Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Right Wing Media Silent on Pennsylvania Republican Admitting Voter ID Is a Plot To Prevent Democrats From Winning Elections

One of the biggest pieces of news that went under reported in the past few days was when Pennsylvania's Republican Majority Leader, Mike Turzai accidentally gave the game away on the whole issue of voter ID laws:

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.
“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

I thought this was fairly cut and dry, but was curious to see the Righties attempt to do damage control. So I checked to see what some of the big right wing news outlets had to say on the topic. It turns out: not much.


Hot Air:

Gateway Pundit:

Fox News:

Free Republic:

National Review:

Washington Times:

CNS News:

American Spectator:

Right Wing News:


World Net Daily:

As you can see, most of these outlets simply didn't bother to mention the incident at all. And the few sites that did (Fox News, Newsbusters and CNS) only mentioned it in passing.

Guess they thought it's probably best not to attract any additional attention. I wonder why.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Bootstrapping: Tea Bagger Style

I have a ton of useless hobbies that I waste countless hours on, but sports isn't one of them (not meant to be an insult, it's just simply not my cup of tea). However, as I've mentioned recently, I am interested in video games, as well as politics, and here we have a situation where all three subjects intersect (sorta):

In his first interview since Kingdoms of Amalur developer 38 Studios' abrupt failure last month, famed Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling says he lost "just north of $50 million" of his own money trying to keep the studio he founded solvent, alongside hefty loan guarantees and investment from the Rhode Island government.
"I'm tapped out," Schilling told sports radio station WEEI. "I put everything in my name in this company. I believed in it. I believed in what we had built. I never took a penny from this company. I never took a penny in salary, I never took a penny for anything."

A recent bankruptcy filing showed that 38 Studios has only $22 million in assets against more than $150 million owed to over 1,000 various creditors, the largest of which is the Rhode Island Economic Development Corp. that guaranteed $75 million in loans to the company. Schilling is also personally on the hook for $2.4 million loan from Citizens Bank parent RBS Citizens. "The money I saved and earned playing baseball was probably all gone," he said. "Life is going to be different."

Let me just quickly bring everybody who hasn't been following this story up to speed. Curt Schilling is an avid video game enthusiast, and decided to create his own game development studio, called 38 Studios. Schilling's original base of operations was in Massachusetts, where he tried to get the state to help keep the studio afloat. Massachusetts told him to piss off, which presumably made Schilling sad.

However, fortune smiled upon him when in 2010, then Rhode Island Republican governor, Donald Carcieri said that his state would offer him a $75 million loan guarantee to fund his studio if he relocated to Rhode Island. Fast forward to the this year, and the we find out that the current Governor, Lincoln Chafee wasn't as starstruck with Schilling, and when signs were appearing that the company was being mismanaged, Chafee decided he wasn't gonna continue propping up the studio.

Schilling tried to save the company by seeking the help of venture capitalists, but didn't have much luck. Eventually, he was forced to lay off essentially his entire work force.

This is definitely a tragic story, many good people have lost their jobs, and Schilling lost a good chunk of his own finances. But regarding Schilling himself, I'm definitely not going to shed too many tears. Why? Because apparently, it turns out Mr. Schilling is an obnoxious and outspoken conservative, of the Tea Bagger variety. This is what he said the day before Obamacare was signed into law:

It really is not that complicated, I just don’t understand HOW people don’t grasp the concept of “Free Market”, and why left alone, it WORKS!

He also said at one point in the past (an in all likeliness, several times more):

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
Ho ho! You don't say, Curt! So here we have a guy who clearly prides himself on being some rugged, constitution lovin', self made man, who, at the first sign of difficulty decided to sell out his principles and beg the evil gubment to swoop in and save him via the tyrannical hand of socialism (hey, there's only so much bootstrapping even a patriot can do). Welcome to the club, comrade.

Well, you're probably thinking to yourself, at least he's learned a valuable lesson about hypocrisy, right? Not to be partisan or anything...but if he managed to do that, he wouldn't be a Republican. See, the only thing worse than a hypocrite, is an oblivious hypocrite:

Schilling also defending himself against charges of hypocrisy from some commentators who say Schilling's outspoken criticism of government handouts and programs goes against his acceptance of hefty state funding to support his game studio. "I’m not sure where my stance and opinion in that we need a smaller government—I’m not sure how that correlates to this," he said. "The program was there for local businesses to use. ... That money was literally coming out of the budget into our company, going right back into the local economy."

1. You asked for a handout from the government, which theoretically goes against the idea of  "small government". Though I suppose it's okay to get handouts from the government if you happen to be rich.

2. You can make that same fricken argument (the money was going back into the local economy) about ANY welfare program!

It was obviously way too much to expect a Teapublican like Schilling to acknowledge that he's an unprincipled, opportunistic douche. It's an absolute farce that right wingers like Schilling are too proud to suck on the gubment teat. If anything, the ones who preach that bullshit usually tend to be the most egregious offenders ("Get your government hands off my medicare" comes to mind). All the while sneering in contempt to anyone else not like them who does the same.

And wouldn't you know it, when the government decided to let Schilling free market his way out of this mess, he predictably whined that it wasn't oppressive enough, what with its refusal to bail him out. One blogger from Fortune magazine said it best:

When Schilling absurdly insisted that he wasn't looking for taxpayer handouts, he shouldn't have been surprised when those hands turned into fists.

Also, I bet $75 million (tax payer funded, of course), that Schilling will go on right wing media and somehow blame his failures on Obama and the Democrats. It's really inevitable.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Republican Congressman: Cutting Taxes Doesn't Increase Deficit Spending

On MSNBC's, The Daily Rundown, guest host Luke Russert invited Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) to discuss his thoughts on an upcoming vote for the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Thought this was a noteworthy exchange:

For those of you that can't watch clips at home, here's a partial transcript:


Chaffetz: Remember, we deficit spend as a nation spend, deficit spend [sic], $4 billion a day! You can't continue to do that. You can't. A market needs stability as Kevin McCarthy, earlier on your program was talking about, you need predictability in the market place in order to get the capital markets to move and make investments.

Russert: But the tax cuts add to the deficit, which incurs that deficit spending.

Chaffetz: No, no, no. In isolation I think that's wrong. We have a spending problem in this country, we really do.

No, we don't have a spending problem, congressman. We really don't.

I'm not exactly sure what Chaffetz means when he says "in isolation", but he's pretty much wrong with his assessment. This has been part of the Republicans' crafty little strategy on screwing over democrats, their constituencies, and government programs for decades ("Starve the beast" as it were). They ask for tax cuts, which most of the time diminish the revenue streams, which in turn cause deficits to go up, which they then point to, so that they can make the argument that spending caused those deficits to go up (because hey, spending was higher than revenues, so isn't it obvious?), thus we have to kill the EPA.

It's especially egregious when they try and pull this same shit with Obama's stimulus. The same stimulus that was 1/3 made up of tax cuts, which the Republicans are only too happy to include when calculating the higher deficits, which they then use to blame 100% on spending. It's quite the racket they have running.

Now, in fairness, if you continue watching the same clip, it seems like Chaffetz is trying to argue that tax cuts don't add to the deficit as long as you cut spending too. Which is true, but it also needs to be pointed out that if you have tax cuts, then the spending cuts you have to enact would have to be even GREATER than they would be without the tax cuts.

And one final thing. The idea that we have a "spending" problem and not a revenue problem at the moment is absurdly idiotic on its face when you take a few seconds to think about the logic required to have such a rationale. It implies that revenues are fine right where they are, which is absolutely stupid, because it implies that the tens of millions of people who are either unemployed or underemployed (which the Republicans like to constantly remind everyone) are not putting a drag on revenues. If all these people were working, and thus paying federal income state, local taxes, would we seriously not have MORE revenues? It's infuriating to see hardly anyone call these guys out when they try and make such an argument.

Admittedly, I'm not the biggest fan of Luke Russert, but kudos to him for pointing this simplistic and otherwise inconvenient fact

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Republican Strategist: "Romney ran a business and a large state, but Obama's only run one measly country"

Today, MSNBC host Chris Jansing had Republican strategist, Brad Todd to discuss Romney's recent six swing state road trip. When describing Mitt Romney's accomplishments, he said something I thought was kinda funny  (Starts at 2:56) :


Mitt Romney is a successful CEO, who has run a large state, he's turned around the Olympics, he's turned around businesses in his corporation, and Barack Obama has only run the United States of America. That's it.

Well, that settles that, I suppose.

I don't know if Mr. Todd misspoke or if he thought what he said about Romney sounded more impressive than it actually was. Maybe he was thinking that quantity was more important than quality. Hence Romney ran two different things, a business and a state. Whereas Obama ran only one measly country. Granted that's still a phenomenally stupid argument, since last I checked, the United States, consists of quite a few different states.

And not to beat up on poor Mr. Todd too much, but that whole turning around the Olympics thing doesn't sound nearly as impressive when you come to find out that Romney did that by engaging in soshulism by begging money from the feds.

Monday, June 18, 2012

I Guess I Shouldn't Be Surprised That Robin Leach is a Tea Bagger

This is somewhat of an old  story, but I just happened to come across it. A couple months ago, Neil Cavuto had a very "special" guest on his show, the former host of The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, Robin Leach. I haven't seen the entire segment, but from where the clip below begins, Cavuto was talking about how some states were trying to attract businesses by giving tax breaks to those that invest in those states (I'm guessing as a response to the impending tax hikes Obama is no doubt planning to enact via the expiration of the Bush tax cuts). Cavuto gives the floor to Leach to provide his thoughts, which lead to a paranoid tirade about Obama:

There's lots of goodies in these four minutes. Leach says he's no fan of the whole idea of raising taxes on the rich, which he says, it's "deadly dangerous", which he emphasizes that he doesn't "use those two words lightly" (good to know!). He says that Obama's solution to diminish income inequality is to "punish the rich' and make them "as middle income and as poor as those who aren't rich."

Cavuto, playing devil's advocate, reminded Leach that the top tax rate for the rich was 90%, to which he responded that the top tax rate was at one point 99% in Britain. Now, I'm not well versed in Britain's tax rate history, but even if I was, I'm pretty sure I still wouldn't understand what the hell his point was. The top tax rate under Obama is 35%, and the absolute biggest tax hike he's EVER talked about was to let that rate skyrocket to 39.6% (which is what they were under Clinton). And even THEN he couldn't accomplish that, since he wound up extended the rates for another two years! If Obama's a socialist, he's an amazingly incompetent/shitty one.

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised that someone who's spent a good chunk of his life observing how many gold plated toilets various ultra wealthy people had, would be a little more than hostile to someone who would dare to "steal" their hard earned money.

Incidentally, there's one other thing I'd like to comment on. It's the fact that Neil Cavuto actually acknowledged that at one point the rich in this country did have a 90% top tax rate. Cavuto, I'm sure, has probably known this was the case for a long time, and yet, just like Leach, he is among the same people who simultaneously try to peddle this false narrative that Obama's the one that's ever had the highest tax rates in the history of civilization. I mean, it's one thing to lie when you don't know the facts. But when one lies DESPITE knowing the facts, that's a different matter entirely.

I have a lot of problems with the Democrats, but at least I can safely say the vast majority don't pull egregious shit like Cavuto and his crew at Fox do.

Friday, June 15, 2012

Asked FIVE times, Former RNC Chair, Michael Steele Refuses to Answer Question About How Romney's Policies Differ from George W. Bush's

I know a lot of far left loons (to use a term coined by the great Bill O'Reilly) who, despite being far left loons, happen to dislike MSNBC's Chris Matthews. I however, am actually a pretty big fan of the guy, and the clip below displays one of the reasons why (fun starts at 3:26):

Matthews asks a pretty straightforward question to former RNC Chair, Michael Steele: How are Mitt Romney's economic policies any different from George W. Bush's? Steele, understandably, refused to answer on five separate occasions, saying that the comparisons to Bush weren't "relevant". Amusingly, when Matthews pressed further, Steele insisted that Romney was a "fresh start", while still refusing to explain why.

The fact that the former Chairman was comically uneasy about the question shows that this argument is a potent weapon against Republicans. While the average voter lived through the Bush years, they may have no idea exactly what policies he enacted. Therefore Romney presenting these very same ideas (lower taxes on the rich, less regulation, etc.) may seem appealing at first. But if you make sure to emphasize the connection between those policies AND Bush, the same voter may then have second thoughts. Obama's team needs to realize this and hammer this shit home, every minute of every day, from now til November.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Another Moron Republican Lawmaker Has No Idea What's Actually In Obamacare

Politico did a piece today about certain major health insurance providers planning on keeping specific portions of Obamacare intact, whether the Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional or not. There was one part of the feature that really caught my attention:

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) offered a similar view. “There is plenty of room for solutions in the private market, and a primary objection to the ACA remains the heavy-handed, bureaucratic approach, which necessarily compels millions of employers and beneficiaries to leave private insurance in favor of a public option,’” she said in an email.
It's been more than two years since the President's signature piece of legislation's been passed. I would think that would be more than enough time for some of these clowns to familiarize themselves with what's actually in it.

Sadly, there is no public option anywhere in the bill. Believe me, I, and most of us on the left would have been ecstatic if there was anything like that in the final bill. But that was taken off the table long before reaching Obama's desk. 

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Sexism and Misogyny in the Video Game Industry

I spend a lot of my waking hours following and discussing politics. In recent years, it's taken up more and more of my time. Prior to taking up an interest in politics, the last hobby that I spent a great deal of time focusing on was video games. Granted, I still enjoy them, but bashing my head against the wall over some terribly designed level in the latest Sonic game, has taken a backseat to bashing my head against the wall over everything Sean Hannity has ever opined about.

However, this was one of those rare instances in a long time where I was able to momentarily ignore whatever moronic bile being spewed by a congressman/cable news pundit/presidential nominee/etc. in order to focus on the most important period in the year when it comes to video games: E3.

For those of you who actually have lives, E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo) is the biggest video game convention in the world. It's runs over a span of 3 days (4 if you count the press conferences by the big 3 hardware manufacturers, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo), and it's an event where usually the biggest, and most hyped games become unveiled for the first time. But while E3 is generally supposed to be about video games, one particular aspect of E3 has been garnering more and more attention over the past few years: booth babes.

Every year around this time, there's a lot of discussion on many gaming websites and message boards about the subject. I've noticed that these conversations generally lead to a much bigger discussion on the subject of women in general, when it comes to the game industry. It occurred to me that the past several months of this year were generally more misogynistic than usual. Rush Limbaugh insulted a Georgetown Law student by calling her a "slut" and 69 other slurs, for having the audacity to use things like birth control pills. Political columnist, and cable news contributor, S.E. Cupp was photoshopped with a penis in her mouth by Hustler magazine after she said some things the magazine disagreed with. And some Republican congressional leader thought it would be a great idea to have a panel of witnesses on the subject of contraception, who all happened to be male. 

It was then that I decided that I should continue in the spirit of the subject of misogyny and explore that in the world of video games. So I wound up interviewing several women at E3, who consisted of both gamers, and developers. It was actually very interesting.

Over the years, one of the many criticisms I've heard about the industry is things like super scantily clad characters like Ivy from the Soul Calibur series and booth babes diminish the legitimacy of video games. So I started off by asking some developers their opinions on such things, and I have to say, I was actually a bit surprised at some of the responses.

One anonymous developer who works on indie games said "I don't think any of those things are unique to video games. I just look at such things and acknowledge that I'm not their target audience.". Another anonymous developer, who worked at a major third party developer, which finished working on a game last year that involved a few buxom characters had a similar take: "It's annoying whenever one of the producers or designers decides to add adolescent wank in games, but while I don't like it, I get why they do it." I asked her what it's like to be a woman on such projects. "Everyone on the development team is cool with me, but I just don't make an effort to comment on such things, since they'll most likely get ignored. But when you sign on to such projects, you can't really complain."

I asked the same question to some who didn't work in the industry, but were simply fans of it.

"I roll my eyes a lot when I see someone like Rachel from Ninja Gaiden, but boys like that sort of thing, so whatever." says a young lady named Brenda (25).  "I'm generally more offended when a game's really shitty and they have some big boobed bimbo to compensate for it."

Another young lady by the name of Claudia (23) says: "The games that I like, puzzle games, platformers and such don't really have that sort of thing, so I don't really think about things like that too much." When I asked her if she, as a girl gamer, is offended by those things, she replied, with a little unease: "Well, I'd prefer if they had more clothes on, but I wouldn't stop anyone from developing games with those type of characters."

One thing that was quite common within the past few days was that I kept getting e-mails from female developers that I interviewed making sure to not mention their names, or who they worked for. I found that a bit amusing. Not because they didn't have legitimate concern, obviously nobody wants to have their careers jeopardized, but rather, I was amused at the fact that these developers thought they said something that would qualify as something that would get them in trouble. Indeed, one dev. in particular was hesitant to do the interview because she thought that she would be too brutal with her thoughts. But as I was interviewing her, I didn't get that impression at all. Instead of blistering rage, it came off more as mild displeasure.

Ironically, the person who exhibited the greatest degree of passionate contempt was the only person I interviewed that DIDN'T want to remain anonymous. That would be a woman by the name of Celia Pearce. She's a co-founder of Ludica, a women's game collective, and Festival Chair for the IndieCade International Independent Game Festival. She's an outspoken critic of the portrayal of women in video games, and also teaches (what I presume, based on our conversation, to be a pretty awesome class on) game design at Georgia Tech. Celia had no shortage of opinions on what she sees wrong with the industry. Regarding booth babes:

"Booth babes make men look stupid. If you're a business executive, and the sight of a booth babe makes you look like a drooling 13 year old, you make the industry look bad."

Celia is also clearly not a fan of what she calls "combat lingerie", the type of battle gear that women like Ivy and Rachel tend to sport. She shares an anecdote about a developer who was designing clothing for an MMORPG, where the lead male was completely covered in armor, but the lead female had clothing that covered a substantially smaller surface area. Needless to say, Celia didn't really approve.

But there were two things that stood out from my conversation with her. The first was when I tried to play devil's advocate, by asking if having super busty objects of wish fulfillment were cancelled out by having ultra ripped, musclebound male characters like Marcus Feenix from Gears of War. Her response, I thought was very enlightening:

"It's not an equivalent situation and here's why. The video game female character is someone the male player aspires to have, whereas the video game male character, is someone the male player aspires to be."

I never really thought of it that way. In both situations, the goal is to appeal to the male, and while the latter may appeal to some females, Feenix isn't sexualized in the same way.

The second item that was also noteworthy, was when Celia recalled an instance regarding a friend of hers. This person was the lead designer on some game, but unfortunately was constantly mistaken for a booth babe because she happened to be quite attractive.

Now this leads me to a very important point, that I'll illustrate with this video clip:

For those of you that can't watch videos on the youtubes for whatever reason, this is a clip from a short lived ABC show called "Big Day" (which I've never heard of before checking out this clip). In this clip, one of the lead character's friends (played by Diora Baird) has just put on a bridesmaid's dress. When she reveals herself, her friends are surprised to find out that she's significantly more stacked than she was since the last time they saw each other (apparently, due to her just recently having a baby).

Now, at this point you may be asking what the hell does this have to do with anything? Well, it's related to Celia's story about her attractive friend. Notice in the clip that the curvaceous young lady is wearing an identical dress as one of her other friends. Yet with her, nobody batted an eyelash. Nobody cared about her. Baird's character, wasn't dressed any sluttier, wasn't going out of her way to display more skin, but she still wound up attracting attention like she worked at a strip club. Indeed, in the same episode, the mother of the lead girl in this clip derisively refers to her as a "porn star", for no reason other than the fact that she's well endowed.

My point is that if you're a really hot female, it's really difficult to find a way to conceal yourself that doesn't attract much attention. Observe the following additional examples (Click to embiggen):

Every one of these lovely ladies is sporting tasteful attire, yet every single one of them will be looked down upon by both men AND women. Now try this thought experiment: Imagine every one of these girls replaced by someone significantly more average/ugly, while wearing the same clothes. Would they still be treated the same way then?

I guess I'm just trying to say that sometimes it's hard to not come off as being some object of wish fulfillment, even if you're not trying. I'm not necessarily advocating for one thing over the other, just trying to point out that sometimes things aren't so black and white. There are a lot of  gray areas occasionally. What's the solution to this, aside from mandating women to start wearing hijabs? Well, that's for someone far smarter than me to come up with.

In conclusion, I would just like to point out (as if it needed to be pointed out) that this wasn't a scientific survey, and shouldn't be meant to reflect the opinions of women nationwide. I definitely think there's an element of sexism in the video game industry, but I feel it's not unique to this one. If you look into virtually any media, T.V./film/etc., you'd find the same problems. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try and improve it, though, and there's plenty of awesome female developers out there trying to do just that. And Id' like to thank all the nice ladies I interviewed this week for taking time out of their schedules to put up with me.

Monday, June 4, 2012

Republican Strategist Praises Bill Clinton, Who Raised Taxes On the Rich, As Someone Who "Didn't Want To Redistribute Wealth"

 Another day, another lying, revisionist Republican hack.

On Meet the Press today, during a discussion on jobs and the economy, Neera Tanden, President of the Center For American Progress, asked her fellow panelists how Mitt Romney's policies differed from George W. Bush. Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos' response was quite amusing (Skip to 10:30):

I can tell you how he differs from George Bush, and so can Bill Clinton, who we just saw on tape. This president [Obama] is telling the American people the biggest problem we have are other Americans that are holding the economy back. And Bill Clinton was a "new business" Democrat, a new Democrat. The president's job, Bill Clinton thought, was to grow the economy, grow it for everybody, and not just redistribute what some Americans have.

Okay, two big things. First, I noticed Castellanos didn't bother answering Tanden's original question. Second, and probably more importantly, did it slip Castellanos' little mind that Clinton was responsible for some wealth redistribution of his own while he was in office?

This isn't about being nit picky. Castellanos' and his fellow Republicans are in effect, arguing that a president who actually enacted many of the so-called "job killing" policies that they dread, was in fact much more job friendly, than the guy who's barely enacted any of said "job killing" policies.

It's essentially the same revisionist history they've been trying to re-write with Reagan.

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Idiot Tea Party Founder Suggests Cutting Taxes (Which Obama Already Did) like Bush Enacted to Spur Massive Growth (Which Never Happened), Who, Like Reagan, Apparently Also Cut Spending (In His Own Mind).

Today, Martin Bashir invited Tea Party Nation founder, Judson Philips to provide some valuable insight on the repercussions of the Wisconsin recall election. But things took an interesting turn when fellow panelist, Democratic strategist, Julian Epstein criticized the Tea Party for not having any practical solutions for the economy and the deficit, as well as just being incoherent and generally stupid. Naturally, Philips took offense, and after going "NUH UH!", proceeded to outline the Tea Party's strategy:

*lots of crosstalk*

Bashir: Judson, give your economic policy. How do you think the deficit should be reduced?

Philips: Start with cut spending. Cut taxes to stimulate the economy, it's worked in the past, it worked for Reagan, it worked for Bush. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Let's try something that's worked!

Lots of wonderful goodies in here. Let's proceed one at a time.

As I've mentioned not too long ago, there's this really annoying myth about the Prophet Reagan (peace be upon him) being either solely a tax cutter, or a fiscal hawk. Most of us on planet Earth realize that he was neither. Of course, I've rarely, if ever, seen any right winger acknowledge that Reagan was a massive spender, but that's to be expected (can't tarnish the symbol, afterall). What was interesting was that Philips takes it a step further by including ole' Dubya along with the Gipper. I know that the righties are quite fond of Dubbers, but in a pathetic attempt to put a veneer of "independence", they would  usually admit that he was a huge spender (and hence why the Tea Party came to being...after he was long gone, of course).

Okay, so we pointed out that neither Bush, nor Reagan were known for their fiscal restraint. But what about Philips other claim about such policies having "worked in the past"? Well, when we tried showering the rich with hundreds of billions of dollars over the last decade in order for it to eventually trickle down to Joe Sixpack, it didn't really work out so well. The sure to be historic job growth Republicans promised upon passage of the tax cuts never materialized, and Bush wound up having the weakest job growth since WWII. But I do happen to agree with Philips' insanity remark, and I'm confident that if somebody pointed this out, he'd agree we shouldn't be repeating such stupid policies.

Finally, there's one more thing in Philips' statement that he and all other right wingers refuse to acknowledge: Obama HAS cut taxes! Repeatedly. He did so with the stimulus, the payroll tax cut, and the extension of the Bush tax cuts. But I'd like to specifically focus on the tax cuts in the stimulus. Why? Because the stimulus is the Republicans primary whipping boy that they can always bring up when they talk about Obama spending like a drunken sailor. Of course, one problem is that around 1/3 of the $787 billion stimulus was made up of tax cuts. That's a good chunk of change. Republicans need to decide whether tax cuts cause deficits or not, and I wish some intrepid reporter would ask that.