Cole urged his colleagues in a closed-door meeting to approve an extension this year of all the expiring tax cuts except those that affect only the top 2 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS JEFFERY COLE: We have an opportunity to make sure that the tax rates for 98 percent of the American people don't go up. I think we should do that sooner rather than later.

WELNA: That's Cole this afternoon.

COLE: I'm not trying to persuade anybody. I was asked: In my opinion, what's the best position for us to take? You know, what's in the best interest of the American people? What's in the best interest politically? I think that position that I outlined - that is, making sure that 98 percent of the American people have tax security, so to speak, and then continuing to fight on the other issues, and it doesn't mean giving in to rate increases. I don't believe in that. That's the right thing to do.

Senator John Thune (R-SD) on Fox News via ThinkProgress

MARTHA MAcCALLUM (HOST): What I’m asking you is are Republicans willing to hold the line, to say to the President, I am sorry, we will never agree to a deal that involves an increase in taxes? Are they?

THUNE: I think any deal that passes up here that raises taxes and raises taxes as I mentioned earlier on small businesses, Martha, is not going to enjoy Republican support. Now, there may be enough Republicans who would vote for something like that to pass it in the House of Representatives, they need to get to 218 votes.

MAcCALLUM: Then it would be done, right?

THUNE: We’ll see about that. We don’t know what that. We don’t know what the contours of a final deal might look at this point. Everybody right now is sort of in their corners and doing the posturing.

What happens if Congress does nothing? 
This article has a good explanation of what would probably happen:

Guardian UK

. . . all this discussion about a fiscal cliff is a bit of a misnomer – a cliff suggests a precipitous fall to a likely demise. But in reality, this cliff is more of a slope, or a slow but steady decline, down the road of fiscal austerity. Yes, tax and spending policies will shift after 1 January: taxes will go up and spending cuts mandated by law will begin to go in effect. But these are changes that will unfold over many months, and even years. Indeed, the immediate impact of the "fiscal cliff" will be relatively minor. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted recently:

"A relatively brief implementation of the tax and spending changes required by current law should cause little short-term damage to the economy as a whole."

This isn't to say that markets won't have a collective freakout or that confidence in Congress to actually do its job will decline further, but those are manageable issues, particularly because, once Washington goes over the cliff, it becomes much easier to quickly reach a deal between Republicans and Democrats.

. . . Let the tax cuts expire on 1 January, with taxes going up on every American. Then, Congress can quickly pass a massive tax cut for those making less than $250,000, retroactive to 1 January. Neither side will want to wait long and force Americans to pay higher taxes, but especially Republicans won't – as they will likely be blamed if no deal is swiftly reached. To do so would mean that all sides are politically satisfied: President Obama can say he stuck to his word about raising taxes on rich Americans, and taxes will have gone up without Republicans having to cast a vote; and both parties can reap the political benefit and claim credit for having cut taxes for the middle class.

Grover Norquist: Delusions of Oz

source: buzzfeed
The curtain is finally being pulled back on the little man named Grover Norquist. For years he has terrorized the Cowardly Lions and Tin Men of the Republican Right, warning that if they don't play his game his way and sign his absolutist "No Tax" pledge, the Tea Party money will dry up and they will not get re-elected.

But things are changing.

Jena McGregor on Washing Post writes:

Yet the leader who has the most to lose by the cracks in the Norquist pledge is not any representative who stands up against it and risks offending some voters, but the man who started it in the first place. Norquist’s power base, after all, has always been shaky. All it will take is a few powerful Republicans to actually break the pledge, and the wall will come tumbling down. The pledge’s strength—and Norquist’s power—lies in its universal acceptance among powerful Republicans. If that falls, so does Norquist.

Yes, once the Great and Powerful Oz is shown to be just a little man who doesn't do anything except yell "Boo!" unfortunately can't get anyone to drink his Emerald City Kool-Aid anymore.

Grover is in denial, like the rest of his tribe in the GOP, but he needs to realize that every day new Republicans are going to defect and mutiny from the Pledge not to Raise Taxes that Norquist strong-armed them into signing.

Today my Senator, Bob Corker R-TN, said he wasn't going to honor his tax pledge to Grover Norquist. Of course, I did NOT vote for Corker  - or even his Democratic opponent who was a Tea Partier in disguise - I voted for the Green candidate - but I do feel a sense of pride that a Tennessean is getting out of Grover's clutches ahead of the crowd. And I've said it before, but Corker is not as far-right-right as he pretends to be. He's just a business guy who was Mayor of Chattanooga, and actually had a pretty good reputation for working on all sorts of group projects here. He's a consensus guy, not a stonewaller, and even Norquist knows that (see interview below in which he calls Corker a "moderate"). But no Republican gets elected in TN without adhering to the Party Line, and in the past that has meant signing on with scum like Norquist. But everything is changing fast:

“I’m not obligated on the pledge,” Corker told CBS’s Charlie Rose on Monday morning. “I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I serve, when I’m sworn in this January.”

Good to know that, Bob. It would have been more courageous never to sign it in the first place, but I'm glad the scales have fallen from your eyes, or at least that Lindsey Graham has given you permission to follow him in standing up to Norquist in order to possibly save your party.

But Grover isn't going to go down that easily. In fact, he is calling out anyone who opposes him, including Bob Corker, making veiled threats towards some type of retaliation towards anyone who defies him, accusing them of "impure thoughts" as if he has delusions of god-hood as an omniscient deity. But hey - we always knew he felt that way.

He also says over and over that none of these guys opposing him would have been elected in their states without signing his pledge. Oh really? Some of these Republicans were basically running unopposed thanks to weak candidates from the Dems - TN for instance -  and Democrats and Independents also voted for them in most states. That Pledge doesn't matter to those people who aren't very political and just see Corker as the first name on the ballot.

Grover believes he is a kingmaker - and the Great and Powerful Oz - but it was never true. He just had the ability to spin the illusion of power in the form of money. But like the Koch fortune that was supposed to win the Presidency for Mitt Romney, it is turning out to be fool's gold.

You can see his attitude in the following interview from Fox News today (my transcript)

Neil Cavuto: Fairly or not, Grover, you've been seen as this "Wizard of Oz" character who has been able to keep Republicans in lock-step with your thinking, and with more bolting, especially with prominent members bolting, it says something about what is in peril for you.
. . . I don't want to liken you to Tony Soprano, but are you saying you're going to remember these guys who are turning on you?

Grover Norquist: Okay, nobody's turning on me. I understand why Harry Reid is trying to personalize it as "Grover" but what Harry Reid doesn't want to say is that the American People don't want their taxes raised. They've elected a Republican Congress opposed to raising taxes, and I, Harry Reid, am at odds with the American people.

Neil Cavuto: They are going to raise taxes, Grover. They are - they're looking like they are. So -- is that a repudiation of you? Or recognition of the election? Or what?

Grover Norquist: Okay, first of all, the promise on the pledge is to the American People. What I have accomplished with Americans for Tax Reform is to make it easy through the pledge for elected officials, candidates and incumbents, to credibly commit that they won't raise taxes.
Corker was elected to the Senate because he took the pledge. People had thought he was too moderate, maybe he wouldn't make it, but he made that written commitment to the people of Tennessee. He would not be a Senator today if he hadn't made that commitment. If he breaks it, he's going to have to have a conversation with the people from Tennessee about his . . . keeping his word. And the same thing about other people who were elected because they made that written commitment to the people of their state.

Neil Cavuto: That sounds like a threat.

Norquist: No -- look, I vote in Washington D.C. The people that Corker promised or (Saxby) Chambliss (R-GA) promised or (Lindsey) Graham (R-SC) promised are in their state. They haven't promised me anything. They promised the voters of their state that they would go to Washington and reform government, not raise taxes to pay for Obama's bigger government. They need to focus on reforming government, not raising taxes to pay for bigger government each year. And it's a lot of work - it's not easy! But throwing up your hands and saying 'Maybe I'll raise taxes' instead of governing is not the way to go.


By tonight, Grover was getting more rattled and had a hissy fit on Piers Morgan, attacking Peter King R-NY, and comparing breaking the Tax Pledge to breaking a Marriage Vow???  Hey, Stupid - your pledge isn't legally or spiritually binding. Get over yourself!!!!!!!!!

Story via Mediaite

During a rather tense interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan this evening, conservative activist Grover Norquist blasted the various prominent Republican lawmakers who have expressed a willingness to break his long-standing anti-tax pledge in the name of achieving a compromise to avoid the “fiscal cliff.” In particular, Norquist took a shot at Rep. Peter King (R-NY), accusing the congressman of trying to “weasel” out of a career-long commitment to the pledge.

. . . Norquist fired back with a pointed stab at King: “The pledge is not for life … [but] Peter King, who tried to weasel out of it, shame on him as the New York Sun said today. I hope his wife understands that commitments last a little longer than two years or something.”

“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” Morgan shouted. “Hang on. That was a bit below the belt, Grover.”

“The commitment for the pledge, as Peter King well knows when he signed, is that as long as you’re in Congress you will rein in spending and reform government not raise taxes,” Norquist responded. “It’s only as long as you’re in the House or Senate. If he stayed too long, that’s his problem. But you don’t tell the bank, ‘Oh, the mortgage. Wasn’t that a long time ago?’”

He concluded: “If you make a commitment, you keep it.”

Obama Calms Progressive Fears on Tax Promise

Good work, Mr. President. Stand your ground with Boehner and the rest! You have a mandate from all of us and we want the wealthy to pay their share of taxes. It's a whole new world and they will have to deal.

Huffington Post

President Barack Obama will enter high-stakes budget negotiations firmly committed to seeing the tax rates for high-income earners rise to pre-George W. Bush levels, he assured a gathering of progressive and labor leaders on Tuesday.

"I am not going to budge," he told the group, according to an attendee who relayed material from the meeting on condition of anonymity. "I said in 2010 that I'm going to do this once, and I meant it."

. . . Several sources at the meeting said the president was, as one noted, "more nuanced than going off the cliff." Obama hopes to place "maximum pressure on House Republicans so at the end of the day he may be able to budge them," the source added.

"It seemed like he meant it," the first source said. "That suggests that they are ready to go over the ledge."

Following the meeting, a handful of attendees spoke briefly to the press, praising Obama for vowing to firmly oppose an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

"It was a very, very positive meeting," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. "We're very committed to making sure that the middle class and workers don't end up paying the tab for a party that we didn't get to go to, and the president is committed to that as well."

"The president was really standing firm on taxes," said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress. "Everyone in the room talked about how much they have the president's back in this fight."

Grover Norquist is Relevant, Why? And Romney is a Poopyhead

via gifsfln
Grover Norquist was on CBS this morning. In case you don't know who is - and there's not really any reason why you would - he's the guy who strikes fear into the right-wing members of Congress because he makes them sign a pledge to never raise taxes. In the past, if members didn't sign the Norquist Pledge, they might face the ire of angry Tea Party members back home who apparently are as controlled by Grover as the politicians themselves.

It's sick, really. This guy holds no elected office, and is basically a glorified lobbyist. Yet our tax and spend policies have been molded by his tax pledge.

CBS had him on this morning to ask him about whether Boehner should deal with Obama over taxes and the Fiscal Cliff, blah blah, and then Norah O'Donnell asked him about the election, and that brought out Grover's arrested development side - you can't make this up.

Norah O'Donnell: Why didn't people vote Obama out of office?

Norquist: You saw those ads in Ohio saying Romney gave people cancer, for months and months unanswered. You can trash an individual and get them to vote against him. Again - we had an election, there are 30 Republican governors, okay? And they're running campaigns against raising taxes, and in favor of frankly phasing out the income tax in North Carolina, in Kansas, and Oklahoma. Take a look at the states.

O'Donnell: Those are state issues. I mean, Speaker Boehner said clearly--

Norquist: Yeah, the issues are clear.

O'Donnell: Boehner - 'We're willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions.' Would you accept new revenue, and would members who have signed your no-tax pledge be allowed to accept new revenue?

Norquist: Well, of course, the pledge is to the American People, not to me. So they don't need my permission to vote a certain way. They made a commitment to the people in their states. . . .

. . .

Charlie Rose: Seems like to me you're not changing your attitude one bit.

Norquist: Well, we just had an election. And the House of Representatives was elected committed to keeping taxes low. The President was elected on the basis that he was not Romney and that Romney was a poopy-head and you should vote against Romney. And he won by two points, but he didn’t make the case for higher taxes and higher spending. He kind of sounded like the opposite.

O'Donnell: Well, I'm not sure that's what the President called Mitt Romney, Grover.

MSNBC''s Matthews: "This Romney Character" Sings the Song of the Neocon Overlords

Incredibly strong speech by Chris Matthews today - best I've ever heard. He's talking about Romney's nonsensical babbling about vowing to start a war with Iran but having no answers on immigration or taxation. As we know, Romney is just the mouthpiece of the right, a tool, a puppet, or what Matthews calls a "speaker system."

Transcript Via Hungry Coyote.

Let me finish with this Romney character. I don't think Romney cares all that much about the presidency, except that he wants it. If he weren't running, do you think he'd be watching this show or any other show on politics? Mitt cares about three things: his faith, his family, his business. Right now his business is running for president. That's why he's interested in the presidency. It's his business to be interested.

Listen to him answer questions. If the interviewer doesn't ask the most obvious thing, something that Mitt's briefers have been over and over with him, he seems stunned. He doesn't have an answer. Why? Because he never thought of that one.

Fact is, he hasn't thought about many things outside his zone of interest, which again, includes his faith, his family, his business. And this is the most dangerous thing about this guy. Since he doesn't have a foreign policy, he buys the foreign policies of the powers that be. So he sings this song of his neo-con so-called advisers. What they really are, of course, are people who advocate a point of view: The need for a new war with each new Republican president. And they need someone in the White House to push it for them. They need a president who speaks their language, so they write his speeches. They want war with Iran, they just put that in the next speech.

This, as I said, is the dangerous part. We've had experience with a president who came to office with an empty head on foreign policy and bought the entire neo-con pitch, hook, line and sinker. The result was: the one war in this country's history that truly deserves a Dunce Cap.

Mitt won't say a word about taxes that Grover Norquist might disapprove. He won't approve any deal to cut spending that Grover won't say okay to. That doesn't make Mitt a leader, it makes him Grover's Rover. Grover says fetch; Mitt fetches. Grover says beg; Mitt begs. Same with the religious right. Mitt won't say a word that the Pat Robertson/Franklin Graham crowd hasn't approved for his political prayer book. There he was down at Liberty University getting an honorary degree. Now, I didn't know they gave honorary degrees for pandering.

The scariest thing about Mitt Romney is that he really is open for bids. He's sold his soul to every right-wing faction that's out there: the neo-cons on foreign policy, the religious right on social policy, Grover on the tax issue. Why have a brain if you don't have to think? With this crowd around, his only job is to do exactly what he's told. He's done just that. Listen closely. Tell me if you've ever, ever heard Mitt Romney say something that's not pluperfect right-wing talking points. The exact words that pressure groups are telling him to say. This guy isn't a candidate. He's a speaker system.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy