NBC's Chuck Todd has the latest on the GOP primaries and Mitt Romney's win in Arizona and Michigan.
Happy Leap Day! The Ed Show is back tonight with another barnburner.
Mitt Romney narrowly escapes disaster in Michigan to the battleground state of Ohio, Rick Santorum takes his pet rock to Tennessee and President Obama cleans both of their clocks.
Richard Wolffe, MSNBC Political Analyst, joins Ed tonight to analyze the state of the presidential race.
Then, Romney tries to sell himself to middle-classers ahead of Super Tuesday. Bob Shrum, Democratic Strategist, has that and Ezra Klein, Washington Post Columnist and MSNBC Policy Analyst, look at Romney's fuzzy math.
Rick Santorum is blaming government regulations for high gas prices and he’s lying about it. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will join Ed for that.
The Republican war on women's health moves to Washington where the radical Blunt Amendment faces a critical vote in just a matter of hours.
Ed will talk about it tonight with Dr. Amy Bryant, Obstetrician and Gynecologist, Fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and Ayanna Pressley, Boston City Council Member and the Chair of the Committee on Women & Healthy Communities.
New poll numbers in Wisconsin show union-busting Gov. Scott Walker is in for the "fight of his life."
And in the Big Finish, Franklin Graham finally sees the light. Dr. James Peterson, Director of Africana Studies and Associate Professor of English at Lehigh University will discuss on the reverend's surprise apology to President Obama.
It's going to be another packed @EdShow at 8pET on @msnbctv.
Join the conversation now or during the show by commenting on Facebook and/or tweeting (with the #edshow hashtag) so we can share your thoughts on the show.
The @TweetTron9k is powering up the circuits to put yer tweets on the teevee!
Leave a Comment:
Can't wait until Nov. 6, 2012. That will be the barn burner.
smiling yes seeing on the 7th the Teapubliecants will be voting.
LOL
LOL
contraceptives, ultrasounds, the Blunt amendment which allows employers the right to deny you healthcare if they feel you can be healed by the power of prayer, going back to the dark ages when people died young because they did not have the medical procedures and medicines we have today..I can see the lawyers frothing at the mouth..the GOP must be stopped and anyone who doesn't believe that is living in lala land..Florida is now limiting the times a poor person can go to the emergency room..it just goes on and on..please vote to rid our country of these extremists..
Peggy Welcome to the blog. I agree with you so much. I have never figured out why government officials have made it there only legislation they are focused on. This is as big as government can get when it dictates what you employer can do to you and that women are forced to have medical procedures that should not be performed. I think they have gone mad!
Peggy,
Show me where Florida is limiting the number of times a poor person can go to the emergency room.
Also you said "please vote to rid our country of these extremists". That is what you really want, a one party government?
Democrats peppered the House's health care budget chief Wednesday with questions about a plan to limit emergency room visits for Medicaid recipients to 12 each year. There is an expectation for recipients that are under 21 or pregnant.
State Rep. Matt Hudson, R – Naples, says the plan will improve how hospitals prioritize care, and force people to stay in better health.
"It is your responsibility to take care of yourself with the guidance of your physician," Hudson said.
He said the plan, which is aimed at getting patients to rely on primary care physicians instead of emergency rooms, would impact 2,000 of the state's 3.4 million Medicaid patients.
Democrats were skeptical of the plan.
"Many of our urgent care centers cost as much as emergency rooms, so where will we find savings?" state Rep. Mia Jones, D - Jacksonville, asked.
The back-and-fourth came as the full House considered a Medicaid bill tied to changes made in the House's proposed state budget. The emergency room provision was in that larger bill.
The House will bring their budget to the floor for the first time Wednesday, with a vote set for Thursday.
Follow Matt Dixon on Twitter. The PolitiJax blog is there, too
PolitiJax 2-3-2012
Here ya go
So, you're saying the republican party is made up of 'extremist'? Then you would be correct.
david,
the democratic party is not the party who wants a "one party" gov't. the republicans are the ones who ARE FOR ONE PARTY. we see that everyday when they refuse to compromise with the President or the democrats on anything.
Well Ohio Is getting ready for a big slug fest here on super Tuesday, the attack adds are up, Romney has already flipped and flopped and who knows what Sanatoriums going to preach about next. They say if they don't win in Ohio they don"t win. Well there all zeros to me ! OBAMA 2012
thats right Pam!!! Ohio is an Obama state all the way!!! i have a comment about ol sherrif joe in arizona. whos about as useless as joe the dumb plummer here. is he really runnin for congress? what a joke!! but i have one word for sherrif joe, "TREASONIST" who does he think he is? BTW... That word should be passed around the GOP, because it fits very well there.
Pam,
just another example of mitt romney doing what he does best-
flip-flopping, doing whatever he thinks is right to win the nomination.
does he not see how he really looks to us and to the republican party?
Shouldn't a "TRUE" Christian apology not just to those that may have offended but to everyone because they were wrong?!?
I'll tell you what,,,the way these Republicans are going with their plans, soon they'll be boasting a new-no-taxes-for-anyone campaign, and say that will solve the deficit problem!! Now that would be a plan that Grover Norquist could support?
David, thats the BS teabagger supporters have been buying for years. You have to pity their common sense. Or lack thereof
Just to clear things up the last time Gas was $1.90 a gallon CLINTON was President. Issa tried to say thanks to bush there is more drilling in the last 3 years well Mr Issa if you want to give him credit for that then you need to give him credit for the economy 3 years ago also. We all know supply has been up because of Obama and prices are up because of the speculators and the congress NOT passing the Dodd Frank bill limiting speculation! Her is gas price
Merrir
Well Just to clear it up
If you check on the day that President Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009 gasoline was $1.84!!!
And what was it 2 years BEFORE he left office. 4.00 a gallon sound familiar?
good one, John.
peter probably won't respond to your post.
Merri- you are so funny. If I understand you correctly- Obama has increased the amount of fossil fuel that we can burn in order to facilitate global warming. But then, maybe the speculators are driving the prices up in order to reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned- hence reducing global warming? That's not what you're meaning- but isn't that what you are actually saying?
Also- could you post any credible evidence that Congress did not pass Dodd-Frank?
Yep, Rusty, you're right..., but only because passing and implementing are two different steps of the process.
Rusty believes what he wants to believe. The Dodd-Frank act has little or no effect on speculators, just the way the teabaggers want it, right Rusty? Welcome to 5.00 a gallon gas brought to you by the republican party.
Dodd Frank is killing small banks and small companies.
Remember these are the 2 dopes that allowed Fannie & Freddy to go bankrupt from the sub-prime blow out.
2 morons that have run out of DC after they phucked the tax payers out of billions.
yes, and lets not forget newt's "historian" role in propping fannie and freddie up.
LOL Tex- you can be out and out goofy at times. A liberal, Merri, up above, is the one claiming that Dodd-Frank wasn't passed, and the GOP blocking Dodd Frank from passage is allowing speculation. So- who is right here- is it Tex or is it Merri?
Also- Tex- would you agree with Merri that Obama has been an enabling factor for the creation of the largest increase in supply of fossil fuels? Now- I know you don't think things through- but if you jump on that bandwagon- then please 'splain how that affects global warming.
I'm just wondering why nobody ON THE SENATE FLOOR calls these jerks on their 'DO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO GET BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DOCTOR'? and the first amendment. Roy Blunt's 'reading' of the first amendment is FALSE. Where Jonathan Turley?
Sanders is a moron. He has no clue I guess as to the amount of federal tax on a gallon of gas, and the federal tax on crude oil, tax on refiners, tax on the transpiration of gas/oil.
One more brain dead liberal running his pie hole on TV, tax the rich, tax all companies, tax tax tax.
Just take a look at the states with the highest tax rates.. All are in big time trouble and are run by unions & Democrats.
"Just take a look at the states with the highest tax rates.. All are in big time trouble and are run by unions & Democrats."
OK just as soon as you post them, i am hoping you have already done this homework.
LOL but i am not holding my breath on that.
Rounding out the bottom five on the list, making them the least tax-friendly for business, are:
46. Iowa
47. Ohio
48. California
49. New York
50. New Jersey
At the bottom of the Tax Foundation’s rankings were these states, with the highest tax burdens in the nation:
There go fly those facts around pilotshark
under scott walker, who cut taxes, wisconsin is # 1 (ONE) in job losses.
in looking at the bigger picture, W.'s tax cuts did nothing for job growth. as Ed Schultz says, "where are the jobs"?
it is also increasingly difficult to find economists who agree with the lie that tax cuts on the wealthy promote job growth.
john boehner and other repubs have said repeatedly that "you can't take money from the very people we expect to invest in the economy and create jobs".
the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Tax Policy Center show that for the PAST 60 YEARS when tax rates were the highest, more jobs were created than when the tax rates were lowest, AS THEY ARE NOW.
boehner argues if the wealthy and big corporations get more money through tax cuts they will create jobs. surely you can see this isn't working. again, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
EVERYTHING the repub party wants to do put more people out of work, or make it more difficult for people to survive. they want to cut public jobs, they want to "break promises" to those on social security, when social security DID NOT CAUSE THE DEFICIT, OR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. when the economy is struggling, it makes absolutely no sense to give rich people tax cuts.
they say the care about the deficit, but spent 14 trillion they didn't have on TWO WARS (one of which (IRAQ) was totally unfounded) NOT PAID FOR, medicare part "D", NOT PAID FOR and tax cuts for the wealthy. these things, put on the credit card, when bush had a SUPER MAJORITY, do not want to honor that debt by fighting over the raising of the debt ceiling.
the repubs don't care if they hurt the american people with their tax cuts and filibustering and polarazation, and "my way or the highway" politics, which we are seeing on FULL display in this repub presidential clown show.
their actions are childish and dangerous and manipulative, and innocent people will be hurt. they do not care because they are OBSESSED with their hatred for President Obama.
Lets us not forget--These guys do not have to clean there own house, cook there own meals, wash there cloths, ---you get the picture!They have a nanny run there kids around to stuff while they are at a luncheon that is deducted from there taxes they pay! How come we can,t deduct our leftovers we have to take to work?? Its a shame that fork's that live in the real world cant run for these offices! These people are spoiled and have no idea what it really takes.Rush is a prime example of a guy that I would love to have help us strip a roof sometime. He would not last 10 minutes!! I see he was running his yap again today! Can you imagine a guy with 0 character like rush running the government??
Suzette- I did a google search on job losses by state and couldn't replicate your claim that Wisconsin leads the nation in job losses since Walker's bills were signed last year. I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to validate that statement or just assume you are making things up again.
Then, I found your chart from 1950 to current about tax rates versus job creation- which is another way of saying that coming out of the Depression, WWII and the Korean War- there was a lot of job creation (duh) and it just so happened that the top tax rate was high. As always- if you can choose your baseline (always use the Depression- it's illogical but does make your point look better) you can make it say anything. From the chart I saw- I would assume you are going beyond Obama and asking for a top tax rate of 90% as it showed one of the best job growths. Could you confirm that would be the rate you think is best?
rusty,
i don't make things up again or ever. i have seen many things here spun by repub baggers, things that are easily confirmed, such as the fact that W. bush had a super majority for most of his presidency.
i have read too many articles about the wisconsin being the number 1 job loser. many of them are written by "democratic" authors, but absolutely nothing on that over there at fox, or from repub journalists. when i have seen him interviewed, scott walker can't even defend job growth in wisconsin, all he ever says is "we are getting on track". why doesn't he give some actual numbers?
do some research.
no, i do not think the tax rate should be 90%. you are childish, and have read enough of my blogs to know that i am not interested in taking advantage of anyone, and i think that most democrats agree with me. some of the rich and powerful think they should have a higher tax rates, and others clearly do not. my perspective on that is that the rich will always be OK, NOT THAT THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. we need rich people in the world, and i get why they want to keep their money, but i have not seen the job creation that boehner and cantor and mcconnell promised. they think if we cut taxes even lower, then job growth will occur. the research i have done doesn't back up their claims.
in our economic situation, brought on mostly by the bush administration, having fought two wars that were put on the credit card, medicare part D not paid for, and the tax cuts for the rich that repubs say pay for themselves (tax cuts for the middle class we have learned from repubs do NOT pay for themselves), i believe and agree with President Obama that taxes on the rich should go up, i would say about 35%, or by tax reform, and closing loop holes which would make their taxes lower than 35%.
when W. signed the 2nd part of the bush tax cuts in march of 2003, the same month we invaded iraq, never before in history had we gone to war, let alone 2, without asking everyone to contribute something, if only an increase in taxes.
i think during war, we should all sacrifice, and not just the troops and their families who pay a high price, even if they do choose to enlist. we should all be in it together.
I guess that is a "no" to posting proof that Wisconsin is the #1 job losing state since Walker passed his bills?
Childish- well- I googled and got a chart that looked like what you were describing. It showed large job gains associated with a 90% top tax rate. You suggested the data- you made the claim that jobs increased with high tax rates- how is this childish on my part?
Now- to show you how silly you are for even making this claim and then talking about it. I am using the first google hit on "tax rates versus job growth"- a Washington Post article with a graph. Since you are the one espousing this- and looking at the data in the graph- the 35% that you think is "about fair" shows the absolute worst job growth of any. So you do not even follow the data you profess to believe in. The highest job growth is shown to come from tax rates of 75-80%, the next highest from 69-75%. If you truly believe what your say the data shows- why would you select the value giving the worst results. Why not a rate in the 69% to 80% range? Please tell me why using this growth chart and the 80% recommendation is silly.
Then, tell me why you think 35% is about right- and why you think it would be fair. Someone right around the corner may think 35% is too low, and not fair. Why would your opinion be better than theirs? What is fair?
I was pretty sure you had made it up. It does sound good, though. Wonder why Obama doesn't use it in a campaign speech. Probably because he realizes the fact checkers would have a blast with it.