2012 US General Election Discussions: Start to Finish

[AtLast]

A place for US politrical and campaign junkies to post, seeth, laugh, roll eyes, protest..... whatever you want to discuss as we roll along this trail.

Please feel free to post about all nationally significant elections in the 2012 general election. The US Congress and what happens in terms of party majority, etc. will be keeping us all interested, I'm certain!

Looks like the GOP possible presidential candidates are finally coming out of the gate. Ginrich in, Huckabee and Trump, out... Romney is really the front runner?

Yesterday's Meet the Press was quite interesting with Newt Ginrich as the first of the GOP candidates for the GOP nomination showing up.

Of course, much of what Ginrich said yesterday is being back peddled today... Ah, politics!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

An analyst on Chris mathews yesterday brought up something that messes with my mind... Newt Ginrich is "new" to the young, twenty-something voters out there. Yikes!!

[RadiantYearning]

I worked as a site location manager for the Obama campaign in 2008 and I hope to be able to volunteer again for the next election.

Thank goodness Trump is out!!!!

[Corkey]

We're having local elections tomorrow, but then this time around it's all local.

[AtLast]

http://www.kvia.com/politics/27921868/detail.html

Hummm... Newt Ginrich didn't have a very good first week after he announced for the GOP nomination-

GOP Blasts Gingrich Over Budget, Health CommentsGingrich Says He's Victim Of 'Gotcha' Politics

By Alexander Mooney CNN Political Producer
POSTED: 7:23 am MDT May 17, 2011
UPDATED: 8:31 am MDT May 17, 2011

(CNN) -- Newt Gingrich has been an official presidential candidate for only a week, but the former House speaker is already under siege from fellow Republicans over recent comments that disparaged a House GOP budget proposal and appeared to endorse some form of a health care mandate that conservatives have long derided.

"This is a big deal," said Charles Krauthammer, the conservative Washington Post columnist. "He's done. He didn't have a big chance from the beginning but now it's over."

"I am not going to justify this. I'm not going to explain this," talk radio host Rush Limbaugh clamored. "The attack on Paul Ryan. The support for an individual mandate in health care? Folks, don't ask me to explain this. There is no explanation."

The uproar stems from Gingrich's comments during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, when the former House Speaker called a Medicare provision in the GOP budget proposal spearheaded by Rep. Paul Ryan a "radical change" and later indicated he supports requiring every citizen to buy health insurance or instead post a bond for insurance.
The two positions appeared contradictory, with Gingrich hammering Ryan's plan to impulse a mandatory voucher system in lieu of Medicare in one breath while offering support for mandated health coverage in the other.

"What you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose it," Gingrich said of the Ryan plan that has proposed replacing Medicare with vouchers to be used toward private health care plans. "I am against Obamacare imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change."

But in the same interview Gingrich said of an insurance mandate, "I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay -- help pay for health care...And, I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond."

Amidst charges of inconsistency, Gingrich released a Web video Monday in which he emphatically stated he was "for the repeal for Obamacare, and ... against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional."A Gingrich spokesman also insisted Monday that "there is little daylight between Ryan and Gingrich."

"Newt would fully support Ryan if it were not compulsory," spokesman Rick Tyler said. "We need to design a better system that people will voluntarily move to. That is a major difference in design but not substance."

Still, some conservatives remain befuddled when it comes to just where Gingrich stands on health care, an issue that is believed to be rival Mitt Romney's biggest vulnerability, not the former House speaker's.

"He can't help himself. Gingrich prefers extravagant lambasting when a mere distancing would do, and the over-arching theoretical construct to a mundane pander. He is drawn irresistibly to operatic overstatement -- sometimes brilliant, always interesting, and occasionally downright absurd," Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, wrote Monday.

Meanwhile, House Majority Whip Eric Cantor called Gingrich's statements a "tremendous misspeak."

"I think that many have said now he's finished," Cantor told Chicago radio station WLS, according to The Hill. "I haven't had a chance to really dissect what in the world he's thinking ... so I probably would reserve judgment on that."

Meanwhile, it appears Gingrich is doing damage control at an event in Mason City, Iowa, on Tuesday, signing a petition calling for the repeal of the health care law.

And, in an interview with the Des Moines Register on Monday, Gingrich said he is the victim of "gotcha" politics.

"I've for two years gone around the country making speeches about Obamacare. I've said over and over, 'We should repeal it,'" he said. "And then people to go from all of that body of evidence to say, 'Yeah, but for 25 seconds yesterday, I thought you said X,' that's beyond gotcha."

:blink:

[Corkey]

LOL Nitwit Newt did it again ...stuck his foot in his mouth, chomped and swallowed!
I voted today!

[Soon]

Eight Things To Know About Tim Pawlenty’s Anti-LGBT Record
(http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/21/pawlenty-lgbt-record/)
Today former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) announced that he is exploring a Presidential run. In his announcement video, he presents a folksy midwest charm and extols the “brave men and women throughout this country’s history that have asked for nothing more than the freedom to work hard and get ahead without government getting in the way.” But when it comes to LGBT folks and their families, Pawlenty’s actions don’t live up to his lofty rhetoric. Below are eight things you should know about Pawlenty’s record on LGBT issues:

1. Pawlenty proudly opposes recognition of any same-sex unions: In a recent interview on FOX News, he told Greta Van Susteren that he will “never be at the point where I say all domestic relationship[s] are the same as traditional marriage. They are not.” He similarly bragged to the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer in January about helping to craft a same-sex marriage ban in Minnesota. As part of his recent tour of speeches in Iowa, he also endorsed The Family Leader, a conservative group who promotes the idea that same-sex marriage is worse for people’s health than smoking.

2. Pawlenty supports maintaining Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, rescinding funding to implement its repeal, and perhaps not allowing gays and lesbians to serve at all: In January, he stated he would support reinstating the policy and that doing so would have no impact. Then, in February, he added that he would support rescinding the funding for its repeal as “a reasonable step.” He also refused to indicate whether he thinks gay and lesbian troops should have the right to serve in the military whatsoever.

3. Pawlenty regrets his vote as a state legislator supporting nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity: Citing its protection of “cross-dressing” and how confusing it would be for third-graders if Mr. Johnson showed up the next day as Mrs. Johnson, Pawlenty lamented his 1993 vote in support of the antidiscrimination law, earning the ire of LGBT groups for his distasteful remarks.

4. Pawlenty vetoed a bill extending end-of-life rights to same-sex couples: As a result of his veto, same-sex couples in Minnesota still have to go through the process of setting up a will to be protected if one partner dies. In addition, same-sex couples continue to be limited in the ability to seek restitution for wrongful death.

5. Pawlenty vetoed an anti-bullying bill adding sexual orientation and gender identity to Minnesota’s bullying policies and training: Despite numerous concessions made to get the governor’s support, he still vetoed the bill, claiming it was redundant and ignoring the new protections it offered the state’s LGBT students.

6. In 2001, Pawlenty opposed labor unions’ efforts to offer benefits to employees’ same-sex partners: The controversy led to a union strike in the fall of 2001, and then in February of 2003, the unions were forced to accept a compromise that stripped benefits from 85 same-sex partners who had previously been receiving them. [Star Tribune, 10/4/2001 and 2/18/03]

7. Pawlenty vetoed a bill allowing local municipalities in Minnesota to offer domestic partner benefits: The bill would have allowed cities, counties, and school districts to offer domestic partner benefits in the same way more than 300 private companies already do in the state.

8. Pawlenty vetoed a bill allowing state employees to use their accrued sick leave to take care of seriously ill family members: Domestic partners were removed from the bill in hopes that it would prevent a veto, but Pawlenty vetoed it anyway, stating that it would cost too much.

[AtLast]

Eight Things To Know About Tim Pawlenty’s Anti-LGBT Record
(http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/21/pawlenty-lgbt-record/)
Today former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) announced that he is exploring a Presidential run. In his announcement video, he presents a folksy midwest charm and extols the “brave men and women throughout this country’s history that have asked for nothing more than the freedom to work hard and get ahead without government getting in the way.” But when it comes to LGBT folks and their families, Pawlenty’s actions don’t live up to his lofty rhetoric. Below are eight things you should know about Pawlenty’s record on LGBT issues:

1. Pawlenty proudly opposes recognition of any same-sex unions: In a recent interview on FOX News, he told Greta Van Susteren that he will “never be at the point where I say all domestic relationship[s] are the same as traditional marriage. They are not.” He similarly bragged to the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer in January about helping to craft a same-sex marriage ban in Minnesota. As part of his recent tour of speeches in Iowa, he also endorsed The Family Leader, a conservative group who promotes the idea that same-sex marriage is worse for people’s health than smoking.

2. Pawlenty supports maintaining Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, rescinding funding to implement its repeal, and perhaps not allowing gays and lesbians to serve at all: In January, he stated he would support reinstating the policy and that doing so would have no impact. Then, in February, he added that he would support rescinding the funding for its repeal as “a reasonable step.” He also refused to indicate whether he thinks gay and lesbian troops should have the right to serve in the military whatsoever.

3. Pawlenty regrets his vote as a state legislator supporting nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity: Citing its protection of “cross-dressing” and how confusing it would be for third-graders if Mr. Johnson showed up the next day as Mrs. Johnson, Pawlenty lamented his 1993 vote in support of the antidiscrimination law, earning the ire of LGBT groups for his distasteful remarks.

4. Pawlenty vetoed a bill extending end-of-life rights to same-sex couples: As a result of his veto, same-sex couples in Minnesota still have to go through the process of setting up a will to be protected if one partner dies. In addition, same-sex couples continue to be limited in the ability to seek restitution for wrongful death.

5. Pawlenty vetoed an anti-bullying bill adding sexual orientation and gender identity to Minnesota’s bullying policies and training: Despite numerous concessions made to get the governor’s support, he still vetoed the bill, claiming it was redundant and ignoring the new protections it offered the state’s LGBT students.

6. In 2001, Pawlenty opposed labor unions’ efforts to offer benefits to employees’ same-sex partners: The controversy led to a union strike in the fall of 2001, and then in February of 2003, the unions were forced to accept a compromise that stripped benefits from 85 same-sex partners who had previously been receiving them. [Star Tribune, 10/4/2001 and 2/18/03]

7. Pawlenty vetoed a bill allowing local municipalities in Minnesota to offer domestic partner benefits: The bill would have allowed cities, counties, and school districts to offer domestic partner benefits in the same way more than 300 private companies already do in the state.

8. Pawlenty vetoed a bill allowing state employees to use their accrued sick leave to take care of seriously ill family members: Domestic partners were removed from the bill in hopes that it would prevent a veto, but Pawlenty vetoed it anyway, stating that it would cost too much.

Oh, yeah... T-Paw.... yikes!

[violaine]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110522/NEWS05/305220008/Indiana-Governor-Mitch-Daniels-will-not-run-president

[Kobi]

Tea Party Favorite Herman Cain Joins 2012 GOP Race

Published May 21, 2011
| FoxNews.com


Tea Party favorite Herman Cain announced his long-shot presidential candidacy to a raucous crowd in Atlanta Saturday, yelling, "I'm running for president of the United States and I'm not running for second."

At a rally attended by thousands, the businessman, author and talk radio show host showed he knows how to wow a conservative gathering. The crowd chanted, "Herman, Herman, Herman," as Cain unleashed the same soaring rhetoric and relentless attacks on President Obama that has created buzz in recent weeks.

"Let me tell you some of the reasons why I'm running for president of the United States.We have become a nation of crises," he said, citing morals, the economy, entitlement spending, immigration and foreign affairs as among the crises facing the nation.

"And we've got a deficiency of leadership crisis in the White House," he said to roaring cheers.

Now the 65-year-old Republican will see if he can use that grass-roots enthusiasm to turn a long-shot presidential campaign into a credible bid.

Cain supports a strong national defense, opposes abortion, backs replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax and favors a return to the gold standard.

He's never held elected office, losing a three-way Republican U.S. Senate primary bid in Georgia in 2004 with one-quarter of the vote. His "Hermanator" political action committee has taken in just over $16,000 this year.

Cain says he's running "a bottoms-up, outside-the-box campaign." Supporters say he taps into the tea party-fueled desire for plain-speaking citizen candidates.

"I just love him," gushed Laura Miller, a self-described "Cainiac" from Jessup, Ga. "What he says makes so much sense."

Born in Memphis, Tenn., and raised in Atlanta, Cain is the son of a chauffeur and a maid. He attended historically black Morehouse College, earned a master's degree from Purdue University and worked as a mathematician for the Navy before beginning to scale the corporate ladder.

He worked at Coca-Cola, Pillsbury and Burger King before taking the helm of the failing Godfather's Pizza franchise, which he rescued by shuttering hundreds of restaurants.

He burst onto the political stage when he sparred with President Bill Clinton over the Democrat's health care plan at a 1994 town hall meeting.

"On behalf of all of those business owners that are in a situation similar to mine," asked Cain, "my question is, quite simply, if I'm forced to do this, what will I tell those people whose jobs I will have to eliminate?"

The late Jack Kemp, the GOP vice presidential nominee in 1996, once described Cain as having "the voice of Othello, the looks of a football player, the English of Oxfordian quality and the courage of a lion."

In 2006, Cain was diagnosed with liver and colon cancer. He says he's been cancer-free since 2007 and credits the nation's health care system with keeping him alive. He says it's one reason he's so opposed to the health overhaul championed by President Barack Obama.

At a speech last week in Macon, Ga., Cain gave a glimpse of the rationale for his candidacy. He said the American dream is under attack from runaway debt, a stagnant economy and a Democratic administration forcing a legislative agenda citizens don't want.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Apocalipstic]

So, the madness begins.

I hear Palin has a "fire in her belly" to run....

[Ebon]

Step right up! Step right up! Come and see the best show in town, the 2012 elections!! Let the circus begin!

[AtLast]

It would be great to hear from members in state's that had Tea Party candidates elected in the national mid-terms- and what it looks like for their re-election in 2012.

I really like to hear election and campaign news via all the states from member's perspectives. There are so many state's outside of CA dealing with such serious economic stresses. I think that in 2012, "We the People" will vote primarily due to what is going on with our economy. Which does not mean Republican, at all.

Right now, the whole Ryan Plan debate seems to be kicking up a lot of debate no matter what party a person belongs to.

[Kobi]

So, the madness begins.

I hear Palin has a "fire in her belly" to run....



:firetruck:

Maybe some zantac will cure what ails her?
Might save us from more Palintology.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Palintology

[dreadgeek]

You know, you almost have to feel sorry for the GOP--almost. They did this to themselves, of course, so my sympathy for my former party only goes so far but I do kind of feel sorry for some of the candidates.

The three with the only *real* hope in the general election are Romney, Huntsman and Pawlenty. They also have the worst chances of making it through the primaries. None of them are *real and true* right-wing ideologues acceptable to the Tea Party. Two of them--and there's no delicate way to put this--are Mormons and while that wouldn't be a hindrance in the Democratic Party that WILL be a problem in the GOP. Evangelical Christians do not consider Mormonism a genuine Christian sect but a cult. Pawlenty is, well, Pawlenty and generates all the excitement of, say, dryer lint.

On the other side, the candidates most likely to excite the base aren't viable in the general election. Palin can win the GOP primary but she can't win the general election. She would have to pivot too much, repudiate too many of her positions and doing so would damage her brand. Bachmann is in the similar position to Palin. She is on record saying way too many wacky things to make it through the general although she could win the primary. Then there's Herman Cain who, I think, is running a vanity campaign. He has two problems--one is that he's black and while his presence at Tea Party rallies means he gives some air cover to the more racist elements, at the end of the day I don't think he can win the GOP primary.

The problem facing the GOP is that any candidate capable of passing muster with the Tea Party, the nativists and the Christian Coalition will be too far-right to make it in the general election. Anyone capable of winning the general election will have a hell of a time making it through the primary. Like I said, you almost feel sorry for the Republican Party.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

UGH!! I have no idea what is really going on with this mess- but his not knowing if the damn pic is of himself is weird. I honestly don't understand why Weiner has not/did not call the police to deal with this and instead hires an attorney.

I am so tired of this kind of BS by our political leaders no matter what party they represent. You would think with all the dumbest stuff that has gone on with things like this- they would just not even do anything that remotely close to any kind of sex scrutiny! Some of these guys add to the stereotype of men being driven by their cocks to the point of stupidity- and I hate this power & penis mentality. It hurts all men.

Politically, as it is beginning to look like the Dems could take back the House in 2012 or at least make good gains, I think back to how many of these kinds of idiotic actions have caused the actions of a few end up with others losing elections. Which also makes me think about the US voter.... and also what sometimes feels like disrespect for voters as well.

I don't know if Weiner is hiding anything- but the idiot ought to know that if he is, that will most likely cause more problems than what he might have done in reality. With the close relationship with the Clinton’s of Weiner’s wife, this could end up being quite a fiasco. I don’t even want to go into how I feel about the marriages of some politicians. Sometimes I think I liked it better when we didn’t get all the scoops on their private lives. Although, this is a public issue since the damn pic could be viewed publically.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/06/anthony-weiner-cannot-say-with-certitude-hes-not-subject-of-twitter-photo.html

[Rockinonahigh]

OMG..The crazy madness begains.I often wonder as a country how the heck we get somany nut or Newt cases as it were running for the highest office in the country..I often think I may just find an island somewhere I can lease for some obscure gov move on it to get away from the dam polotics that is comeing up.We got very lucky this time when Obama got elected,please let a sane human being be in office when the dust settles.

[AtLast]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/rollins-bachmann-will-be-strong-candidate-in-iowa/

Rollins: Bachmann will be strong candidate in Iowa By: CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser


(CNN) – The campaign veteran who has signed up to run Rep. Michele Bachmann's expected bid for the Republican presidential nomination says the congresswoman from Minnesota would be a formidable candidate in the Iowa caucuses.

One day after longtime GOP strategist Ed Rollins confirmed to CNN that he would steer Bachmann's campaign if she announces her candidacy, which is expected later this month, Rollins said Bachmann "has a tremendous opportunity to follow the pattern of Mike Huckabee, whose campaign I was involved in four years ago. She'll be a very strong candidate in Iowa. She was born in Iowa. She was the first Republican woman to ever represent the neighboring state of Minnesota. She's got a tremendous opportunity to go into the religious right, which is a strong constituency."

Iowa's caucuses traditionally kick off the presidential primary and caucus calendar.

Rollins, who made his comments on CNN's "American Morning," was the campaign manager for President Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election landslide over former Vice President Walter Mondale. Rollins, a guest on numerous CNN programs over the years, is also more recently known for running former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Huckabee went from being a long shot candidate to winning the Iowa caucuses before ultimately losing the nomination to Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Rollins told CNN on Monday that "we'll try and duplicate what Huckabee did in Iowa. It's a good act to follow."

Rollins also says that Bachmann won't have a problem when it comes to fundraising, adding that "she's got a gigantic list" of supporters and contributors.

Asked about Bachmann's past controversial comments, Rollins said the congresswoman would "have a good team around her and we'll basically make sure that everything is 100 percent fact checked."

Bachmann has all-but-declared her candidacy. She recently told reporters and supporters in Iowa that "when we make that all-important announcement – which will happen in the month of June – that announcement. I am pleased to tell you tonight, will be made in Iowa. And I will also tell you that announcement will be made in the city where I was born, in Waterloo."

Bachmann is also taking part in next Monday's CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire.

-----------------

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm

Dumb Michele Bachmann Quotes
Top 10 Craziest Michele Bachmann Quotes of All Time

[dreadgeek]

So there has been a mass exodus from Newt "Legend in his own mind" Gingrich's campaign. I think we can now officially take his campaign off the bbq, it's done.

[Corkey]

So there has been a mass exodus from Newt "Legend in his own mind" Gingrich's campaign. I think we can now officially take his campaign off the bbq, it's done.

I'd love to stick a fork in him, but the crap he's full of might explode all ovah!

[dreadgeek]

I'd love to stick a fork in him, but the crap he's full of might explode all ovah!

I'm waiting for him to jump up and claim that with this mass exodus of staff, he has the rest of the GOP field right where he wants them.

[Daktari]

Ignorant Brit alert!

What's a GOP?

[dreadgeek]

Ignorant Brit alert!

What's a GOP?

GOP = Grand Old Party = Republican Party

[AtLast]

I'd love to stick a fork in him, but the crap he's full of might explode all ovah!

A Huff Post analyst said today (on MSNBC) that Ginrich only really wants to be in the debates to "show off," not really run for president! had to laugh- does he really believe that many people just want to listen to him? His ego amazes me.

Had to add that Rush Limbaugh went after Romney for agreeing that science is right about global warming and we need to decrease greenhouse gases! Can't have any science "believers" in the White House, yanno...

[AtLast]

So there has been a mass exodus from Newt "Legend in his own mind" Gingrich's campaign. I think we can now officially take his campaign off the bbq, it's done.

You have a very good point! It looks like he is going to be at the GOP debate on Monday, however. Guess he has to keep his mug out there to continue getting speaking gigs!

I have to admit that it might be fun to see Ginrich debate Obama. Gawd, I hope to hell that the GOP nominee turns out to at least be someone that we all actually would want to watch debate Obama. The idea of Romney or T-Paw debating him is not very exciting. I know, I am a politics junkie. What's an old fart 60's activist gonna do!

I keep having the feling that any of the possible GOP candidates that could have general election viability and some personality traits that might move people are just waiting until 2016 to run.

[AtLast]

So, will Rick Perry join in? This weekend I saw clips of him at the big conservative shin-dig (can't think of the name) and I thought- "A Bush carbon copy."

Oh, that's Jeb.... who I imagine will be a candidate sometime in the near future. As in 2016, AFTER Obama has served his second term.

[dreadgeek]

So Palin has canceled the rest of her "I love the America that loves me tour" and gone back to Alaska half-way through. At this point, I think that pretty much wraps it up for any speculation about her running for President. Not even the Democrats could avoid making her tendency to quit things half-done an albatross. Hell, that ad writes itself. "Sarah Palin quit being governor after 20 months. She quit her 'bus tour of America' halfway through. Would she quit being President after that proved not to be fun either?"

That said, I didn't think she was going to run. She makes a hell of a lot more money and can be much more irresponsible and uninformed if she's a pundit. Since she'll never be making policy, she doesn't have to actually know anything, she can just throw firebombs at the Democrats or at liberals, claiming that anyone who would even think of voting Democrat is not just in sympathy with Al Qaeda or North Korea but is ACTUALLY Kim Jong-Il. If she's a serious contender for President, she can't do that.

My read on Palin is that she is a grifter and she has hit on a fantastic scam. Go out amongst the people, stoke up their resentments, pretend to be 'just like them' and, don't ya know, there's this book you can buy or this DVD you can buy or this tee-shirt or watch the reality TV show. She'd be a fool to give up that scam for a responsible job like POTUS. She may be woefully under-informed about any particular subject you care to mention (Paul Revere etc.) but she's not a fool.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

So Palin has canceled the rest of her "I love the America that loves me tour" and gone back to Alaska half-way through. At this point, I think that pretty much wraps it up for any speculation about her running for President. Not even the Democrats could avoid making her tendency to quit things half-done an albatross. Hell, that ad writes itself. "Sarah Palin quit being governor after 20 months. She quit her 'bus tour of America' halfway through. Would she quit being President after that proved not to be fun either?"

That said, I didn't think she was going to run. She makes a hell of a lot more money and can be much more irresponsible and uninformed if she's a pundit. Since she'll never be making policy, she doesn't have to actually know anything, she can just throw firebombs at the Democrats or at liberals, claiming that anyone who would even think of voting Democrat is not just in sympathy with Al Qaeda or North Korea but is ACTUALLY Kim Jong-Il. If she's a serious contender for President, she can't do that.

My read on Palin is that she is a grifter and she has hit on a fantastic scam. Go out amongst the people, stoke up their resentments, pretend to be 'just like them' and, don't ya know, there's this book you can buy or this DVD you can buy or this tee-shirt or watch the reality TV show. She'd be a fool to give up that scam for a responsible job like POTUS. She may be woefully under-informed about any particular subject you care to mention (Paul Revere etc.) but she's not a fool.

Cheers
Aj


Your take on her strikes me as right on! She has found a better gig than Ginrich did. Both of these people view politics as their gravy train. Huckabee may also be in this camp.

No, she is not a fool at all. She's laughing all the way to the bank as "they" say.

I thought she might continue the bus tour in terms of wanting to build up a nominee contender like Santorum who seems like her "brand of tea."

Besides all that, Bachman has taken over the spotlight for a woman nominee and I think the Christian-right sees her as a more viable "candidate" to push their agenda in the GOP and the platform that surfaces for the 2012 race.

Huntsman jumped in and I actually have to give some kudos for this statement- "I respect the president," Huntsman said. "He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help the country we both love. But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better president, not who is the better American."

He breaks away from all the Obama as "not an American" BS and away from all the nutso-crazy spins from so many of the Tea Party crowd. He could be viewed as a serious contender against Obama. I would love to be behind the scenes at Obama re-election headquarters as they discuss the possible GOP field in terms of who would be the GOP candidate that could beat Obama. And he is vulnerable, I think. Although, his team in 2008 kept their eyes on real prize- electoral votes. But, 2012 could be a very different situation.

The Democrats have got to stay focused on job creation and getting the jobless rate down. Yes, I say this because I want Obama re-elected, but also because damn it, people in the US are having a hell of a bad time in this economy and what is the future going to be like for young people entering the job market?

I think Obama strategists need to knock off trying to talk about the economy in terms of what Obama walked into (inheriting Bush's mess) and build the case for his methods and policies being a more solid way to re-build the US economy. They have to find a way to make the general population understand that we do need to invest in infra-structure for the kinds of jobs that are a reality in our future. A very tough sell.
One that has to be done.

For me, thinking of Obama as a one-term president is fraught with fear of the Health-Care Reform Acts being repealed because these are visionary and do need the test of time for people to see that economically they make sense and that they will bring a healthier and stronger workforce along that represents all of the people. The GOP has thwarted health care based upon a free society since FDR. It is a fucking big deal!

[Dallas2010]

Does anyone know anything about New Mexico gov. Gary Johnson? From what I've read about him so far, it sounds like he may the the right man for the job.

[Toughy]

Does anyone know anything about New Mexico gov. Gary Johnson? From what I've read about him so far, it sounds like he may the the right man for the job.

He is a fucking idiot who tried to destroy the public education system in NM. He made his millions on constuction jobs paid for by the state. Just because he thinks pot should be legal does not mean he is any kind of man for the job.

edited to add He vetoed 200 of 424 bills in his first six months in office – a national record of 48% of all legislation – and used the line-item veto on most remaining bills. He is a libertarian and is anti-tax and anti-government in general.

[Toughy]

I just hope NO ONE makes the mistake of under-estimating Michele Bachman. She is not stupid and is a very astute politician. She can and will give Obama a run for his money. If Nader jumps in as a Green Party candidate, she could end up President......be very very very afraid of that and make plans to move to a free country cuz this one will no longer be free.

[AtLast]

Oh, yes, do pay attention to Nader entering the race. Obama is vulnerable and so many people, including left-wingers are so tired of Washington antics and stagnation.

The more I think about things, I can't help the thought of all the talk of Bohner not being in control as the Speaker over the Tea party reps as bogus- I think it is intentional in terms of taking Obama down.

The House since the mid-terms has done nothing for job creation (as was the Tea Party cry) and promoted nothing but anti-abortion and women's health bills. Along with this, the GOP/Tea Party govenors elected have been focused on the same things along with taking unions down. No real job creation work going on with them, either. Consequently, the jobless rate has stayed the same with one small movement downward, then back up.

The GOP knows that the rate of unemployment IS how they can win the White House- probably the only way. So, they have stayed away from actually doing anything to help create jobs so that it is the number one issue on the minds of the electorate in 2012.

Because the US is practically split down the middle politically, and Independents are the ones that really call elections, the GOP knows that halting job creation no matter how they do it will actually work in their favor. All they have to do is keep up the distractions with legislation to set the stage and continue to have the circus continue to focus on Obama not producing jobs and they are in.

I think the GOP political machine including Boehner is very much in control and knows exactly what it is doing even if some of their candidates draw laughter.

I also think Bachman is dangerous and that the GOP will rally behind someone like her- even the traditional GOP base- to gain the presidency and continue to dismantle the middle class in the US. They really do not care about middle and working class people at all. The rise of a millionaire elite is what they want.

During times of economic stress, I think someone like Bachman being elected could happen. It's all in the "calculations."

[Ebon]

Anyone voting for her? :|

OATKPpEOMxo

You know it's bad when Fox is calling out Tea Party members.

[Gráinne]

I'm really concerned that she has charisma and appeal to average people and just might get elected. On the other hand, if she's out (because of the Medicare thing reported), all the other GOP'ers have as much charisma together as yesterday's potatoes and I don't see anyone else viable enough to win it.

[ButchBowWow]

I have decided to pretend I am in the UK for the next 16 months or so :|

[AtLast]

I have decided to pretend I am in the UK for the next 16 months or so :|

I often think about how great it would be to have the UK time table for elections here in the US. Think of all the money that would be saved (and maybe put to better use)!

I am also a staunch supporter of public financed elections in the US. Then there would be a level field and all this insane fund raising would stop. Politicians in the US start campaigning for re-election in many ways the day after they take office!

[AtLast]

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/06/26/iowa-poll-romney-bachmann-lead-republican-pack/

Iowa Poll: Romney, Bachmann lead Republican pack
© 2011, Des Moines Register and Tribune Company

Two-time candidate Mitt Romney and tea party upstart Michele Bachmann are neck and neck leading the pack, and retired pizza chief Herman Cain is in third place in a new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll of likely participants in the state’s Republican presidential caucuses.

The results are bad news for the earnest Tim Pawlenty, a former Minnesota governor who is in single digits despite a full-throttle campaign.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and business executive, claims 23 percent, and Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman and evangelical conservative, garners 22 percent. Neither has done heavy lifting in Iowa.

The rest of the Republican field is at least 12 points behind them.

Cain, a retired Georgia business executive, is the top choice for 10 percent of potential caucusgoers.

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose entire Iowa campaign team resigned in frustration two weeks ago over its perception that his efforts are half-hearted, is tied in fourth place at 7 percent with the libertarian-leaning Ron Paul, a longtime Texas congressman.

Pawlenty is at 6 percent; Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, 4 percent; and Jon Huntsman, a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, 2 percent.

“The surprise here is how quickly Michele Bachmann is catching on,” said Jennifer Duffy, a political analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report of Washington, D.C. “To me, she’s the one to watch, not Romney.”

Campaign veterans caution that this is a very early test. They expect the race to take many twists and turns before the Iowa finish line is reached. The caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 6, 2012.

Indeed, results indicate Iowa Republicans would be receptive to additional candidates in the race. Just 14 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers say their minds are made up about their choice in the presidential race. Another 14 percent don’t have a first choice yet. Sixty-nine percent say they could be persuaded to support a candidate other than their first choice.

Those findings could encourage potential candidates now on the sidelines, such as Gov. Rick Perry of Texas or former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. The poll tested favorability of several prominent Republicans, but the trial heat question included only those who have declared they’re running.

The telephone survey of 400 likely Republican caucusgoers was conducted June 19 to 22, roughly eight months before the Iowa caucuses, which kick off the presidential nominating process.

The poll, conducted by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Pawlenty’s big effort in Iowa not helping yet
Romney’s poll-topping strength might seem to send a message that he can do well in Iowa without trying. But several politics watchers said name identification is his foundation, and his numbers might sink if he sticks with a pruned-back campaign in the Hawkeye State.

“Romney has to decide whether to start working hard,” Duffy said, “or he could see that front-runner status slip away pretty quickly.”

Iowans have seen this movie before: Four years ago, Romney led for months before he was surpassed by Mike Huckabee, who found a faithful flock in the religious right.

The other shocker, Duffy said, is the low finish for Pawlenty, who has taken part in two national debates and mounted an expensive, Iowa-centric campaign with an A-list team of consultants.

Republican pollster Randy Gutermuth pointed out that the Iowa Poll took place before Pawlenty’s television ads, direct mail and other paid voter outreach had time to penetrate.

“It’s way too early to be writing off Tim Pawlenty,” said Gutermuth, who is not affiliated with any presidential candidate. “I’m sure they’d rather be leading today, but I don’t think they’re jumping out of buildings either.”

Bachmann, who has spent 18 fewer days in Iowa this election cycle than Pawlenty and has yet to rev up her campaign machine here, has a heady favorability rating.

In the wake of her much-praised performance in the June 13 GOP debate in New Hampshire, the first of the season for her, 65 percent of potential Republican caucusgoers have a good impression of her.

And it’s an intense following: 31 percent say their opinion is very favorable, half again higher than the 19 percent who have a very favorable impression of Romney.

People like Pawlenty, too – 58 percent have a favorable impression of him – but he just isn’t as often a first or second choice for president.

Conservative? Yes, both socially, fiscally
Iowans who consider themselves tea party supporters make up 63 percent of respondents, so it fits that Bachmann, founder of the tea party caucus in Congress, is their favorite, at 29 percent. Cain, who has reached out to tea party supporters as an Atlanta-based radio host and candidate, follows with 16 percent. Romney is the favorite for 14 percent.

Less than half of poll respondents, 46 percent, identify themselves as born-again or fundamentalist Christian. In comparison, 60 percent of Republican caucusgoers in 2008 considered themselves born-again or evangelical Christians, according to an entrance poll done for the Associated Press and several television networks.

The race at this early point is close among Iowans who identify themselves as born-again Christians, with 20 percent for Bachmann and 17 percent for Romney.

Poll respondents are decidedly conservative: 75 percent consider themselves very or mostly conservative on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and 83 percent consider themselves very or mostly conservative on fiscal issues such as the federal budget.

“Our debt situation is just going to ruin our country if we don’t do something about it,” said Romney backer Morris Grotheer, a retired chemist from Urbandale. “I’m 82 years old, and I don’t see a very bright future.”

A new HuffPost Pollster trend estimate, filtered by the Register to include live interview polls only, shows much less support for Bachmann nationally.

Romney leads with 29 percent. Gingrich and Paul are at 9 percent, with Cain and Bachmann at 8 percent and Pawlenty at 7 percent.

About the poll
The Iowa Poll, conducted for The Des Moines Register by Selzer & Co. Inc. of Des Moines, is based on interviews with 1,831 registered Republican and independent voters in Iowa ages 18 or older, of which 400 said they would definitely or probably participate in the February 2012 Republican caucuses. Interviewers contacted individuals randomly selected from the Iowa voter registration list by telephone. The full sample of 1,831 respondents was adjusted for age and sex based on distribution among active Republican and no-party registered voters. Questions asked of the 400 likely Republican caucusgoers have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. Results based on smaller samples of respondents — such as by gender or age — have a larger margin of error.


-----------------------------

Did anyone catch Bachmann's newest gafe during an interview after her announcement about being like John Wayne- he was born in Waterloo, Iowa which he wasn't, he was born in another town in Iowa however, John Wayne Gacy, Jr. was born in Waterloo, Iowa. John Wayne Gacy, Jr. was a serial killer and rapist-

known as the Killer Clown who committed the rape and murder of 33 teenage boys and young men between 1972 and 1978. Twenty-six of Gacy's victims were buried in the crawlspace of his home, three others elsewhere on his property and four victims were discarded in a nearby river.

Gacy became known as the "Killer Clown" due to his charitable services at fundraising events, parades and children's parties where he would dress as "Pogo the Clown," a character he devised himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

Does this woman ever fact check???

[AtLast]

Texas Governor Perry likely to run in 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/us-usa-campaign-perry-idUSTRE7666CA20110707?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=10102

I guess there are some that want another back-slapping, swaggering Texas govenor in the Whit House.... WTF?

[Soon]

8D-J9SxSgz4&feature=player_embedded#at=88

[AtLast]

The recently revealed old clips about Romney and his actual performance as a "jobs creator" when he ran against Ted Kennedy in the Senate (1990's) are very interesting.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58952.html

I keep thinking Romney is of the same cut as all the prior GOP nominee's that just figure "it's their time to be president." Some things about the GOP have not changed.

[Vanessa Emma Goldman]

GOP = Grand Old Party = Republican Party

or as i prefer to call them: Greedy Old Patriarchs!

unfortunately, the Demos are not much better especially when it comes to taking bribes from, and then being indebted to, Big Corporate Capitalism. i voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, took a lot of crap for it from other left of center people, and so held my nose and voted for Demos at the top of the ticket (USA President or Michigan Governor depending on the year). and i continue to be horribly disappointed, both by President Obama and by former Michigan Governor Granholm.

so once again i am debating whether to keep voting for the Evil of Two Lessers Democrats, or just say to hell with them and vote strictly for Greens, Socialists, or other real progressives who do not take bribes from the top one percent. and i am leaning heavily towards the Green/Socialist/other real progressives option. yes, i know, they probably won't win and maybe Repubs will end up winning. but even when Demos do win, it seems like the real winners end up being the Greedy Old Patriarchs.

[dreadgeek]

or as i prefer to call them: Greedy Old Patriarchs!

unfortunately, the Demos are not much better especially when it comes to taking bribes from, and then being indebted to, Big Corporate Capitalism. i voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, took a lot of crap for it from other left of center people, and so held my nose and voted for Demos at the top of the ticket (USA President or Michigan Governor depending on the year). and i continue to be horribly disappointed, both by President Obama and by former Michigan Governor Granholm.

so once again i am debating whether to keep voting for the Evil of Two Lessers Democrats, or just say to hell with them and vote strictly for Greens, Socialists, or other real progressives who do not take bribes from the top one percent. and i am leaning heavily towards the Green/Socialist/other real progressives option. yes, i know, they probably won't win and maybe Repubs will end up winning. but even when Demos do win, it seems like the real winners end up being the Greedy Old Patriarchs.

I had, largely, stopped voting Democratic in the 90s. I did vote for Clinton in '92 (my first ever vote for a Democrat, I voted Republican in 88 and would have done the same in 84 had I been 18) but in '96 and 2000 I voted Green. IF the GOP were not complete enthrall to a radical pseudo-libertarian ideology that covered up some theocratic memes, I would probably vote for a third party. The problem is that, at this point, the choice is no longer between the lesser of two evils but between a feckless but generally well-intentioned party (the Democrats) and an effective but generally malevolent party that appears, taking them at their word, to be trying to bring about a plutocratic theocracy.

It is not that I think the GOP elites--the old-money elites--want a theocracy. I don't believe they do--a robber-baron plutocracy but not a theocracy. The GOP base, on the other hand, does want a theocracy. If the GOP elites had the same relationship to their base as the Democratic elites have to theirs, that might not be so worrisome. The problem is that the relationships are fundamentally different. The GOP elites fear their base, the Democrats hate their base. Ultimately, this means that in the long run the GOP will try to substantially appease their base by moving their agenda down the road a bit while the Democratic party will try to simply convince their base that they are on their side while not actually trying to move the agenda anywhere.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

I had, largely, stopped voting Democratic in the 90s. I did vote for Clinton in '92 (my first ever vote for a Democrat, I voted Republican in 88 and would have done the same in 84 had I been 18) but in '96 and 2000 I voted Green. IF the GOP were not complete enthrall to a radical pseudo-libertarian ideology that covered up some theocratic memes, I would probably vote for a third party. The problem is that, at this point, the choice is no longer between the lesser of two evils but between a feckless but generally well-intentioned party (the Democrats) and an effective but generally malevolent party that appears, taking them at their word, to be trying to bring about a plutocratic theocracy.

It is not that I think the GOP elites--the old-money elites--want a theocracy. I don't believe they do--a robber-baron plutocracy but not a theocracy. The GOP base, on the other hand, does want a theocracy. If the GOP elites had the same relationship to their base as the Democratic elites have to theirs, that might not be so worrisome. The problem is that the relationships are fundamentally different. The GOP elites fear their base, the Democrats hate their base. Ultimately, this means that in the long run the GOP will try to substantially appease their base by moving their agenda down the road a bit while the Democratic party will try to simply convince their base that they are on their side while not actually trying to move the agenda anywhere.

Cheers
Aj

Yes, a theocracy is very much what the GOP wants. I don't think this was true decades ago, but true now. And I no longer recognize the Democratic Party as having any substance.

As the news of S & P's (even though it hasn't much of a track record) down grade of the US settles in- I am more discusted with both parties as they simply continue the blame game and can't see the forest for the trees in terms of what the rating agencies are really trying to get across- that Congressional dysfunction really is taking down our economy which will hurt us all in various ways. Every single one of us.

I used to be able to see some reason to back the Dems due to social ideology- but I no longer feel that way. They, as well as the GOP, never offer substantive answers to our problems, only partisan babble.

For the very first time in my adult life, I do feel helpless and hopeless about the US political system. Neither major party has one ounce of integrity left or the ability to see past party lines in order to effect the changes that are needed.

I do want a Congressional shake-up (including of far left-wing progressives that won't compromise), but not of religious zealotry and judgement- and that seems to be the only game in town.

There was so much fresh, new hope in the 2008 general election along with a sense that there really could be change that reflects the needs and challenges of the 21st Century.

And in all of this, the debt-ceiling bill we ended up with is only going to get us more of the same Congressional dysfunction and gridlock- and more fringe ideology from both the right and the left.

[*Anya*]

News this AM: per US Dept. Of Agriculture latest stats, 45.8% of Americans now on food stamps-the highest number ever. This is a 70% increase since 2007.

In the United States of America. This is a tragedy.

And The Band Played On~

(Randy Shilts, book of same name)

[AtLast]

I know I am thinking deeply about 2012 and how I will most likely be voting differently- both Aj and Kobi bring up variables I need to consider. I left the Democratic Party prior to 2008 (registered without party affiliation after being registered with the Green Party). I think I have been sobered of late and frankly will vote more for realistic goals than any party platform be as it may re- if a GOP candidate best fits for me, they will get my vote and the same for a Democrat, Green Party, etc. candidate).

Are other people feeling like their 2012 choices will be different?

[Toughy]

I'm voting for Obama and my current representatives up for re-election in Congress.....that would be Barbara Lee in the House - I love her. I'm not sure if Feinstein is up for re-election. Boxer was re-elected in 2010.

If we voters deliver a majority in the House and 60 Senators to Obama in 2012, then the Democrats will be forced to listen to their constituents. They will not need any Republicans to pass legislation.

[Glenn]

I'm voting for Obama also. He's our homey from Chicago who chilled out in the gay bars with us.;)

[AtLast]

I'm voting for Obama and my current representatives up for re-election in Congress.....that would be Barbara Lee in the House - I love her. I'm not sure if Feinstein is up for re-election. Boxer was re-elected in 2010.

If we voters deliver a majority in the House and 60 Senators to Obama in 2012, then the Democrats will be forced to listen to their constituents. They will not need any Republicans to pass legislation.

If it looks like this is possible by the time of the election- that there could actually be enough Dems in both Houses to stop all of this partisan crap that goes on without getting things done, I might align with the Dems. The idea of going through more years of how it has been going makes me crazy.

Yes, Feinstein is up for re-election. I will vote for her.

I honestly do have a problem with Obama not getting behind the Simpson-Bowles recomendations back in December. I hope he is makes a whole lot more noise about trade agreements getting done when the Congress reconvenes. Critical for job creation.

[AtLast]

Had to post this somehwere!!!


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/293618_153054258122639_100002541976315_267039_1261 800683_n.jpg


AMEN!!!

[AtLast]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/perry_poll_plummet_VQbljNL7KEAtQccPHoJrXO


Of course Perry lost steam- just like Bachmann, even the GOP can see that he is an idiot!

[dark_crystal]

News this AM: per US Dept. Of Agriculture latest stats, 45.8% of Americans now on food stamps-the highest number ever. This is a 70% increase since 2007.

In the United States of America. This is a tragedy.

And The Band Played On~

(Randy Shilts, book of same name)

45.8 million for 15% (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-03/u-s-food-stamp-use-reaches-record-45-3-million-usda-says.html) but still outrageous

[Corkey]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/06/334170/herman-cain-top-10/

10 things you should know about Herman Cain.

[AtLast]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/06/334170/herman-cain-top-10/

10 things you should know about Herman Cain.

Thanks Corkey- well worth posting these 10 things. I tried to discuss issues with his supporters on his FB page and was deleted in under 4 minutes. They don't like to talk this about this stuff!


ThinkProgress has put together the top 10 hits from Cain’s presidential bid:

(1) PLEDGED THAT HE “WILL NOT” APPOINT MUSLIMS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION: In an interview with ThinkProgress earlier this year, Herman Cain declared that he “will not” appoint a Muslim in his administration if he were elected president. In the months that followed, Cain qualified his position a number of times – at one point even telling Glenn Beck that he would appoint Muslims but only on the condition that they take a special loyalty oath – before finally recanting this unconstitutional stance and issuing an apology to Muslim-Americans. Unfortunately, since that time Cain has continued to peddle the ridiculous notion that Sharia law is a threat to the American legal system.

(2) TOLD THINKPROGRESS, “I DON’T THINK THE CURRENT MINIMUM WAGE IS NECESSARY”: During his time as the top lobbyist for the restaurant and fast food industry, Cain fought against an increase in the minimum wage. During a recent ThinkProgress interview, Cain went further, saying “I don’t think the current minimum wage is necessary.” As Greg Sargent noted, not even conservative icon Barry Goldwater supported eliminating the minimum wage.

(3) CONFUSED BY BASIC CONCEPT OF ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS: In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Cain was asked his opinion on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Cain was clearly confused by the question, responding, “The right of return? [pause] The right of return?” When host Chris Wallace explained the issue to him, Cain suggested that Israel wouldn’t have a problem “with people returning,” a prospect Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu fiercely opposes. The incident was not the first time Cain displayed lack of familiarity with international affairs. Previously, Cain said he doesn’t know enough to say what he thinks about the war in Afghanistan.

(4) IMMIGRATION PLAN INVOLVES A “GREAT WALL OF CHINA” AND A “MOAT [WITH] ALLIGATORS”: In a speech to Iowa Republicans, Cain called for building a fence along the entire U.S.–Mexico border, comparing the effort to the Great Wall of China. Building a fence along the nearly 2,000-mile border not only wouldn’t work, it would cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars in the process. Cain also suggested building a moat next to the fence and filling it with alligators.

(5) BELIEVES “WE ALREADY RECOGNIZE” THE GOVERNMENT OF TAIWAN: Discussing U.S.-Chinese relations with ThinkProgress, Cain confirmed fears that he lacked a firm grasp on foreign policy matters when he declared that “we already recognize” the government of Taiwan. In fact, the United States stopped recognizing Taiwan in 1979. Cain, visibly confused about relations between the U.S, China, and Taiwan, refused to say whether this belief meant he planned to send an ambassador to Taiwan, saying instead, “President Cain will get back to you!” Lest the matter seem trivial, Chinese-Taiwanese relations are extraordinarily tense and the matter of diplomatic relations with the United States carries enormous implications for the billions of people living in southeast Asia.

(6) WANTS TO PUT DIRTY ENERGY CEOS IN CHARGE OF EPA REGULATIONS: After an Iowa voter asked about increasing domestic oil production, Cain proposed creating a commission consisting of businessmen from the coal, oil, shale oil, and natural gas industries to gut environmental protections. Cain even said he would appoint the CEO of Shell, claiming the company had been “abused” by the EPA. Cain has close ties to several top oil executives.

(7) BELIEVES IRAQ SHOULD PAY U.S. BACK FOR INVADING THEIR COUNTRY: Cain suggested in a 2008 interview that Iraq should pay the United States back for invading and occupying their country. Even Rick Santorum, who nobody would confuse as a moderate, strongly disagreed with this idea, saying, “I think that would send every possible wrong signal.” Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died and millions have been displaced.

(8) TRIED TO HIDE HIS GAY TREASURER: A former staffer to Cain, Kevin Hall, testified in court that Cain attempted to cover up the involvement of his openly gay PAC treasurer Scott Toomey. According to Hall, the campaign was trying to cover up Toomey’s involvement due to his sexuality. Cain’s lawyers declined to dispute the allegations.

(9) SAYS HE WOULD SUPPORT A NATIONAL PHOTO ID LAW: With an increasing number of conservative governors implement new requirements for voters to present photo identification at the polls, Cain told ThinkProgress he’d support such a bill on a federal level. “If you need a picture to get on an airplane, why shouldn’t you need one in order to be able to vote?” Cain asked. To be clear, voting is not like getting on an airplane – only one is the basis of our very democracy – and requirements that citizens present photo IDs instead of other forms of identification has the potential to disenfranchise millions of voters, especially minorities and poorer individuals.

(10) BELIEVES THAT AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BAN MOSQUES: During a Fox News Sunday interview, Cain professed his belief that if a community wants to ban a mosque, “they have a right to do that.” Rather than idle banter, Cain’s comments came fresh off his speech blasting the proposed expansion of an existing Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee because it was, in the former pizza executive’s estimation, “not an innocent mosque.” Cain’s view is squarely at odds with not only the Constitution, but basic precepts of tolerance and diversity as well.

ThinkProgress intern Karl Singer contributed to this report.

[SelfMadeMan]

It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded, it is someone’s fault if they failed. If you don’t have a job, and you’re not rich, blame yourself
– Herman Cain

Mr. Cain - the unemployment rate in the US is a statistic made up of individuals ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR JOBS. It's right around 8% right now. This means that 8% of the Americans that desperately WANT a job can’t get a job. So please enlighten me, how exactly is that THEIR fault? If you lose it all because your employer terminates thousands of jobs, and yours happens to be one of those jobs, and because of that, you lose your home, your life savings, and consequently, your credit rating falls in the crapper, please explain to me how that is YOUR fault? This is the pitfall of the blatantly ignorant ideology of Herman Cain, and the majority of the Tea Party & far right supporters touting him as the next big thing. They would like us not to believe that environment, the economy, and big government matter - that big corporations & government aren't accountable at all. They would like us to believe that it is the individual - the ones losing their homes, losing it all and suffering, because they CAN'T get a job, who are at fault. It's bullshit - and it needs to be called out as such. /rant

[atomiczombie]

It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded, it is someone’s fault if they failed. If you don’t have a job, and you’re not rich, blame yourself
– Herman Cain

Mr. Cain - the unemployment rate in the US is a statistic made up of individuals ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR JOBS. It's right around 8% right now. This means that 8% of the Americans that desperately WANT a job can’t get a job. So please enlighten me, how exactly is that THEIR fault? If you lose it all because your employer terminates thousands of jobs, and yours happens to be one of those jobs, and because of that, you lose your home, your life savings, and consequently, your credit rating falls in the crapper, please explain to me how that is YOUR fault? This is the pitfall of the blatantly ignorant ideology of Herman Cain, and the majority of the Tea Party & far right supporters touting him as the next big thing. They would like us not to believe that environment, the economy, and big government matter - that big corporations & government aren't accountable at all. They would like us to believe that it is the individual - the ones losing their homes, losing it all and suffering, because they CAN'T get a job, who are at fault. It's bullshit - and it needs to be called out as such. /rant

Actually, it's 8 percent among whites. It is about double that for african americans and latinos.

[Toughy]

Herman Cain will NEVER EVER be the GOP Presidential nominee in 2012. He might be picked as a VP, but not the President.....

no way in hell will the right tolerate having 2 black men running against each other for President....no way, no how. Actually I have my doubts they will pick him for VP because that could mean another black man for President should something happen to their white man.

[Linus]

It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded, it is someone’s fault if they failed. If you don’t have a job, and you’re not rich, blame yourself
– Herman Cain

Mr. Cain - the unemployment rate in the US is a statistic made up of individuals ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR JOBS. It's right around 8% right now. This means that 8% of the Americans that desperately WANT a job can’t get a job. So please enlighten me, how exactly is that THEIR fault? If you lose it all because your employer terminates thousands of jobs, and yours happens to be one of those jobs, and because of that, you lose your home, your life savings, and consequently, your credit rating falls in the crapper, please explain to me how that is YOUR fault? This is the pitfall of the blatantly ignorant ideology of Herman Cain, and the majority of the Tea Party & far right supporters touting him as the next big thing. They would like us not to believe that environment, the economy, and big government matter - that big corporations & government aren't accountable at all. They would like us to believe that it is the individual - the ones losing their homes, losing it all and suffering, because they CAN'T get a job, who are at fault. It's bullshit - and it needs to be called out as such. /rant

Totally agree with your rant. But would like to point out that the unemployment rate is 9.1% (source: Google Public Data (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate)) (just to be an annoying nit-pick :cheesy: )

ETA: I decided to see what California was: 12% New York State, on the other hand, is 8% :blink:

[SelfMadeMan]

I just checked the Bureau of Labor Statistics website and it was reported as 9.1% overall in September...

[SelfMadeMan]

Totally agree with your rant. But would like to point out that the unemployment rate is 9.1% (source: Google Public Data (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate)) (just to be an annoying nit-pick :cheesy: )

No problemo, my numbers weren't the MOST recent... I was mad and ranted without updating my info :) It happens... lol

[Toughy]

So Rick Perry's son is an investment banker and the SEC rules say he cannot campaign with his father as long as he has a job as an investment banker. Son quit his job so he can help out dear ole Dad.

Mother says that her son lost his job because of the over-regulation of banking by the Obama administration. It's Obama's fault her son lost his job. She sympathizes with the unemployed.

Does anyone in the family have a working brain?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/anita-perry-rick-perry-son-job_n_1011632.html

[SelfMadeMan]

"George W. Bush did a incredible job in the presidency, defending us from freedom." –Rick Perry

That's the level of intelligence we're dealing with here...

[Linus]

"George W. Bush did a incredible job in the presidency, defending us from freedom." –Rick Perry

That's the level of intelligence we're dealing with here...


From freedom, eh? At least someone admits it!

[SelfMadeMan]

"If you're envious of somebody that happens to be rich, that you call a fat cat - go and get rich, instead of expecting them to walk outside of their office and write you a check. That's not how America works, WORK FOR IT"
- Herman Cain

Yeah Cain, it's that easy. Those of us who aren't rich, it's because we just don't work hard enough for it, we don't take advantage of this prosperous economy offered to us. Moron.

[Soon]

Herman Cain Addresses Sexual Harassment Settlement (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/herman-cain-sexual-harassment-settlement_n_1068233.html?ref=politics)

/snip/

Cain entered the Press Club less than 24 hours after Politico reported that the former Godfather's Pizza CEO and head of the National Restaurant Association was accused of sexual harassment by two unnamed women at the association. The charges were not detailed but Politico reported that both women received payments as settlement. NBC News reported Monday that they had independently confirmed a settlement with one of the two women.
...
Cain was not asked how he could have been unaware of a settlement if he knew the results of an investigation into the charges. He said that once the charges were brought against him he recused himself from the investigation.
And he added that he does not want the NRA to confirm or deny the settlements, or give any information at all about the incidents.

[AtLast]

What a day today was with the Cain sexual harrassment story and Perry's NH speech!!!

I sear, Perry was either drunk, high or in a manic phase due to too much halloween candy! Yikes!

You know, I get so tired of the hypocritical nature of GOP candidates or elected politicians. All the preaching about Christian values and the the real stories come out.

The other thing on my mind about this is that it seems like when a Democrat gets caught in one of these scandals, it is about consensual actions. Sexual harrassment is not consensual and is a crime and abusive.

The other thing is that I wish that women (or it could be a man) that has beenj sexually harrassed would not take pay-offs. This always brings up talk of that was they were after and sexual harrassment never gets the attention it deserves as a very common crime commited.

I know that many women in this situation are trying to deal with this under the age old "boys club," but damn if i don't wish they would go on to make charges. Then there are all of the fears of losing one's job and thinking about how many single parents there are that need their job in order to support their kids, I get why this happens so often.Then there is all of the blaming the victim that goes on.

I don't ever want any person unfairly charged with sexual harrassment, but I don't know we can ever fight it effectively if back room settlements are made.

[Soon]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GgBRQ1HOM_w/TrkjrCOZM5I/AAAAAAABLVk/9_SSMGrSjnc/s400/Cain2012.png


The instantly infamous line allegedly uttered by Herman Cain as he pushed his accuser's head onto his crotch.

joemygod

[AtLast]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cains-accusers-20111108,0,7925369.story

By Tom Hamburger and Robin Abcarian

Herman Cain's accusers may band together at news conference

November 8, 2011, 8:43 p.m.

The women whose complaints Herman Cain attacked in a news conference Tuesday are planning to counter with a news conference of their own, attorneys for the women said Tuesday night.

"My client has decided to hold a joint news conference with as many of the women who complained of sexual harassment by Herman Cain as will participate," said Joel P. Bennett, the Washington lawyer for Karen Kraushaar, whose harassment claims against Cain got the current controversy rolling after a report of it appeared last week in Politico.

On Tuesday afternoon, Cain called a news conference in Arizona to address several additional allegations of sexual harassment that have surfaced since the initial article appeared. The allegations have immediately pulled the spotlight away from nearly all other topics in the Republican presidential contest.

At the outset of the news conference Tuesday, Cain focused his ire on claims from Sharon Bialek, the Chicago woman who says she was groped by Cain when she met with him in 1997 to ask for help finding a job.

He said when he watched her news conference Monday, he did not even recognize her, and that her account of inappropriate sexual conduct "simply didn't happen."

At one point Cain called the Chicagoan a "troubled woman," claiming that her allegations were put forward by the "Democrat machine."

Kraushaar, 55, sought anonymity at first and her name was not revealed by Politico or in other initial press reports. But she confirmed to several news organizations Tuesday that she was behind the first known sexual harassment complaint. She works as a communications director in a Treasury Department inspector general's office.

She left her job at the National Restaurant Assn. in 1999 after she complained of harassment by Cain, who was the association's chief executive from 1996 to 1999. At the time, she received a $45,000 settlement from the restaurant group, which agreed to pay the
claim without acknowledging its validity. That period of Cain's biography, when he lived part of each week in Washington without his wife and family, is likely to come under more intense scrutiny.

"We will advise all media in advance of the date, time and location of the conference," Bennett said in the email to The Times, noting that he had already been in contact with Bialek's attorney, Gloria Allred, to discuss the news conference.

Allred confirmed that in an email to The Times: "I said I would recommend it to my client, and I think she would want to participate, but I have no details yet and have not had a chance to discuss it with her," Allred wrote.

[*Anya*]

This reminds me of Clarence Thomas, another Republican Conservative, Anita Hill, and sexual harassment.

I watched those hearings. I believed Anita Hill.

We all know how well that turned out.

Poll presented on AM news yesterday stated the majority of Republicans consider sexual harassment (specifically when asked about Cain) a non-issue:

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011
Republicans say sexual harassment charges against Cain don’t matter

"A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of Republican voters scheduled to be released later today is expected to report that the sexual harassment charges against Cain have NOT diminished his support nor raised any real concern among the majority of Republicans. Only 13% of Republicans surveyed said they are a "great deal" or "quite a bit" concerned about voting for Cain because of the sexual harassment charges."

Read more: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/07/8683229-nbcwsj-poll-cain-allegations-dont-matter-to-majority-of-republicans

[AtLast]

This reminds me of Clarence Thomas, another Republican Conservative, Anita Hill, and sexual harassment.

I watched those hearings. I believed Anita Hill.

We all know how well that turned out.

Poll presented on AM news yesterday stated the majority of Republicans consider sexual harassment (specifically when asked about Cain) a non-issue:

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011
Republicans say sexual harassment charges against Cain don’t matter

"A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of Republican voters scheduled to be released later today is expected to report that the sexual harassment charges against Cain have NOT diminished his support nor raised any real concern among the majority of Republicans. Only 13% of Republicans surveyed said they are a "great deal" or "quite a bit" concerned about voting for Cain because of the sexual harassment charges."

Read more: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/07/8683229-nbcwsj-poll-cain-allegations-dont-matter-to-majority-of-republicans

Yes and the GOP/TP just chalk it up as not a big deal- they don't believe sexual harrassment even exists!! And women that cry foul just want money.

We have NOT come a long way, baby!!

[Soon]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ilH0a2bGLqg/Tt0Eeh2zdGI/AAAAAAABMwk/1Zo0hjSv6SU/s400/VoterID%2B001.JPG

Since coming to power last fall, many Tea Party-GOP dominated state legislatures have installed new laws requiring a photo ID to vote. The above graphic tells us exactly why.

[Toughy]

actually I'm not to upset by photo ID AS LONG AS it's free, transportation to and from DMV provided for those who need it and there are ways folks who do not have birth certificates and proof of residence (like homeless folks or folks living in detox centers or group homes, etc) can get a photo ID...

I'm more stunned by Newt.......WTF??????? I wish Cain had stayed in and gotten the nomination........laughing.....can you just see him and Obama in a debate.......Bachman would be just as good....Newt might stand up well against Obama in a debate....

I still say if the Republicans were actually serious about winning the White House they would nominate Jon Huntsman (instead of the clowns Newt with his book sales and Mitty with his magic underwear). Many many independents who voted Obama would vote Huntsman....a moderate kind of Republican..........his stance on abortions sucks big time so he would never get my vote....he supports a right to life amendment and would make 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions illegal.

[AtLast]

actually I'm not to upset by photo ID AS LONG AS it's free, transportation to and from DMV provided for those who need it and there are ways folks who do not have birth certificates and proof of residence (like homeless folks or folks living in detox centers or group homes, etc) can get a photo ID...

I'm more stunned by Newt.......WTF??????? I wish Cain had stayed in and gotten the nomination........laughing.....can you just see him and Obama in a debate.......Bachman would be just as good....Newt might stand up well against Obama in a debate....

I still say if the Republicans were actually serious about winning the White House they would nominate Jon Huntsman (instead of the clowns Newt with his book sales and Mitty with his magic underwear). Many many independents who voted Obama would vote Huntsman....a moderate kind of Republican..........his stance on abortions sucks big time so he would never get my vote....he supports a right to life amendment and would make 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions illegal.

I'm with you- Cain made me crazy, but Newt is capitalizing (pun INtented) on his departure. Newt is an able debater and there are tons of present day right-wing voters that were too young to vote during his ethics problems in the 90's as well his hypocracy around family values. They will see him as he has re-invented himself only. The Dems have a big problem with his surge and possible mojo, I think. Plus, even moderate Republicans and Independents don't like Romney's lack of pizazz.

His Trump-Hug might hurt him, especially if he partakes in that not-really a GOP debate-but-a-Donald-infomercial might pull support away from him by the more sane.

This GOP nomination bid has taken craziness in politics to an all time high. I'm insulted by it all.

[AtLast]

What do you know- recent polls are showing that Obama has an edge (slight) over both Ginrich & Romney. Interesting and hopeful.

[Soon]

PMLlNySviZI#!

[AtLast]

PMLlNySviZI#!

Wonder if since the GOP's actual voting is starting, the clowns will depart?

[MsDemeanor]

Wednesday can not come fast enough. I am sick to death of the only political news being about a few thousand christian fundamentalists picking the next republican presidential nominee. Hey MSNBC, there is actually real shit going on in the world. Care to cover it?

[AtLast]

Kind of an interesting walk through Gingrich's marriages-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/what-newt-gingrichs-three-wives-tell-us-about-the-president-hed-be/2011/12/31/gIQAd642UP_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

Yes MsDemeanor- let us move on to other primary states and issues of the day!

[theoddz]

One idiot speeds away in a clown car. :winky:

Michele Bachmann drops her presidential election campaign. :clap:

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[UofMfan]

One less psycho in the race. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/michele-bachmann-concedes-iowa-caucus_n_1182490.html)


I stayed up way past 2:00 a.m. to see the results of the caucus.

I have not been that interested in this primary because what it mainly does is upset me, but I could not help but watch the train wreck that was last night's race.

To win a race by 8 votes is such an embarrassment to someone who poured so much money into this campaign.

A party divided, lack of enthusiasm, all good news for those of us who are not Republican.

[Soon]

"In the repellent race to the bottom (no pun intended) it should be no surprise that Santorum did so well in the Iowa caucuses. Mitt Romney is in a major stall, and in a field of class clowns Rick Santorum stands out as particularly cartoonish. [snip] Santorum's win is not a referendum on who he is as a man (inhumane and ignorant), or who he is as a candidate (pandering and mean). It is simply the gasping statement of a thankfully dying breed of Americans -- those who fear, loathe or hate anyone different from themselves, who mistrust or reject the idea that government can and should be a force for good, and who detest even the slightest exposure to information or ideas that challenge their world view."

- Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center For Lesbian Rights, via press release.

[Soon]

Rick Santorum’s surprising second-place finish in Iowa comes after months of dogged campaigning throughout the sate’s 99 counties and more than 350 town halls. ThinkProgress tracked the former Pennsylvania senator throughout this period and has compiled a list of his top 10 most outrageous claims:

1) ANNUL ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: Arguing that gay relationships “destabilize” society, Santorum wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president. During his 99-country tour of Iowa, Santorum frequently compared same-sex relationships to inanimate objects like trees, basketballs, beer, and paper towels and even tried to blame the economic crisis on gay people. As Santorum explained back in August, religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.”

2) ‘I’M FOR INCOME INEQUALITY’: “They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality,” Santorum said during an event in Pella, Iowa in December. “I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality.”

3) CONTRACEPTION IS ‘A LICENSE TO DO THINGS’: Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control, insisting that “it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

4) GAY SOLDIERS ‘CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN CLOSE QUARTERS’: During an appearance on Fox News Sunday in October, Santorum defended his support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by arguing that gay soldiers would disrupt the military because “they’re in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people.” He also suggested that “there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore.”

5) OBAMA SHOULD OPPOSE ABORTION BECAUSE HE’S BLACK: During an appearance on Christian television in January, Santorum said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,” he explained.

6) WE DON’T NEED FOOD STAMPS BECAUSE OBESITY RATES ARE SO HIGH: Speaking in Le Mars, Iowa in December, Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary.

7) ABORTION EXCEPTIONS TO PROTECT WOMEN’S HEALTH ARE ‘PHONY’: While discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban in June, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony.” “They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective,” he said.

8) HEALTH REFORM WILL KILL MY CHILD: Santorum, who claims that Obamacare motivated him to run for president, told reporters in April that his daughter Bella — who was born with a genetic abnormality — wouldn’t survive in a country with “socialized medicine.” “Children like Bella are not given the treatment that other children are given.”

9) UNINSURED AMERICANS SHOULD SPEND LESS ON CELL-PHONE BILLS: During a meeting with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register in August, Santorum said that people who can’t afford health care should stop whining about the high costs of medical treatments and medications and spend less on non essentials. Answering a question about the uninsured, Santorum explained that health care, like a car, is a luxury resource that is rationed by society and recalled the story of a woman who said she was spending $200 a month on life-saving prescriptions. Santorum told her to stop complaining and instead lower her cable and cell phone bills.

10) INSURERS SHOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: Santorum sounded like a representative from the health insurance industry when he addressed a small group of high school students in Merrimack, New Hampshire in December. The former Pennsylvania senator not only defended insurers for denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, he also argued that individuals who are sick should pay higher premiums because they cost more money to insure.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/04/397355/rick-santorums-top-10-most-outrageous-campaign-statements/

[Gráinne]

I find it ironic that Michelle Bachman calls Obama a "socialist" and herself a strong Christian, when Jesus's sayings and actions were radically socialist for his time. Somehow, I don't think Bachmann and Santorum would even be in his constituency-and I'm a non-Christian.

[Cin]

"In the repellent race to the bottom (no pun intended) it should be no surprise that Santorum did so well in the Iowa caucuses. Mitt Romney is in a major stall, and in a field of class clowns Rick Santorum stands out as particularly cartoonish. [snip] Santorum's win is not a referendum on who he is as a man (inhumane and ignorant), or who he is as a candidate (pandering and mean). It is simply the gasping statement of a thankfully dying breed of Americans -- those who fear, loathe or hate anyone different from themselves, who mistrust or reject the idea that government can and should be a force for good, and who detest even the slightest exposure to information or ideas that challenge their world view."

- Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center For Lesbian Rights, via press release.

Ah, from her mouth to god's ear. Especially the part about the gasping statement of a thankfully dying breed.

But are they really dying? According to mainstream news, which I was coerced into watching for a few minutes last night, the Republicans and the Democrats are neck and neck and it's anyone's election. Whatever. This past 4 years has shown me that there really is little difference between them anyway. Our elected officials are bought and paid for by corporations and the financial sector. But then I think of how much worse it might actually be if a republican got in. Then I remember Obama, a democrat, our great hope, signed National Defense Authorization Act.

[AtLast]

Rick Santorum’s surprising second-place finish in Iowa comes after months of dogged campaigning throughout the sate’s 99 counties and more than 350 town halls. ThinkProgress tracked the former Pennsylvania senator throughout this period and has compiled a list of his top 10 most outrageous claims:

1) ANNUL ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: Arguing that gay relationships “destabilize” society, Santorum wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president. During his 99-country tour of Iowa, Santorum frequently compared same-sex relationships to inanimate objects like trees, basketballs, beer, and paper towels and even tried to blame the economic crisis on gay people. As Santorum explained back in August, religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.”

2) ‘I’M FOR INCOME INEQUALITY’: “They talk about income inequality. I’m for income inequality,” Santorum said during an event in Pella, Iowa in December. “I think some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it. I have no problem with income inequality.”

3) CONTRACEPTION IS ‘A LICENSE TO DO THINGS’: Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control, insisting that “it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

4) GAY SOLDIERS ‘CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN CLOSE QUARTERS’: During an appearance on Fox News Sunday in October, Santorum defended his support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by arguing that gay soldiers would disrupt the military because “they’re in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people.” He also suggested that “there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore.”

5) OBAMA SHOULD OPPOSE ABORTION BECAUSE HE’S BLACK: During an appearance on Christian television in January, Santorum said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,” he explained.

6) WE DON’T NEED FOOD STAMPS BECAUSE OBESITY RATES ARE SO HIGH: Speaking in Le Mars, Iowa in December, Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary.

7) ABORTION EXCEPTIONS TO PROTECT WOMEN’S HEALTH ARE ‘PHONY’: While discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban in June, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony.” “They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective,” he said.

8) HEALTH REFORM WILL KILL MY CHILD: Santorum, who claims that Obamacare motivated him to run for president, told reporters in April that his daughter Bella — who was born with a genetic abnormality — wouldn’t survive in a country with “socialized medicine.” “Children like Bella are not given the treatment that other children are given.”

9) UNINSURED AMERICANS SHOULD SPEND LESS ON CELL-PHONE BILLS: During a meeting with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register in August, Santorum said that people who can’t afford health care should stop whining about the high costs of medical treatments and medications and spend less on non essentials. Answering a question about the uninsured, Santorum explained that health care, like a car, is a luxury resource that is rationed by society and recalled the story of a woman who said she was spending $200 a month on life-saving prescriptions. Santorum told her to stop complaining and instead lower her cable and cell phone bills.

10) INSURERS SHOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: Santorum sounded like a representative from the health insurance industry when he addressed a small group of high school students in Merrimack, New Hampshire in December. The former Pennsylvania senator not only defended insurers for denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, he also argued that individuals who are sick should pay higher premiums because they cost more money to insure.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/04/397355/rick-santorums-top-10-most-outrageous-campaign-statements/

Addressing his record- As his voting record in Congress is more scrutinized, the Tea Party will be seething! The guy supported every Bush 43 "bigger government" plan. Plus, the many actions Bush proposed that had no source of funding- just put it on the gov credit cards!

On Bachmann- she has an uphill battle to keep her seat in MN. Love it! Getting the Tea Party out of our Congress is at least a plus in a better direction.

[MsDemeanor]

If you combine 8 and 10, the logical conclusion is that he believes his daughter should be denied health insurance coverage for life due to a pre-existing condition from birth. I doubt that he is capable of connecting the dots....

[AtLast]

If you combine 8 and 10, the logical conclusion is that he believes his daughter should be denied health insurance coverage for life due to a pre-existing condition from birth. I doubt that he is capable of connecting the dots....

That's for sure! I was thinking this very thing. Then, there is Paul's "just let them die" stance due to not having insurance. Both of these stances just don't ring as respect for the sanctity of life these yahoos "appear" to believe so deeply in.

Between these two and Newt's total grandiosity about the whole damn election being about him is just nuts. I might have to tune into the debate Saturday to see if he goes postal on air versus Romney. Gingrich is something else- playing the "no going negative" sing song. He invented negative politics. After reading more about his mother's mental illness and the first marriage at age 19 to his HS teacher (Jackie) to which his mother said "raised him the rest of the way," I think his mental instability is quite clear.

And these people are running for president!

[Toughy]

So I am driving home from the VA listening to progressive radio....randi rhodes...and I hear 2 stories about Romney and Santorium and I had heard the Santorium one on Rachel last night.

Romney: He is taking his family on the 'great american road trip vacation' and they are going to take Seamus the Irish Setter family dog with them. Romney STRAPS Seamus to the roof of the vehicle....no not in a crate, actually just strapped down to the roof.........and drives off for vacation. Randi was not sure if the dog lived or not. But this kind of stupidity makes sense to me since Mitt (as an adult male Mormon) wears magic underwear.

Santorium: His wife had a stillborn 26 week old baby...that's 6.5 months...a sad thing for his family. Well, Santorium and wife leave the hospital by loading their other children (one as young as 2 yrs old) AND THE DEAD BABY, in mom's arms in the car and drive across Pennsylvania to grandma's house so grandma can hold and commune with the dead baby. Apparently all the kids got to hold and commune with the dead baby during the car trip. They have the dead baby with the family for about 24 hours before they take it to the mortuary.

I really wish the mainstream Republicans would take back their party. Not one of the Republicans in the race should be President. Even Jon Huntsman has been forced to take far right wing stances on things like abortion. And Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul are the ONLY Republicans in the race (past and present) who understand and believe evolution is the basis for life on this planet. The rest of them think their God created the world in 7 days and believe that is science.

I am getting tired of all of them. Let Nov come very very quickly.

[Julien]

Separation of church and state, what's that? Santorum's view. It is not a good thing.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/obeidallah-santorum-sharia/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

[Kobi]

This story doesnt do the interchanges justice. The local news had better coverage. I was especially pleased to see young metrosexual looking folks asking very pertinent questions for which the sanctimonious one had few useful retorts. They booed him right out of the building. Made me proud.

------------------------------------------------------

A crowd of mostly college-aged students at a New Hampshire town hall booed Rick Santorum when he compared gay marriage to polygamy. Santorum spoke at the College Convention 2012, a forum organized by New England College, which apparently drew a politically diverse crowd. BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray* transcribes the exchange between the student and Santorum:

"How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love --"

Santorum cut her off and said "What about three men ... If you think it's ok for two, you have to differentiate with me why it's not OK for three."

The New York Times reports that people booed specifically when Santorum said "If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” And some in the crowd booed again at the conclusion of the session. This is of course not the first time Santorum has caused conflict with his slippery slope-ish arguments. It also reminds us of Mitt Romney's very tense Q&A with the audience at a New Hampshire event Wednesday, where an Occupy Boston representative and a Chinese-American woman both asked Romney semi-hostile questions. With the Iowa caucuses over, it's "No More Mr. Nice Midwestern Crowd." More like "Live Free or Die" we suppose.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/santorum-booed-new-hampshire-while-discussing-gay-marriage/47056/

[AtLast]

So I am driving home from the VA listening to progressive radio....randi rhodes...and I hear 2 stories about Romney and Santorium and I had heard the Santorium one on Rachel last night.

Romney: He is taking his family on the 'great american road trip vacation' and they are going to take Seamus the Irish Setter family dog with them. Romney STRAPS Seamus to the roof of the vehicle....no not in a crate, actually just strapped down to the roof.........and drives off for vacation. Randi was not sure if the dog lived or not. But this kind of stupidity makes sense to me since Mitt (as an adult male Mormon) wears magic underwear.

Santorium: His wife had a stillborn 26 week old baby...that's 6.5 months...a sad thing for his family. Well, Santorium and wife leave the hospital by loading their other children (one as young as 2 yrs old) AND THE DEAD BABY, in mom's arms in the car and drive across Pennsylvania to grandma's house so grandma can hold and commune with the dead baby. Apparently all the kids got to hold and commune with the dead baby during the car trip. They have the dead baby with the family for about 24 hours before they take it to the mortuary.

I really wish the mainstream Republicans would take back their party. Not one of the Republicans in the race should be President. Even Jon Huntsman has been forced to take far right wing stances on things like abortion. And Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul are the ONLY Republicans in the race (past and present) who understand and believe evolution is the basis for life on this planet. The rest of them think their God created the world in 7 days and believe that is science.

I am getting tired of all of them. Let Nov come very very quickly.

I so agree- the field of GOP candidates is mind boggling. Why the hell the mainstream GOP puts up with this mess is beyond me. What bothers me the most is that a very small group of the Tea Party religious fringe does have the nation held hostage! Just the idea that they think it is OK to NOT act to create jobs due to beating Obama is insane! People are hurting and Congress could act.

Mainly, however, I have had it with the infiltration of religion upon personal rights and freedoms that have no business being handled by government, period. That is BIG government! And i am someone that values faith and spirituality. But feel it is personal.

I don't see much changing as the country is so divided and the order of the day is to be as mean spirited as possible. We are almost evenly split down the middle and just caught up in this whirlwind of hatred.

[Cin]

I so agree- the field of GOP candidates is mind boggling. Why the hell the mainstream GOP puts up with this mess is beyond me. What bothers me the most is that a very small group of the Tea Party religious fringe does have the nation held hostage! Just the idea that they think it is OK to NOT act to create jobs due to beating Obama is insane! People are hurting and Congress could act.

Mainly, however, I have had it with the infiltration of religion upon personal rights and freedoms that have no business being handled by government, period. That is BIG government! And i am someone that values faith and spirituality. But feel it is personal.

I don't see much changing as the country is so divided and the order of the day is to be as mean spirited as possible. We are almost evenly split down the middle and just caught up in this whirlwind of hatred.

That the country could be so divided when they are given a group of crazies to chose from and one sane incumbent, albeit relatively indistinguishable from a republican president, doesn't say much about the sanity of the country in general.

Although I suppose part of the problem is that corporate owned Madmen types frenetically and adeptly spin lies into reality with such success and regularity that most citizens wouldn't recognize the honest truth if it sat down with them at church and introduced itself. The other part of the problem is that most people are too apathetic, disinterested and just plain lazy to root out the truth for themselves and even if they did they are poorly prepared to decipher it from the propaganda. We've been buying the lies for so long the truth is buried so deeply you need experience in excavation to get to it. Selling the Republican snake oil to people is easier than pie at this point. The last piece is its all too overwhelming and depressing to fight, people feel powerless. Better to be blissfully blind cheerfully kicking at the same old enemies we have been taught for years are to blame for any and all our problems. The usual suspects like poor people, immigrants, homeless, jobless, terrorists, drug dealers, foreigners, atheists, queers, feminists, people of color and pretty much anyone who tries to pull the wool from our eyes are to blame. The power elite have done their jobs well.

And despite all the conservative complaints about big government they are prepared to continue to make the part of the government that infringes on our personal freedoms as huge as they can. The best government would be one that has a religious component. The only part of government they want to shrink is the part of government that demands equal treatment and that wants the corporations and the rich to pay their fair share, the part of government that feels a sense of responsibility for all its citizens and would spend some of government money (our money) on social programs and infrastructure. That's what they mean by small government.

[Kobi]

WARNING: Major sarcasm to follow. Try not to miss it :)


The Republican stuff to date has been kind of interesting to watch.

Romney, as my former governor, is just being himself....a fast talking used car salesman who is so slick most people dont even realize a lot of what he is promising is already in place. They also fail to remember Obamacare is just a federal enactment of the Romneycare he pushed thru this state i.e. mandatory health insurance, penalties for not having it, subsidies for premiums, cant be denied coverage etc. Of course Mitt rammed this thru without any mechanism in place to pay for it and then hightailed it out of the state. (It is a decent and affordable alternative to costly private insurance.) I see Mitt and I have the urge to duct tape his mouth shut just on principle.

Santorum, amuses me. He tries so hard to be sanctimonious. But all I can think of is he is fodder for a SNL skit on "Welcome to the Santitarium of Rick's Mind where the pretty colored pills can cure what ails you." He will play well in the Bible belt but, I expect, he will fizzle even quicker than Perry and Cain. People have real everyday concerns i.e. jobs, the housing crisis, the economic meltdown, the loss of savings and financial security, health care. Gay marriage, rehashing abortions, and the rest of the emotion/faith based stuff some republicans fall back on when they have nothing else of substance to offer, I expect will come back to bite them in the ass given the logistical issues of mere survival these days.

I like Ron Paul. He reminds me of Frank Perdue. I keep waiting for an advertisement of him espousing a "chicken in every pot". Seriously tho, I wouldnt vote for him but his economic stuff has some merit.

OMG I forgot Newt. When I think of Newt which is never, I see 3 witches hovering over a boiling cauldron. One says, "the recipe says add an eye of Newt. F*&^ it. I want this batch to be extra strong. Throw all of him in there!"

(End of sarcasm)



The person getting a lot of play here lately is Jon Huntsman. The Boston Globe has endorsed him, people around town are talking about him. Have to do some research cuz I dont know anything about him. Any one have any insights on where he stands on stuff?

Elections always worry me, more so during tough times. IMO, American voters are notorious for being un and undereducated consumers who have relatively narrow focuses when evaluating candidates during the best of times. They seem to have absolute tunnel vision during difficult times. This makes them very unpredicable and prone to vote with their emotions rather than their heads.

Kind of gives new meaning to....it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

[*Anya*]

So I am driving home from the VA listening to progressive radio....randi rhodes...and I hear 2 stories about Romney and Santorium and I had heard the Santorium one on Rachel last night.

Romney: He is taking his family on the 'great american road trip vacation' and they are going to take Seamus the Irish Setter family dog with them. Romney STRAPS Seamus to the roof of the vehicle....no not in a crate, actually just strapped down to the roof.........and drives off for vacation. Randi was not sure if the dog lived or not. But this kind of stupidity makes sense to me since Mitt (as an adult male Mormon) wears magic underwear.

Santorium: His wife had a stillborn 26 week old baby...that's 6.5 months...a sad thing for his family. Well, Santorium and wife leave the hospital by loading their other children (one as young as 2 yrs old) AND THE DEAD BABY, in mom's arms in the car and drive across Pennsylvania to grandma's house so grandma can hold and commune with the dead baby. Apparently all the kids got to hold and commune with the dead baby during the car trip. They have the dead baby with the family for about 24 hours before they take it to the..."

Every time I think that I have read and heard it all, something else about these right-wing lunatics just leaves me so flabbergasted, I barely have words to articulate how I feel!

Truly, what has happened to the United States of America? What ever happened to separation of church, state and insanity?? When are the citizens of this country going to wake up and take the USA back to the principles on which it was founded ( though by a bunch of white bio men)?

What indeed ever happened to the Rebublican party? Even my 87-year-old father who has voted the ticket in every election since he was 21, told me thinks all the Republican candidates are a bunch of idiots.

I used to be a political activist but got away from it while trying to live my life and support my family but also because I got so discouraged and felt so disenfranchised as a woman and as a lesbian in this country. I have 3 granddaughters. I worry that abortion rights will be chipped away to zero by the time it will matter to them.

I just feel so frustrated by all of it.

[MsMerrick]

Santorium: His wife had a stillborn 26 week old baby...that's 6.5 months...a sad thing for his family. Well, Santorium and wife leave the hospital by loading their other children (one as young as 2 yrs old) AND THE DEAD BABY, in mom's arms in the car and drive across Pennsylvania to grandma's house so grandma can hold and commune with the dead baby. Apparently all the kids got to hold and commune with the dead baby during the car trip. They have the dead baby with the family for about 24 hours before they take it to the mortuary.



.
Apparently, the lesson he wished them to learn, was that that, was what abortion did..... From what I heard this morning...

[AtLast]

Apparently, the lesson he wished them to learn, was that that, was what abortion did..... From what I heard this morning...

This just is so creepy weird- and I believe it was his way to make an anti-aborion point to his kids.

I wonder if his wife really wanted to participate in this- post stillbirth. My Mom had to carry a dead fetus full term and give "birth"- from what she said about this experience (I wasn't born yet), she experienced both accute and post-truamatic stress symptoms. My parents had a service for the baby- with only themselves in attendance. It was a very personal loss for them and it sounded like they needed to just have this be between the two of them. This just feels so controlling in terms of his wife being in any state to think through doing this. He is just creepy!

[Cin]

The person getting a lot of play here lately is Jon Huntsman. The Boston Globe has endorsed him, people around town are talking about him. Have to do some research cuz I dont know anything about him. Any one have any insights on where he stands on stuff?

Here is a little something about Jon Huntsman. I left out the obvious stuff like who he is, how rich he is, how like Romney he is etc. And concentrated on his ideas. And how the moderate label seems to mean that he’s not crazy like the rest of the Republican candidates but his ideas are eerily similar. That’s how they get ya, smoke and mirrors. You’re just happy to be able to vote for someone who doesn’t need to be committed. Anyway there are a few quotes, some of his platform, and, of course, commentary by yours truly.

“As governor of Utah I signed every pro-life bill that came to my desk,” Hunstman told the crowd. “I signed the bill that made second-trimester abortions illegal, and increased the penalty for doing so. I signed the bill to allow women to know the pain an abortion causes an unborn child. I signed the bill requiring parental permission for abortion. I signed the bill that would trigger a ban on abortions in Utah if Roe v. Wade was overturned.”

“I do not believe the Republican party should focus only on our economic life — to the neglect of our human life,” he said. “That is a trade we should not make. If Republicans ignore life, the deficit we will face is one that is much more destructive. It will be a deficit of the heart and of the soul.”

In 2004 Huntsman supported Utah’s constitutional amendment outlawing marriage for gays and lesbians, but then later strongly supported a 2009 initiative to allow civil unions.

Apparently most of Huntsman’s economic policy is tax reform. And most of it will hurt the working class and help the rich especially lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and eliminating capital gains and dividend tax rates. He also claims to want to eliminate all tax deductions, credits, and loopholes. I guess that would hurt or help everyone equally depending on how you look at it. But I don’t see much there that will actually help the economy.

Huntsman claims to want stuff to be made in the US once again but he wants to open up trade even more. Free trade agreements are what make it so easy for companies to take their money, their business and their jobs offshore in the first place. We need huge tariffs not less or NO tariffs. If we don’t tax imports from US corporations who do no business in the US, the economy, the infrastructure and the country itself will continue with its downward spiral. No matter how many tax cuts we give businesses and corporations, no matter how much government money we make available to businesses and corporations it will not help the people in the US unless we force corporations to pay for importing goods into the US, which will either generate money for government spending or force corporations to stay and make stuff in the US which will create jobs at home. It’s not rocket science. It’s just logical. And to continue to say otherwise, which is what politicians/elected officals insist on doing is just outright lying.

Yet the meme continues to be that giving money and tax breaks to corporations and the rich will result in jobs for the rest of us. When clearly anyone with a coherent thought process can see that nothing even remotely like this is happening or has been happening. And unless some laws are changed it will continue to NOT happen. This throwing money at corporations and the rich and getting nothing in return has been the case for a very long time. And since it would be impossible to be in politics and not understand the idiocy of this oft regurgitated propaganda about this behavior resulting in jobs, I can only surmise it is a purposeful deceit that is willingly propagated in order to further the interests of the rich and powerful regardless of the result to the rest of us and to the country itself.

I’ve yet to see a politician running for president who seems to actually give a fat rat’s ass about the country.

Jon Huntsman purports to be a moderate republican. I think he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is someone whose supposed politics will be such that voters may be able to tolerate them so he looks to be quite dangerous to me. Dangerous because he is just another potential political arm for big business like Obama is, but he is also a right wing conservative dressed up for public consumption and that could be even more costly in the end. It’s possible I could be just a paranoid conspiracy theorist. However, neither of those options are mutually exclusive.

Here is an article about Huntsman:
“'Moderate' Jon Huntsman Releases Right-Wing 'Jobs' Plan
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163098/moderate-jon-huntsman-releases-right-wing-jobs-plan

“Huntsman, a former Utah Governor, positions himself as the sane, mainstream alternative to the wingnuts that make up the rest of the Republican field. But the plan is a compendium of conservative hobbyhorses.

The vast majority of his plan has nothing to do with creating jobs, at least in the short term. He focuses heavily on “regulatory reform,” which sounds like some non-ideological effort to streamline government but is mostly code for pandering to the Tea Party. Huntsman would repeal the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and the Affordable Care Act. He would “Dramatically Rein In The EPA” and “Curb The Excesses”—meaning eviscerate the essential regulatory power— of agencies like the National Labor Relations Board. All of this will please the Koch brothers, but what it has to do with spurring hiring in the near future is unclear, especially since conservatives like to moan about business being unable to hire in a climate of uncertainty. What they mean by uncertainty, it turns out, is if a business owner doesn’t know if his top marginal income tax rate might go up by four points when the Bush tax cuts expire. The uncertainty of proposing enormous alterations to existing law is apparently no problem at all.”

[Novelafemme]

Since Kobi brought up Ron Paul, does anyone else feel comfortable sharing their thoughts on him with us? I am taking a serious look at him but have never voted any other way than a full Democratic ticket.

[Toughy]

Paul is a die hard Libertarian dressed up as a Republican. He does not believe in government except in the actual smallest way possible. No Social Security, no Medicare/Medicaid, no welfare/aid to dependent children, no free lunch in public schools, no Departments of Education, Housing, Health and Human Services, Commerce, no EPA, no Labor Relations Board, no military bases outside the US, no foreign aid, no United Nations, no civil rights act, no affirmative action, no government subsidies, no regulatory oversight of anything (banking, farming, oil drilling, health and other insurance, etc).

He believes in only free market capitalism and that an individual is responsible for their lot in life no matter what. The free market is the conscience of society. He suggested in a debate that a person without health insurance should just die because it's their fault they don't have insurance. He is also an MD and is incredibly narcissistic. His son, Senator Rand Paul (R) (KY), is just as scary.

Read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged by Any Rand...or any of her books.....

He does however believe in evolution. He believes all drugs should be legal.

Go to his website and read and then actually think about the consequences of his free market economy and rugged individualism philosophies.

edited to add: the one inconsistency in his no government politics is abortion. He does believe the government should outlaw abortions.

[PumaJ]

Novelafemme, you asked this: "Since Kobi brought up Ron Paul, does anyone else feel comfortable sharing their thoughts on him with us? I am taking a serious look at him but have never voted any other way than a full Democratic ticket."

I find Paul's stance on too many issues to be much too extreme for my tastes. In addition, I find his ideas about our foreign policy to be poorly informed & frightfully naive. Though he has a few ideas that on the surface seem appealing, I find that they are based on a point of view that is very far away from my basic values.

The Nation has a pretty good article about him, "Ron Paul's Strange Bedfellows (http://www.thenation.com/article/165440/ron-pauls-strange-bedfellows)"

[Kent]

XrZtlnsBq_Y

[Cin]

Since Kobi brought up Ron Paul, does anyone else feel comfortable sharing their thoughts on him with us? I am taking a serious look at him but have never voted any other way than a full Democratic ticket.

To add to what has already been said:

There are some things about Ron Paul that really scare me. His stand on immigration for one. Among a wide assortment of immigration reform he wants to see implemented that are disturbing this is my favorite; he doesn't want children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S. to be citizens.

He doesn't want us to get involved in a war with Iran and that is surely our next war so that's good.

He is adamantly against a woman's right to choose.

He has a sort of left handed upside down backward stand on gay marriage. He believes it is a state's decision. He doesn't want to see a federal law. He did vote for DOMA. He doesn't want marriage legalized across the country. And he hopes to do this by keeping it in the hands of individual states and allowing, as DOMA allows for the federal government to refuse to recognize state gay marriages, for one state to refuse to recognize another state's or another country's marriage. Not very good news for binational couples and Paul's immigration policies would also be a nightmare for binational couples.

Not that it's up for questioning to my knowledge but here Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"[It] not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."

Apparently Paul is of the opinion that we are in need of a color-blind society. And since we do not have one the Civil Rights Act failed. He also appears to believe since on cannot legislate tolerance then human rights and whether people get them or not should be kept out of the hands of government and left to individual citizens to decide. A feeling which explains his position on gay marriage a bit more clearly.

He is against abolishing the electoral college and would also like to see the members of the state legislatures chose US senators instead of having them voted in by popular election as they are now.

From what I can gather economically Paul is still with the rest in protecting big business and corporate America. He just has different jargon to explain his positions. He takes a slightly different road but it's the same route. As with most of his stands it's all very convoluted but mostly the results are the same. To me the reason why shit things are happening isn't as important as shit things are happening. If you just shift the reasoning for allowing shit things to continue to happen I don't see how that will make those to whom shit things are happening feel any better.

To me really it's the same old free market capitalism bull shit.

[Kobi]

Miss Tick,

Thanks for the Huntsman rundown. I expected the conservative religious crap. It was the economics I was curious about. He, like most politicans today, is firmly rooted in the Milton Friedman disaster capitalism farce.

Briefly, disaster capitalism is when you take advantage of or create a disaster whereby you can overthrow the existing government, because is a threat to individual and corporate profits, and impose a certain economic order and laws to ensure this order proceeds unopposed. ( Think 9/11, think of the host of deregulation that has ensued since the Reagan era, think of selling off the infrastructure to private enterprise, think creative investment instrument expansion i.e. mortgage derivatives that caused this current global economic meltdown, think the busting of labor unions, think Iraq and Afganistan, think the Patriot Act and whatever the name of that newest thing Obama signed was). These are not individual, independent acts. It is a systematic and deliberate strategy.

Everywhere this was instituted i.e. Nixon did it to Argentina, the USA did it to Russia as a condition for financial aid thereby handcuffing Gorbechev, Thatcher did it to the UK, etc. it has been proven to be an unmitigated failure. A few people became fabulously weathy. The rest were fighting to just survive in the widespread poverty created by their new economic order. The coercion of the masses using intimidation, fear tactics, imprisonment and "disappearance" of dissenters is well documented. Sound familiar?

Pure capitalism might work as a theorectical construct. It has been an abysmal failure when it has been systematically implemented/imposed on unsuspecting peoples.

So, any politican from any party who continues to espouse the virtue of continuing down this path is a dangerous, freakin fruitcake to me.

And, I still think, all the crap about gay marriage, abortion, health care and all the manifestations of these, is a very concerted effort to keep "the masses" from concentrating on the bigger picture. Cant see or oppose the forest if you are lost in the trees. Cant focus on the forest when you are busy fighting amongst yourselves.

This is scary stuff but it sounds so surrealistic, it seems implausible. But it is very real, and incredibly scary.

[MsMerrick]

Since Kobi brought up Ron Paul, does anyone else feel comfortable sharing their thoughts on him with us? I am taking a serious look at him but have never voted any other way than a full Democratic ticket.

I have a family member, albeit a bit of a stretched one.. who is a very serious Ron Paul supporter, and has been for quite awhile.
I will say this, many things Ron Paul is for, I agree with, when it comes to Foreign Trade policy, get out of war policy etc.. I also like that he is pretty much not changing any views to fit the moment.
What I don;t like are his die hard Libertarian notions, that we would all be better off, if we rolled back the Constitutional amendments, like Civil Rights and hs general idea that we should all just let the free market decide whatever ;)
Now the kind of "rugged individualism" is very appealing at first thought !
But, at second look, it's more like having a football game, without any rules.. ! Which is essentially might makes right ....and what , imho, the people that wrote the Constitution, were struggling against imbuing out nation with...

[Cin]

Miss Tick,

Thanks for the Huntsman rundown. I expected the conservative religious crap. It was the economics I was curious about. He, like most politicans today, is firmly rooted in the Milton Friedman disaster capitalism farce.

Briefly, disaster capitalism is when you take advantage of or create a disaster whereby you can overthrow the existing government, because is a threat to individual and corporate profits, and impose a certain economic order and laws to ensure this order proceeds unopposed. ( Think 9/11, think of the host of deregulation that has ensued since the Reagan era, think of selling off the infrastructure to private enterprise, think creative investment instrument expansion i.e. mortgage derivatives that caused this current global economic meltdown, think the busting of labor unions, think Iraq and Afganistan, think the Patriot Act and whatever the name of that newest thing Obama signed was). These are not individual, independent acts. It is a systematic and deliberate strategy.

Everywhere this was instituted i.e. Nixon did it to Argentina, the USA did it to Russia as a condition for financial aid thereby handcuffing Gorbechev, Thatcher did it to the UK, etc. it has been proven to be an unmitigated failure. A few people became fabulously weathy. The rest were fighting to just survive in the widespread poverty created by their new economic order. The coercion of the masses using intimidation, fear tactics, imprisonment and "disappearance" of dissenters is well documented. Sound familiar?

Pure capitalism might work as a theorectical construct. It has been an abysmal failure when it has been systematically implemented/imposed on unsuspecting peoples.

So, any politican from any party who continues to espouse the virtue of continuing down this path is a dangerous, freakin fruitcake to me.

And, I still think, all the crap about gay marriage, abortion, health care and all the manifestations of these, is a very concerted effort to keep "the masses" from concentrating on the bigger picture. Cant see or oppose the forest if you are lost in the trees. Cant focus on the forest when you are busy fighting amongst yourselves.

This is scary stuff but it sounds so surrealistic, it seems implausible. But it is very real, and incredibly scary.


I totally agree with you. The reality is though how can we realistically believe that any national candidate can ever stray from the path and get elected or if elected hold office for any length of time. Unless we take corporations, the financial sector, the fat cats with all the money and all the power out of Washington it is a relatively redundant done deal, with a few minor forest for the trees differences just to keep us believing, no matter who we elect (and I use the term loosely). All the candidates are exactly the same because they are bought and paid for by the oligarchy that runs the country. It's like you said all that other stuff keeps us distracted.

I guess I don't see any individual politicians having much power to stray apart from that unimportant stuff.

[Cin]

It was the economics I was curious about.
Every candidate’s economic position at its root is going to be the same. That’s why nobody is going to point out the lie that putting money into corporations is going to result in jobs. Nobody is going to talk about what free trade is really doing to everyone. Nobody is going to tell the truth about what is happening with the economy. Nobody is going to talk openly about why we will not see the economic sector regulated. Nobody is going to admit that deregulation is the problem and logically speaking regulation is the answer. There is a reason why we don’t ever get to hear a national candidate with a truly different spin. It certainly can’t be because there are no alternatives to what we have. Everyone who ever runs for office, especially nationally, can't all just naturally be free market capitalists. No politician ever ever ever wants to look at some palatable form of social democracy? How can that be? I mean given numbers alone social democracy under some palatable form would have to come up. Unless there is a reason why it can't? And I believe that reason is the oligarchy who runs the country.

[Cin]

It reminds of that movie Super Size Me, when the guy said every time his kid went by a Mcdonalds he was going to smack him so that his kid would not associate good things with Mcdonalds. That’s what has been done to us. Every time anyone ever says socialism they are accused of the most heinous things. Over time nobody associates any thing good with socialism.

[Truly Scrumptious]

If you're looking for a third party alternative . . .why not give the Canada Party a try?

BrhA0sEkuaM&feature=player_embedded#t=3s

[PumaJ]

Every candidate’s economic position at its root is going to be the same.

Yes, I think that is true of all of the Repub candidates. I don't think that is true of Obama. I say that based on his history, legislatively, & personally. At least I've never seen any hard evidence of that being true of him over the 10 yrs. I've been paying attention to him, ever since he gave his speech against the war in Iraq at an anti-war rally in Chicago on 10/2/02. He was a State Senator at the time. More about Obama's political positions here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama).

This is not to say that I agree with all that Obama has done, however. It is merely to point out that he is not like any of the Rebup candidates. Some on the Left disagree strongly with Obama. It is my observation that they don't get it about Progressivism in general & that they didn't pay adequate attention to Obama being a rather centrist Progressive on economic & foreign policy issues. Yet he made no secret of his views for they permeated every interview, speech he gave & book that he wrote. Since he has become President it has become searingly clear that he has been forced into some actions as the result of complete obstructiveness by the Repubs in the House & Senate. That several Blue Dog Dems have joined in that obstructiveness is disgusting in my view.

Truman was the President when I was born. Eisenhower became President when I was very young. I started paying attention to presidential politics with Kennedy's campaign. The culture wars on a national level began under Reagan, though they'd begun in California when he was Governor there. What we are seeing today is an uber extreme version of what was begun back then. Including runaway Capitalism with a capital C.

BTW an excellent book about Capitalism via US companies & others & the effect on other nations is "World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_on_Fire)", by Amy Chua.

[Kobi]

I totally agree with you. The reality is though how can we realistically believe that any national candidate can ever stray from the path and get elected or if elected hold office for any length of time. Unless we take corporations, the financial sector, the fat cats with all the money and all the power out of Washington it is a relatively redundant done deal, with a few minor forest for the trees differences just to keep us believing, no matter who we elect (and I use the term loosely). All the candidates are exactly the same because they are bought and paid for by the oligarchy that runs the country. It's like you said all that other stuff keeps us distracted.

I guess I don't see any individual politicians having much power to stray apart from that unimportant stuff.



I totally agree with you. And, I havent a really good solution to offer. I do have suggestions tho.

What I can say, is the pioneers of drastic change in this country, were those who were willing to put themselves out there, organize, speak to the realities, and fight for what was right.

We, as a people, have become very complacent yet we are not powerless. We just dont use the power that we do have in a systematic way.

Some of the power we have:

1. Voting. Not just the right to vote but choosing how we choose to vote. Does it have to be about evaluating and selecting the least offensive donkey in the herd?

Personally, I made the decision a long time ago that I might not be able to fight the machine but I can work to put a kink in things. This means I rarely vote for an incumbent. I figure if we keep turning over the politicians every term, no one can become too entrenched and an intregal part of the farce. The more turn over, the slower the process.

Example - look at the horror show of Congress after the last election. The turnover was unprecedented. The sides are so opposed to one another, so entrenched in their own power shit, so busy fighting one another, they have constipated the entire process of government. This is sometimes scary or used as a scare tactic. I would rather them be embroiled in a pooping contest than steamrolling over the people.

We can choose to NOT vote for the primary party candidates. Period. Both are corrupt. Both have their own agendas and neither have the good of the people as the basis of their beliefs and actions. If people start voting for other parties, it is another stick in the spokes of the machine. If done on a wide enough and consistent enough basis, it sends a message that their power and control are in jeopardy.

For as much as we complain, imo, we have GIVEN those with the power - economic and political, the power they have. And, we can take that power back. They know it too. Retaining that power, and discouraging people from acting against it, is what the Patriot Act and that new bill are all about.

2. We have a boatload of economic power if people would work together. Recent examples....Verizon nullifying their attempt to charge a 2 dollar fee for something or BOA wanting to charge a 5 dollar fee for using your ATM. Both revoked because of widespread complaining and threatening to stop using their services.

How much power would we as a people have if we systematically decided to boycott a particular company for whatever reason? Dramatic decreases in income gets attention....really fast.....not just for the company being boycotted but for others in the same business.

The dynamics of power games is a good guide to the things that can help the collective us. Others here are more versed in them than I am.

3. Sheer numbers. In sheer numbers, there are more of "us" than there are of "them". We have become accustomed to our numbers making an impact using electronic means. What kind of impact would the visual display of sheer numbers have? What kind of impact did sheer numbers have in the past?

My point, I think, is we are not helpless, hopeless, and powerless...unless that is what we want to be. What we might be is unorganized, fragmented, frightened of the uncertainties that come with the process of profound change, and lacking in leadership.

I think it was Einstein who said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. We need to do something different, demand something different, use a different set of rules etc.

[Cin]

Yes, I think that is true of all of the Repub candidates. I don't think that is true of Obama.

I'm not sure what to say about Obama. I voted for him in 2008 and I'll probably vote for him in 2012. Economically speaking though he differs little. He has protected the financial sector and he has plenty of Wall St. people advising him.

He talks a good game but if you see the bills that have been passed into law during his administration, I think you will find he took care of who he needed to take care of to stay alive in politics in America.

[Cin]

I totally agree with you. And, I havent a really good solution to offer. I do have suggestions tho.

What I can say, is the pioneers of drastic change in this country, were those who were willing to put themselves out there, organize, speak to the realities, and fight for what was right.

We, as a people, have become very complacent yet we are not powerless. We just dont use the power that we do have in a systematic way.

Some of the power we have:

1. Voting. Not just the right to vote but choosing how we choose to vote. Does it have to be about evaluating and selecting the least offensive donkey in the herd?

Personally, I made the decision a long time ago that I might not be able to fight the machine but I can work to put a kink in things. This means I rarely vote for an incumbent. I figure if we keep turning over the politicians every term, no one can become too entrenched and an intregal part of the farce. The more turn over, the slower the process.

Example - look at the horror show of Congress after the last election. The turnover was unprecedented. The sides are so opposed to one another, so entrenched in their own power shit, so busy fighting one another, they have constipated the entire process of government. This is sometimes scary or used as a scare tactic. I would rather them be embroiled in a pooping contest than steamrolling over the people.

We can choose to NOT vote for the primary party candidates. Period. Both are corrupt. Both have their own agendas and neither have the good of the people as the basis of their beliefs and actions. If people start voting for other parties, it is another stick in the spokes of the machine. If done on a wide enough and consistent enough basis, it sends a message that their power and control are in jeopardy.

For as much as we complain, imo, we have GIVEN those with the power - economic and political, the power they have. And, we can take that power back. They know it too. Retaining that power, and discouraging people from acting against it, is what the Patriot Act and that new bill are all about.

2. We have a boatload of economic power if people would work together. Recent examples....Verizon nullifying their attempt to charge a 2 dollar fee for something or BOA wanting to charge a 5 dollar fee for using your ATM. Both revoked because of widespread complaining and threatening to stop using their services.

How much power would we as a people have if we systematically decided to boycott a particular company for whatever reason? Dramatic decreases in income gets attention....really fast.....not just for the company being boycotted but for others in the same business.

The dynamics of power games is a good guide to the things that can help the collective us. Others here are more versed in them than I am.

3. Sheer numbers. In sheer numbers, there are more of "us" than there are of "them". We have become accustomed to our numbers making an impact using electronic means. What kind of impact would the visual display of sheer numbers have? What kind of impact did sheer numbers have in the past?

My point, I think, is we are not helpless, hopeless, and powerless...unless that is what we want to be. What we might be is unorganized, fragmented, frightened of the uncertainties that come with the process of profound change, and lacking in leadership.

I think it was Einstein who said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. We need to do something different, demand something different, use a different set of rules etc.


I completely agree with you. Feet on the street is totally what we need. And yes there are more of us than them, like 99% more, more or less *grin*. And systematically taking our rights away is exactly what is happening. And so much more. Like privatizing war and militarizing the police. Corporations have their own armies and the US army itself is so far removed from the US people it's scary.

First we cheerfully surrendered our rights because we believed we could trade freedom for safety and security. Now we are having them coerced from us. I don't know too many people who supported the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge. Yet pass it did. And Obama signed it as a xmas present for us all. Who is a terror suspect? That is up for interpretation. Perhaps a visual display of our sheer numbers could be interpreted as terrorism? But you are right we are not helpless or hopeless. We just have to come together and fight back.

[Kobi]

I'm not sure what to say about Obama. I voted for him in 2008 and I'll probably vote for him in 2012. Economically speaking though he differs little. He has protected the financial sector and he has plenty of Wall St. people advising him.

He talks a good game but if you see the bills that have been passed into law during his administration, I think you will find he took care of who he needed to take care of to stay alive in politics in America.


I have mixed emotions about Obama as well. I think his heart is in the right place.

I suspect his campaign was financed by some pretty powerful people and those are the people affecting what he can and cannot do. My gut tells me Obama may have thought he would have more control/independence than he or maybe any other recent President has had.

Take a look at Obama's cabinet members/key government appointees and see how many of them were Goldman Sachs executives just before and during the banking meltdown and the bailout. Take a look at the sweet deal Goldman Sachs received in the bailout at the expense of other banks.

The major Wall Street firms contributed a little over 15 million to Obama's 2008 campaign. The bailout cost the taxpayers 700 BILLION. Thats a pretty hefty return on an investment eh? Wish my savings had that rate of return. :)

Thinks thats bad? According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point in 2009 the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/

Just boggles my tired old brain.

[PumaJ]

I voted for Clinton twice for Pres., though he wasn't my favorite candidate in the Dem primaries. Clinton signed some things into law that I think have resulted in negative effects on our economy. One example was the signing of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act) which served to repeal parts of the Glass–Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act). This allowed the consolidation of commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. However, the investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies (the financial industry) did not operate under the same regulations as the banking industry. big problem there. BTW, the Right had been trying to get the GSA repealed pretty much since it was passed in 1933.

Obama is in favor of regulatory reform & on July 21, 2010, he signed into law the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protect ion_Act). This is also covered on this page, Wall Street Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_reform). Whether or not this legislation has been or can be as much as we need, I can't say for sure. What I'm most disappointed about is the paltry "health care" reform. For the past 20+ yrs. I've held nursing positions that have put me in the position to work with kids & families who are grossly underserved in the matter of healthcare due to the lack of insurance. I can't describe what effect that has on me, but what I can say is that I & most of the other nurses, NPs & MDs that I know were & are in favor of universal health coverage. We are not very happy with the reform that has happened & believe that Obama did a major cave-in on the issue. However, the small changes that will happen are better than none. So much more is needed.

Overall, I firmly believe that as a nation we will be in even deeper shit if any of the Repub candidates were elected to the Presidency. Obama for all of his warts is so much better. Just my opinion & sorry I've gone on a bit of a rant.

[Cin]

I voted for Clinton twice for Pres., though he wasn't my favorite candidate in the Dem primaries. Clinton signed some things into law that I think have resulted in negative effects on our economy. One example was the signing of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act) which served to repeal parts of the Glass–Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act). This allowed the consolidation of commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. However, the investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies (the financial industry) did not operate under the same regulations as the banking industry. big problem there. BTW, the Right had been trying to get the GSA repealed pretty much since it was passed in 1933.

Obama is in favor of regulatory reform & on July 21, 2010, he signed into law the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protect ion_Act). This is also covered on this page, Wall Street Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_reform). Whether or not this legislation has been or can be as much as we need, I can't say for sure. What I'm most disappointed about is the paltry "health care" reform. For the past 20+ yrs. I've held nursing positions that have put me in the position to work with kids & families who are grossly underserved in the matter of healthcare due to the lack of insurance. I can't describe what effect that has on me, but what I can say is that I & most of the other nurses, NPs & MDs that I know were & are in favor of universal health coverage. We are not very happy with the reform that has happened & believe that Obama did a major cave-in on the issue. However, the small changes that will happen are better than none. So much more is needed.

Overall, I firmly believe that as a nation we will be in even deeper shit if any of the Repub candidates were elected to the Presidency. Obama for all of his warts is so much better. Just my opinion & sorry I've gone on a bit of a rant.
I think it all went to shit during the Reagan years and kept on with a downward spiral for us and a constant climbing for the wealthy, now the country is a barely recognizable shadow of its former self. No jobs, nothing made here, no infrastructure, encouragement and incentives galore for corporations to offshore where its easier to pollute with impunity, the resources are cheap, and the workers cheaper. Not to mention no import taxes. I am sure politicians have things they would like to accomplish during their terms however, the financial elite have such a hold that it is impossible to expect that candidates in national elections will be able to stay viable without Wall Street money. And you can’t expect the financial sector to just give money for nothing. We can all connect the dots from there.

That said, I agree not all candidates are created exactly equal in ALL issues. I think there are issues outside of economic ones where we can find wiggle room. Unfortunately right now economics is killing us.

[AtLast]

I just ranted about Newt & Santorum in the racism thread- could have thrown Ron Paul in too. Women's health & reproductive health care along with most of the GOP's field and attitudes about race just point to my not considering voting for any of them, no matter who ends up the nominee. Romney's economic views are just more of what began with Ronald Reagan and pander to the most wealthy.

Like many have stated, I don't see Obama as in any way, my "perfect" candidate or free of Wall Street ties. Yet, I do think he has a human soul and also earned his way through life by putting his nose to the grindstone. I don't know how anyone can be elected to the US presidency without being in bed with someone- which isn't exactly something I like.

The first general election I voted in was in 1972 when Nixon won a second term against George McGovern, who I voted for. I have almost always felt like I was voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" since. I hate this.

What I think right now is that there is positive movement in the economy and that a change in the president and his policies is a big mistake at this point. I also think that the last thing he wants to do is get us into another war with Iran and has the intellect and temperment to deal with that situation.

What I really think is that cannot allow the Occupy movement to die out. It will effect change that is more responsive to the working and middle class eventually. Patience.

[PumaJ]

Miss Tick, I agree that things started to go down hill in a big way under Reagan, & have gotten progressively worse since then. Same thing happened in California during & after his governorship there. I moved to Oregon from San Francisco in 1977, but having many family members in California, I've more or less kept up with what happens there..very sad in many ways:-(

AtLast, I think that Obama has fewer Wall St. ties than many others, but I also think it is impossible in today's political world to not have some. It seems that he favors more regulation of the banks & financial industry than any other president since FDR, a stance that is not earning him any more points with many in the financial industry & certainly fuels a great deal of the negative press about him in the MSM. Overall, though, IMO, he needs to show more backbone & stop trying to be so damned conciliatory with those on the right. Perhaps we are seeing finally seeing some of that from him.

The fact that there are so many uber conservative players in the Repub field, hoping to become Pres. horrifies me. I cannot remember a time when this has been the case in our nation's politics. Obviously, the culture wars are alive & well. I was very happy to see that Santorum was booed in N.H.

[AtLast]

I think it all went to shit during the Reagan years and kept on with a downward spiral for us and a constant climbing for the wealthy, now the country is a barely recognizable shadow of its former self. No jobs, nothing made here, no infrastructure, encouragement and incentives galore for corporations to offshore where its easier to pollute with impunity, the resources are cheap, and the workers cheaper. Not to mention no import taxes. I am sure politicians have things they would like to accomplish during their terms however, the financial elite have such a hold that it is impossible to expect that candidates in national elections will be able to stay viable without Wall Street money. And you can’t expect the financial sector to just give money for nothing. We can all connect the dots from there.

That said, I agree not all candidates are created exactly equal in ALL issues. I think there are issues outside of economic ones where we can find wiggle room. Unfortunately right now economics is killing us.



Oh, yes, I remember the Reagan years in CA well! Probably because of being in the mental health field as well as having a mentally ill sister, my greatest criticism of him was his dismantling of the mental health system in CA without much of anything for very ill people to have as support services. Frankly, I thank Reagan for the start of the huge numbers of homeless mentally ill in this state. People, that with treatment and community based housing with programs and effective/consistent medication use could be productive people in our communities. And the needed services and resources for families of the mentally ill have forever been pretty much non-existent. Another aspect that can be so beneficial in the mentally ill having a fairly good life. Family support is critical but also very difficult- not easy to have mentally ill members in one's family at all- extremely stressful and expensive if you want your family member to have treatment (insurance benefits for mental illness remains practically non-existent).

I do support Obama and will vote for him. Also, again work for his campaign. No, I don't think he is as tied to Wall Street and the banks as so many others are. YES- I am appreciating his recent realization that the GOP in Congress really never intended to work with him and the Dems and his being bolder. His recent recess appointments are critical to economic growth and people being able to build back their shattered credit.

Presently, I am having a big problem with the hawkish garbage about Iran being presented by GOP candidates (except Paul). It is a sensitive situation in which threats of US military intervention would be just insane! Tonight during the GOP NH debate, I saw the very same insane strategies coming from the GOP field that we saw in Bush 43 (actually, 41 as well). Hell, both Perry & Santorum think we should go back into Iraq! They do not want us there any longer and Iran is a sovereign nation. Santorum & Peryy think we should just re-invade!! I hate hearing of Iraq pretty much crumbling into a state of civil war. But, we knew this would happen at the onset of all of Bush's lies! We have no business nation building anywhere. We have to use diplomacy- and have to accept that our form of democracy is not going to work in many areas of the world and a sovereign people have to choose their destiny as they see fit. No, I don't like that so many innocent people all over that region are killed each day, but we cannot save them.

It was so obvious tonight during the debate that every one of them were choking on their words about the first question concerning better economic news with private job growth! Romney, especially had a hell of a time with having to acknowledge this and make a point that he was glad that some we finally getting jobs again (he isn't, it's a win for Obama). There was no way that any of them could have stood up there and slam the better (not as good as we need) job creation numbers- think of how the public would react to that! Rather amazing, as congressional republicans have done every thing possible to block any of the Dems/administrations ideas for job creation- and guess what- it is steadily improving! Makes me think about how much further we could be along if the jackasses had thought about the working and middle classes and not obstructed the various things that were put forth when both houses were held by the Democrats, but not by enough to get around all the damn filibustering by the GOP! There is probably not one other thing that peeves more than this because of how much people have been struggling and our own legislative body simply played politics.

This is where I see the main thrust of the Occupy movement playing a big role in identifying income disparity over not only the past decade, but over 30 years (Reagan "trickle-down" economic policies)- and where it's messages will ring in the ears of voters in November. I honestly believe that it, along with what Obama's administration has been able to do (including health care reform) will play a major role with the "common" electorate. Also, women and POC, especially our Latino populations will give Obama another 4 years.

However, it can't stop there. There are fundamental changes in all aspects of our economy, workers rights and the role of government as well as campaign finance reform that must be achieved. And please- make it so that Obama is able to make at least one more Supreme court nomination. By 2014, the mid-term elections have to end with Democrats and Independents (with liberal and progressive leanings that include radical environmental legislation, taking both houses to set the stage for what needs to be accomplished in the next administration and Congressional sessions for many years ahead. That's why I say patience.

[Soon]

/snip/

"Make no mistake: even if Rick Santorum loses the Republican nomination, he could very well become Mitt Romney's running mate," warned HRC president Joe Solmonese. "A Romney-Santorum White House could set back our progress for years."

While none of the candidates is a darling of the LGBT community, the possibility of Santorum emerging even as part of a Republican ticket has the potential to rile LGBT voters like no other. The HRC points out his infamous "man on dog" comments in its letter, but there's a long track record of antigay positions it could have picked from, including a recent comment that gay parents would be worse at raising children than convicts.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/01/10/Vice_President_Santorum_HRC_Warns_It_Possible/

[AtLast]

I've decided that although I will work here in CA for Democrat candidates and Obama campaigns, my main political energy is going to be about a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.

This will take years to accomplish, but as I see it, the single most important challenge to our democratic processes in the 21st century. The last Constitutional amendment attempt I threw myself into was the Equal Rights Amendment that was never ratified by the number states required. It was initially introduced in 1923, just after women gained the right to vote. It fell apart in 1982 without state required ratification and even if it had gained enough states to ratify, the extension it was give back in I think 1979, most likely would have been overturned.

So strange to look back and think about the biggest "threat" to the ERA given by those that opposed it was that women would be then subjected to combat roles during times of war if serving in the military. Hummm.... such irony when one considers the role of our women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today without the ERA ever being ratified!

There were 59 years in which the ERA was tossed about and never ratified! That is only one year less than my age now and my Grandmother was among suffragists that first introduced the ERA. So, I guess I better get busy with working toward the possibility of seeing Citizens United be overturned within my lifetime! However, it will have to be one hell of a lot shorter time frame!

Bernie Sanders appears to be serious about taking this on, but he is older than I am! So, I think that this effort needs to begin with the gathering of young voters as it may take one hell of a long time to ever see it become a ratified constitutional amendment. However, it has such a direct effect on young people coming up in the US in terms of actually having their vote mean anything! Unless one is a billionaire.

[MsDemeanor]

There were 59 years in which the ERA was tossed about and never ratified! That is only one year less than my age now and my Grandmother was among suffragists that first introduced the ERA. So, I guess I better get busy with working toward the possibility of seeing Citizens United be overturned within my lifetime! However, it will have to be one hell of a lot shorter time frame!

On the other hand, the 21st Amendment was ratified in 10 months.

[AtLast]

On the other hand, the 21st Amendment was ratified in 10 months.

Oh, yes.... I feel better... thanks.... Well, sort of..

:chocolate:

[AtLast]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083337/Mitt-Romney-earned-millions-steel-company-deal-cost-government-44m.html

Revealed: The steel company deal that earned Mitt Romney millions while costing the government $44m and 750 people their jobs

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083337/Mitt-Romney-earned-millions-steel-company-deal-cost-government-44m.html#ixzz1jMrxQQp2

This is the stuff that really irks me-

...< a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company's underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees. <<-

Bain/Romney make $ while the fed government ends up having to make things right for employees!!

[MsMerrick]

Newt Gingrich sounding more far left.. More like an Occupier... than ..Well most Democrats :)

30 minute Ad here.. (http://www.kingofbain.com/)

[Kobi]

Newt Gingrich sounding more far left.. More like an Occupier... than ..Well most Democrats :)

30 minute Ad here.. (http://www.kingofbain.com/)

Politics makes me nuts and ads like this make me even nuttier. Romney, who I dont care for, is no different, no worse in what has become common business practices in a post-deregulation economic society. Romney is no different than Cheney was at Halliburton or half of Obama's cabinent was at Goldman Sacks.

What makes me twitch, is when someone, like Newt, ( who, btw, reminds me of a south park character) who was an big part the republican machine that set up this "new" business environment, trying to distance themselves from that which they created and trying to indict those who took full advantage of their creation as being "bad" people.

You created it. Others took full advantage of it. To me, if you refuse to take responsibility for what you created, you have no right to condemn those used it to their own advantage.

I am going to be bald before this election is over. :blink:

[Cin]

Bill Maher cracks me up.

Maher: Santorum thinks about gay sex more than a dildo salesman

Bill Maher on Thursday said that there was a connection between Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s sexual frustration and his desire to bomb Iran.

In an interview with Chelsea Handler, Maher explained that former candidate Herman Cain was scheduled to appear on an upcoming episode of his HBO show.

“I like Herman Cain,” Maher admitted. “You know, I said to him, I said, “Look, I don’t like hate your fucking guts like I hate Newt Gingrich.’ I mean, I really don’t like him.”

“No, I hate Newt Gingrich,” Handler agreed. “And everyone watching also hates them, OK?”

Mayer said, however, that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was the most ridiculous candidate because of his views on gay rights.

“He wears a sweater vest everywhere, which is proof that he does not have one gay friend,” Maher noted. “This guy thinks about gay sex more than any gay man in America. There’s a guy down in West Hollywood working at Dorothy’s and Dildos who does not think about gay sex as much as Rick Santorum.”

“Also, [he] wants to bomb Iran,” the comedian continued. “And I think people who are sexually frustrated want to bomb other countries. I really think there’s a connection there. I think this guy is more backed up than [Interstate] 405.”

[Semantics]

Bill Maher cracks me up.

Maher: Santorum thinks about gay sex more than a dildo salesman

Bill Maher on Thursday said that there was a connection between Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s sexual frustration and his desire to bomb Iran.

In an interview with Chelsea Handler, Maher explained that former candidate Herman Cain was scheduled to appear on an upcoming episode of his HBO show.

“I like Herman Cain,” Maher admitted. “You know, I said to him, I said, “Look, I don’t like hate your fucking guts like I hate Newt Gingrich.’ I mean, I really don’t like him.”

“No, I hate Newt Gingrich,” Handler agreed. “And everyone watching also hates them, OK?”

Mayer said, however, that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was the most ridiculous candidate because of his views on gay rights.

“He wears a sweater vest everywhere, which is proof that he does not have one gay friend,” Maher noted. “This guy thinks about gay sex more than any gay man in America. There’s a guy down in West Hollywood working at Dorothy’s and Dildos who does not think about gay sex as much as Rick Santorum.”

“Also, [he] wants to bomb Iran,” the comedian continued. “And I think people who are sexually frustrated want to bomb other countries. I really think there’s a connection there. I think this guy is more backed up than [Interstate] 405.”

So funny.

I just watched tonight's Real Time and Bill didn't disappoint.
He brought up something that Santorum said within the past few days about Mitt Romney:

[Santorum] said the party can win back the White House only by offering a “clear contrast” with President Obama. “We need contrasts,” Mr. Santorum said, “not just a paler shade of what we have.”

Classy.

[Cin]

Thanks to the Supreme Court and their decision for Citizen United this is what the landscape of the 2012 elections look like. We can all individually decide what that might mean for the US.


Gaze Into the Exploding Universe of Dark Money
We've charted the red giants and blue dwarfs spending millions to influence the 2012 election.

If Citizens United was the Big Bang of a new era of money in politics, here's the parallel universe it formed: rapidly expanding super-PACs and nebulous 501(c) groups exerting their gravitational pull on federal elections. A group's size in the chart below is based upon all known fundraising or spending since 2010…so keep an eye out for dark matter.

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/Giants2.jpg

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/super-pacs-501-c-groups-chart

[Cin]

On the other hand, the 21st Amendment was ratified in 10 months.

If only.

Considering in 2010 the Supreme Court's decision for Citizen United opened the door for super PACs and seeing as control over Washington is maintained by the super rich, this as an uphill battle of monumental proportions, not unlike that of Sisyphus.

[Kobi]

If only.

Considering in 2010 the Supreme Court's decision for Citizen United opened the door for super PACs and seeing as control over Washington is maintained by the super rich, this as an uphill battle of monumental proportions, not unlike that of Sisyphus.



More pieces of the puzzle begin falling into place unveiling a very scary but consistent and methodical process.

BTW, when I first read this, I thought it said "not unlike that of syphillis". Interesting analogy I thought. Obviously, I need to wear my glasses more. :glasses:

[Cin]

More pieces of the puzzle begin falling into place unveiling a very scary but consistent and methodical process.

BTW, when I first read this, I thought it said "not unlike that of syphillis". Interesting analogy I thought. Obviously, I need to wear my glasses more. :glasses:



Glad I already finished my orange juice.:rofl:

[AtLast]

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club

Kind of a fun site for politics junkies- actually has many thoughtful responses. Right now debating the Citizens United decision.

[Kobi]

The news has been reporting, Huntsman is dropping out of the race and endorsing Romney as the best candidate to beat Obama.

So, that leaves Mittens, Perry - who I expect to be the next one dropping out (he is more of a PR nightmare than GW), Paul, and Santorum.

[AtLast]

So, over the weekend, 150 tea-vangelists met in Texas to unite GOP social conservatives on a candidate. They are now behind Santorum.

[Kobi]

Five months riding into the GOP nomination race on a wave of enthusiasm, Gov. Rick Perry will be moseying back to Texas, CNN reports, breaking the story. He is expected to hold a presser at 11 a.m. during which he drop out of the race on the eve of the South Carolinian primary and throw his weight behind fellow anti-Romney Newt Gingrich, acccording to Politico. Like Jon Huntsman who dropped out himself two days ago, Perry's flailing candidacy had fallen behind that of comedian Stephen Colbert in Public Policy Polling's numbers in South Carolina released yesterday. Perry decided to stay in the race after coming in fifth in the Iowa caucus (announced via one of his two Twitter, both of which are current silent on the dropping out as of now.) Perry's dropping out comes after a week of calls from his once-strong supporters -- including South Caroline State Sen. Larry Grooms and Red State editor Erick Erickson -- to call it quits and "start his image rehab now by becoming a 'kingmaker' in the GOP race," reports The Daily Beast's Patricia Murphy. And in choosing to endorse Gingrich, he's appeasing conservative leaders wishing to stall Mitt Romney, as The Wall Street Journal reports. "Some conservative leaders, aiming to stop the momentum of Mitt Romney, had urged Mr. Perry to bow out and to help rally conservative voters around another candidate—Newt Gingrich or former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum."

Update 10:19 a.m.: Politico reports that it wasn't just his backers, but the Gingrich team itself, that has been lobbying Perry quit the race before the South Carolina primary to give a boost to Newt. 'Gingrich had been assiduously lobbying Perry officials in recent days," Politico writes. "The former House speaker has repeatedly texted Perry manager Joe Allbaugh." CNN reports that both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have "reached out to Perry asking for his backing in the race for the GOP presidential nomination" without confirming (as Politico has) that Perry had decided to back Gingrich.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/rick-perry-done-running-president/47601/

[Kobi]

ABC News reportedly plans to air a "potentially explosive" interview with Newt Gingrich's second ex-wife Marianne, just two days before the South Carolina primary and hours after tonight's CNN Republican debate. Matt Drudge first reported that the interview with ABC's Brian Ross was "set to rock the trail," but that the decision about when and if to air it had set off an "ethical" debate inside the network, with some execs questioning whether it should be shown so close to the primary.

The AP and The New York Times both report that there was indeed some disagreement, but that ABC has decided to air the interview on Nightline on Thursday night, with excerpts being released earlier in the evening, before the scheduled GOP debate on CNN at 8:00 p.m. ET. However, as of this morning there's no mention of the interview anywhere on ABCNews.com or the Nightline website. (Ironically, there is an AP report republished on the site, but it's not linked from the front pages.)

Howard Kurtz at The Daily Beast concurred with the Drudge and AP stories, but adds that Marianne Gingrich does not say anything in the new interview that she hasn't said in the past. However, her most prominent previous comments were given in this 2010 interview with Esquire magazine, one that we're sure a lot of voters haven't read. Even if they had (and already forgot about it), there's a big difference between a year-old print interview and fresh TV sound bites two days before a big voting day.

While that interview also didn't reveal much in the way of scandal or new revelations, it was certainly unflattering to the candidate, as one of the people closest to the "real Newt" talked in great detail about his affairs and divorces, and his sometimes bizarre and unexplainable behavior. One particularly stinging quote from the interview was, “He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected." Gingrich divorced Marianne to marry his current wife, Callista, who he was having an affair with at the same time he was leading the impeachment fight against Bill Clinton.

The Gingrich campaign quickly jumped on the defensive, with one advisor calling Marianne "bitter" and adding that “It is pretty nasty to use personal tragedy for political exploitation.” They also pre-emptively released a statement from Gingrich's daughters saying the divorce was "a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events," but that if ABC wants to talk about the past, "Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/abc-air-interview-newt-gingrichs-ex-wife/47591/

[Soon]

Newt Gingrich: Doing Monogamish All Wrong (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/19/newt-gingrich-doing-monogamish-wrong)

Newt Gingrich, defender of traditional marriage, was still married to his second wife—and still fucking the living shit consecrated host out of Callista, then his "devout Catholic" mistress, now his "devout Catholic" third wife —when he asked his second wife for an open marriage:

Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich. In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an "open marriage" arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife. She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.... "He wanted an open marriage and I refused." Marianne described her "shock" at Gingrich's behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

Technically you're not asking your wife for an open marriage if you've already been fucking another woman for six years. You're presenting your wife with an ultimatum. That doesn't make you a proponent of open marriage, Newt, it makes you a CPOS.

But Newt's got a new campaign slogan: "Screw as I say, not as I screw."

And then there's this:

She said Newt moved for the divorce just months after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, with her then-husband present. "He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress. He knew," she said. Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer. His relationship with Marianne began while he was still married to Jackie but in divorce proceedings, Marianne said.
So, Callista, how's your health?

[Gentle Tiger]

Anyone surprised that Republicans have been quiet about the counting error in Iowa? No one upset or concerned? No one? What a shock! Be bewhee, bewhee quiet. Apparently concern and efforts should be around making sure that government issued id is required in order to vote in the presidential election coming up.

Either you care about voting fraud and making sure the process is accurate or you don't. :readfineprint:

I think the 2012 Presidential Election will be interesting this year on many levels. And can you imagine a Romney-Santorum or Gingrich-Palin ticket? What? Did that hurt your brain? :shocking:

[Corkey]

Iowa's caucus rep party chairman can't even say with certainty who won the damn caucus. 8 precincts are... "missing". This is what's called voter fraud. They have done it to themselves.

[Gentle Tiger]

Iowa's caucus rep party chairman can't even say with certainty who won the damn caucus. 8 precincts are... "missing". This is what's called voter fraud. They have done it to themselves.

Right?! "Missing" They don't really know what happened. So how are they going to address the problem so that nothing is "missing" in November? They think part of the problem has to do with a form not being submitted for some of the precincts.

Interesting indeed.

[Cin]

Mr. 1 Percent snaps at a 99 percenter

As Gingrich scores with race-baiting, Romney tries redbaiting, telling a voter, America's right and you're wrong!""
By Joan Walsh

Sometimes Mitt Romney’s animatronic persona can be a political liability. It’s why the story of strapping his dog Seamus to the top of the family car for a 12-hour drive continues to, well, dog him: Who could be that callous? But most of the time I’d argue it’s a virtue, especially in a farcical GOP campaign that Paul Krugman calls the “FOF primary,” for “fools and frauds.” The moderately intelligent Romney rarely seems rattled by the insanity around him; he goes through the meet and greet motions day after day, knowing his piles of money will eventually tumble out of a dump truck and crush his rivals. His stoic mien also helps Romney lie with impunity.

But Thursday we saw a different Mitt Romney, a man apparently rattled by Newt Gingrich’s rise in the South Carolina polls. Romney’s troubles have partly to do with Gingrich’s nonpareil race-baiting, but they’re also about an unfolding story line that depicts the man from Bain Capital, destroyer of jobs, dodger of taxes, as the perfect frontman for the top 1 percent in a time of rising (and long overdue) national concern with economic inequality. So when a man on a rope line outside Romney headquarters in Charleston asked him today, “What will you do to support the 99 percent even though you are part of the 1 percent?” Mitt snapped. He sounded a little more Chris Christie than Richie Rich, which is what so many of his GOP friends have been urging, but I’m not sure it’s going to play well. Here’s what he said, his face getting redder as he closed:

Lemme tell ya something. America is a great nation, because we’re a united nation and those who are trying to divide the nation as you’re trying to do here and as the president is doing are hurting this country, seriously. The right course for America is not to divide America, and try and divide us between one and another, it’s for us to come together as a nation. And if you’ve got a better model, if you think China is better, or Russia is better, or Cuba’s better, or North Korea’s better, I’m glad to hear all about it. But you know what? America’s right, and you’re wrong!

On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell praised Romney for sounding “Reaganesque,” which left Ron Fournier aghast. “I’d say he built a straw man. That protester didn’t say he thought Cuba and Russia had a better economic system, what he said was that Romney’s part of the 1 percent, and which is true. Romney talked about the politics that divide, the fact is, it’s not politics that divides us, we are divided. There is a huge and growing gap between the rich and the middle class and the poor – and by the way, that’s an anxiety shared by blue-collar Republicans and blue-collar Democrats.”

They’re both right. Romney did sound Reaganesque – the nasty, bitter Reagan who was California’s governor more than the genial “morning in America” president most people remember (although both Reagans could play the politics of resentment when they had to). But I’d say he was more Nixon than Reagan. And that redbaiting, wow. “America’s right, and you’re wrong” is just as angry and divisive as “America, love it or leave it.” Fournier’s commonsense answer also ought to remind working-class fence-sitters that even supposed GOP populists like Chris Christie actually carry water for guys like Richie Rich. It really shouldn’t matter if you sound like Christie but push policies that enrich the Romneys. The South Carolina primary keeps getting more interesting.

Still, I stand behind my post last night refusing to take this new Gingrich surge seriously. For establishment Republicans, this second Newt surge has to feel like acid reflux; there is no way the thrice-married, disgraced House speaker will ever be president. But let’s give a hand to Rick Perry, who bumbled his way out of the race the way he bumbled through it, handing his endorsement to Gingrich on the very same morning Newt’s second wife told ABC News that he asked her for an open marriage so he could go on romancing his mistress Callista without the political stain of another divorce. You might say Perry was trying to help his buddy distract the media from the Marianne story. You would be wrong.

Poor Rick Santorum. Mr. blue-collar family values from Pennsylvania keeps getting jilted for the Tiffany’s-shopping serial adulterer from Georgia. Even the news that he actually won Iowa comes too late to produce another Santorum surge. (Sorry.) He’s probably under enormous pressure to follow Perry out the door, but on Thursday he looked too angry to consider that. It’s down to Romney and Gingrich in South Carolina.

You can watch the video here:
http://news.salon.com/2012/01/19/watch_mr_one_percent_snap_at_a_99_percenter/

[AtLast]

Iowa's caucus rep party chairman can't even say with certainty who won the damn caucus. 8 precincts are... "missing". This is what's called voter fraud. They have done it to themselves.

And every 4 years there is all the hoopla about Iowa! The straw poll and the caucus- all the media coverage on the "first" state to actually caste votes. Millions of dollars spent in the state and all the nutty predictions about it and who nominees will be- and they can't actually say who the freakin' winner is?

I think there should be some kind of rotational system for primaries for both parties.

[AtLast]

Newt Gingrich: Doing Monogamish All Wrong (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/19/newt-gingrich-doing-monogamish-wrong)

Newt Gingrich, defender of traditional marriage, was still married to his second wife—and still fucking the living shit consecrated host out of Callista, then his "devout Catholic" mistress, now his "devout Catholic" third wife —when he asked his second wife for an open marriage:

Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich. In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an "open marriage" arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife. She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.... "He wanted an open marriage and I refused." Marianne described her "shock" at Gingrich's behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

Technically you're not asking your wife for an open marriage if you've already been fucking another woman for six years. You're presenting your wife with an ultimatum. That doesn't make you a proponent of open marriage, Newt, it makes you a CPOS.

But Newt's got a new campaign slogan: "Screw as I say, not as I screw."

And then there's this:

She said Newt moved for the divorce just months after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, with her then-husband present. "He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress. He knew," she said. Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer. His relationship with Marianne began while he was still married to Jackie but in divorce proceedings, Marianne said.
So, Callista, how's your health?

Newt has a way about booking on wives that develop serious illnesses. First one had cancer and the second, the MS. Good question to ask Callista! Although, she is over 20 years younger than he is (trophy wife) - he probably thought the age difference might predict her staying healthy longer, I guess.

it is interesting to me however, that Callista is always with him- and they were doing all the book tours together as well as the election. perhaps she decided to keep a good eye on him! Ugh, I fail to see what is attractive about him. Maybe it is the power and $ thing. Callista does like those Tiffany's diamonds!

[AtLast]

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/01/stephen-colbert-super-pac-slams-stephen-colbert-throws-support-b/

The best thing about the GOP primary season is Stephen Colbert!!!

[Kobi]

Was reading an editorial this week about the USA as a republic, not a democracy, and why the founders did this. Important stuff.



An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.

[UofMfan]

Rick Santorum officially declared the Iowa winner.

Mitt Romney won New Hampshire.

New Gringrich wins South Carolina.


No wonder this happened:

d8Qu8nThJ5w

I would be singing too Mr. President :D

[Cin]

Gingrich -- and Race-Baiting -- Wins in South Carolina
Gingrich set about putting a black face on America's poor, and was rewarded with 40% of South Carolina's primary vote.

Marking a triumph for the return of unvarnished racism on the American political stage, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich handily won the South Carolina Republican presidential primary on Saturday, leaving in tatters the presumed inevitability of a Mitt Romney romp to the Republican presidential nomination. Finishing with 40 percent of the vote, Gingrich vanquished Romney, who garnered only 28 percent. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul managed 17 and 13 percent, respectively, while Herman Cain brought up the rear with 1 percent.

Until early this week, Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, was expected to win by a comfortable margin -- that is, until Gingrich topped the damage inflicted on Romney by the Newt-supporting superPAC, Winning Our Future, by establishing his supremacy in the race-baiting contest among all the GOP candidates in a Monday-night debate sponsored by Fox News. Subsequent polls showed Gingrich surging.

Gingrich then turbo-charged that surge by turning a negative into a positive: his second wife's charge that Gingrich had asked her for an "open marriage" while he was carrying on an affair with the woman who would become his third wife. Marianne Gingrich's accusation broke on Thursday, and CNN's John King opened that night's debate by asking Gingrich to respond. Gingrich responded with gusto, with a direct attack on King, whose question he called "close to despicable." The former speaker's attack on "media elites" won him a standing ovation from the Republican audience in the debate hall (and likely more than a few watching from home).

Newt the Destroyer

Gingrich came to South Carolina determined, at the very least, to destroy the candidacy of Romney, aided by "King of Bain," a video hit-piece by Winning Our Future, about Mitt Romney's tenure as CEO of Bain Capital, a player in the leveraged-buy-out frenzy that reshaped the landscape of U.S. business in the 1980s and '90s. The video depicts Romney as a heartless destroyer of the lives of working-class white people, all salt-of-the earth types who worked in the manufacturing companies bought up by Bain and sold for the sum of their parts.

In his concession speech on Saturday night, Romney took several swipes at Gingrich, suggesting the former speaker was in league with Obama, without ever calling Gingrich by name.

"Those who pick up the weapons of the left today will find them turned against us tomorrow," Romney said. "Let me be clear," he continued. "If Republican leaders want to join this president in demonizing success and disparaging conservative values then they're not going to be fit to be our nominee."

For his attacks on Romney's business practices, Gingrich was dubbed a kamikaze by the chattering classes, who chalked up his anti-Romney offensive to a desire to maim his opponent before his own presumably impending exit from the race -- mere retribution, it was believed, for the destruction of Gingrich's momentary surge in Iowa by hard-hitting ads run by the pro-Romney superPAC, Restore Our Future. But Gingrich, characteristically, had in mind something far more grand: winning the nomination.

Even as Gingrich and the Gingrich-friendly superPAC hammered at Romney -- with the help of $5 million pumped in by casino kingpin Sheldon Adelson -- he was honing his winning strategy for propelling his candidacy on the toxic fuel of racial resentment, a particularly potent brew with a black man occupying the White House.

And the Newt Shall Rise Again

After his loss to Romney and Santorum in Iowa, Gingrich apparently devised a plan that set his sights on South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies on the grounds of the state capitol. He knew New Hampshire was Romney's game, since, as the former governor of the state next door, Romney was nearly impossible to beat in the first-in-the-nation primary. But the national media were there, and Newt made the most of their presence, knowing his antics would be duly noted in the Palmetto state. So he deftly repackaged an off-hand, race-baiting remark made by Rick Santorum in Iowa, and dubbed Barack Obama the "food stamp president."

He set about putting a black face on all of America's poor, and then insinuating that these presumably dark-skinned dependents on public assistance arrived at their lowly station through laziness and the radical, redistributionist policies of America's first African-American president. Whenever he could pair his racist theories with attacks on other targets of the right -- say, labor unions and public employees -- he did. Child labor laws should be adjusted so that public school custodians could be replaced with poor kids -- who did, after all, need the money, he said, and an infusion of work ethic.

Then Gingrich said he would go into a place that would look, to those in South Carolina's Republican base with a fear of black people, like the lion's den.

"I said I was willing to go to the NAACP national convention, which most Republicans are unwilling to do, and talk about the importance of food stamps versus paychecks...," Gingrich said, as AlterNet reported, in response to a challenging question at a New Hampshire campaign stop. "Here's a Republican who is standing up, [willing to talk to] one of the most left-wing groups in America about how to help the people they represent."

Because, obviously, they are incapable of figuring that out on their own.

Doubling Down on the Race War

Then Gingrich got another of his big ideas. Why wait for the NAACP convention to roll around to collect television footage, for the edification of the racially prejudiced segment of the electorate he's targeting, of himself yelling directly at black people? Why not get that ball rolling in time for the South Carolina primary?

On January 14, exactly a week ahead of the South Carolina primary, Gingrich paid a visit to the Jones Memorial A.M.E. Church in Columbia, South Carolina, to face a largely African-American audience described by Politico as "hostile." There, he belligerently stuck to his guns in describing the nation's first black commander-in-chief as the "food stamp president" by repeating his false claim that, under Barack Obama, "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." (Actually, George W. Bush wins that honor, thanks to the economic crash his administration incited.) Gingrich's foray into enemy territory yielded local reporting that the white, right-wing base of the South Carolina G.O.P. could really soak up.

Monday night's debate offered Gingrich an opportunity to belittle a black person to his face on national television, when Fox News analyst Juan Williams challenged Gingrich on his comments about the poor, about African-Americans, and his description of Obama.

"Can't you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?" Williams asked.

"No. I don't see that," Gingrich replied.

As Williams continued, taking Gingrich to task for his fusing of food stamps, race and Obama in his stump speech, it became clear that Gingrich was winning the round when the audience in the debate hall loudly booed Williams. Gingrich repeated his false claim about Obama's responsibility for the numbers of people on the nutrition assistance program.

"Now," he continued, "I know among the politically correct, you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable."

(Later in the week, Gingrich would claim the "idea of work" to be a "strange, distant concept" to Juan Williams.)

Later, in response to a question about the wisdom of pursing a confrontation with Iran, Gingrich gave an answer full of coded racism and Confederate hagiography, but one easily missed by those not steeped in American history or the legends of the South.

"South Carolina in the Revolutionary War had a young 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson. He was sabred by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life," Gingrich said. "Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America’s enemies: Kill them."

As president, Andrew Jackson presided over the Trail of Tears, the genocidal removal of American Indians,who were deemed America's enemies, from their native lands. He also embraced a racial philosophy that reserved democracy only for white men, who were regarded as superior in every way to non-whites.

Clearing the Racist Path

While Gingrich was hardly the originator of the racial subtext to the GOP presidential contest, his unapologetic, bellicose articulation of racist tropes served to smoke out his competitors, who had, until that time, tried to blow the race whistle more subtly, or at least out of view of the mainstream media. (Santorum famously walked back from his Iowa remarks about black people and welfare by saying that he never used the phrase "black people," but rather the term "blah people.")

[UofMfan]

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j269/translator08/GingrichSC.jpg

[Kobi]

The making of a post-post-partisan Presidency.

by Ryan Lizza
January 30, 2012

Hundreds of pages of internal White House memos show Obama grappling with the unpleasant choices of government.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

-------



Interesting and informative read.

[ButchBowWow]

Should we be happy that it was just a cat?




WASHINGTON -- The race for the Arkansas' third congressional district took a gruesome turn on Sunday, when the campaign manager for Democratic challenger Ken Aden came home and found his cat slaughtered with the word "liberal" painted on the corpse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/democratic-operative-cat-liberal-slaughtered-pet_n_1224095.html

[AtLast]

I also posted this in the breaking News thread-


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-paid-a-139-effective-tax-rate-in-2010.php

TPM2012
Mitt Romney Paid A 13.9% Effective Tax Rate In 2010

January 24, 2012, 12:30 AM 143124After being hounded by Democrats and Republicans for refusing to and then hedging about releasing his federal tax returns, Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax return Tuesday morning. They show that Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income.

Romney’s total wealth is estimated at $190 million to $250 million.
The returns also show that over 2010 and 2011 Romney donated more money to charity, $7 million, than he will pay in taxes, much of that going to the Mormon church. The campaign stressed that Romney’s low tax rate was based on the fact that much of his income comes from 15% tax rate on capital gains, rather than the 35% rate on earned income as well as charitable deductions. They also note that much of the money comes from interest from Romney’s blind trust.

Key Takeaways From Romney’s Tax Returns
—Mitt Romney paid a 13.9 percent tax rate on $21.6 million in income last year.

—Most of the income came from dividends and interest on investments, which are taxed at a much lower rate.
—Romney raked in America’s median adjusted gross income of $33,048 in “less than a day,” Bloomberg notes. His income over a one-week span puts him in the top 1 percent of annual earners.—Romney, who files jointly with his wife Ann, expects to pay a 15.4 percent rate on $20.9 million in income this year.

—His campaign said he had $7.4 million in carried interest last year; this year the figure is $5.5 million.

—Romney contributed $7 million in charitable donations in the last two years, at least $4.1 million of which was to the Mormon Church.Sahil Kapur contributed to this post.

******

Yanno- "carried interest means he defers paying any tax on millions for years- one of those "loopholes" for the 1%!

Tweet from ThinkProgress-

Romney's return that reveals his Swiss bank account is the "good' return. He won't release previous years.

[Corkey]

I also posted this in the breaking News thread-


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-paid-a-139-effective-tax-rate-in-2010.php

TPM2012
Mitt Romney Paid A 13.9% Effective Tax Rate In 2010

January 24, 2012, 12:30 AM 143124After being hounded by Democrats and Republicans for refusing to and then hedging about releasing his federal tax returns, Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax return Tuesday morning. They show that Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income.

Romney’s total wealth is estimated at $190 million to $250 million.
The returns also show that over 2010 and 2011 Romney donated more money to charity, $7 million, than he will pay in taxes, much of that going to the Mormon church. The campaign stressed that Romney’s low tax rate was based on the fact that much of his income comes from 15% tax rate on capital gains, rather than the 35% rate on earned income as well as charitable deductions. They also note that much of the money comes from interest from Romney’s blind trust.

Key Takeaways From Romney’s Tax Returns
—Mitt Romney paid a 13.9 percent tax rate on $21.6 million in income last year.

—Most of the income came from dividends and interest on investments, which are taxed at a much lower rate.
—Romney raked in America’s median adjusted gross income of $33,048 in “less than a day,” Bloomberg notes. His income over a one-week span puts him in the top 1 percent of annual earners.—Romney, who files jointly with his wife Ann, expects to pay a 15.4 percent rate on $20.9 million in income this year.

—His campaign said he had $7.4 million in carried interest last year; this year the figure is $5.5 million.

—Romney contributed $7 million in charitable donations in the last two years, at least $4.1 million of which was to the Mormon Church.Sahil Kapur contributed to this post.

******

Yanno- "carried interest means he defers paying any tax on millions for years- one of those "loopholes" for the 1%!

Tweet from ThinkProgress-

Romney's return that reveals his Swiss bank account is the "good' return. He won't release previous years.

Much of his monies are in the Caymans and we have no idea how much that is, and he pays a total of 0% on those accounts. We need to change our tax laws to close these loopholes.

[theoddz]

Well, we all know how ridiculous a Newt Gingrich Presidential campaign would be. Come to think of it, none of the current list of GOP hopefuls would look much better, but Newtie's would really be over the top. :giggle:

Lookie what I found!!!! :pointing:

It reads almost like a laundry list of sin and is at least three times more entertaining!!! :)

http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm#draft

I hope you all find it as entertaining as I did. :winky:

He hasn't a hope in hell, especially if he actually gets a GOP nomination.

Here's some of his and the people who have known him's quote's:

Quotes:

"We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" - Anne Manning (who was also married at the time.)

"We would have won in 1974 if we could have kept him out of the office, screwing her [a young volunteer] on the desk." - Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler at the time

"Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them", [I] "found frightening pieces that related to my own life." - Newt.

"I think you can write a psychological profile of me that says I found a way to immerse my insecurities in a cause large enough to justify whatever I wanted it to." - Newt, speaking to Gail Sheehy.

"She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife. And besides, she has cancer." - Newt, on his first wife.

"He treats me really nicely, buys me all these ices. Dolce & Gabbana, Fendi and that Donna, Karan, he be sharin' All that money got me wearin'" -- Callista? No wait, that's Fergie, "My Humps"

"I don't want him to be president and I don't think he should be." - Newt's second wife Marianne.

“She [Callista] is the single most self-centered person I’ve run into in politics—it’s all about her. They do these movies together, and she does a word count: she has to have the same number of words on camera as he does or they have to reshoot. ...And Callista did not want him to run for President. That’s why he had to buy her so much damn jewelry.” - an unnamed "former strategist." Will Rogers, Newt's ex-Iowa strategist has denied it was him.

"If the country today were to move to the left, Newt would sense it before it started happening and lead the way." - Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler throughout the 1970s.

"It doesn't matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live." - Newt.
________________________

You know, it is a national insult to have someone like Newt Gingrich even throw his hat in the ring and then come within a hair's breadth of getting a major political nomination to run for the highest office in the land. How does THAT happen??? How does he get even ONE vote from any self respecting, decent American, let alone human being???? :|

[I]~Theo~ :bouquet:

[deeperstill]

ok, so a great turn of phrase in a speech delivered well, yeah, makes me wet*
(*disclaimer: this neither does nor does not endorse the content of anything said)

[Kobi]

That State of the Union address was a classic. Obama has always impressed me with his grasp of the issues I see as important and to break them down into easy to understand pieces and solutions. To me, he makes sense.

However, I am always mindful that he faces an uphill battle every step of the way from republicans, business, various interest groups, other countries etc.

Dont always like the compromises he makes or the watering down of key things to appease the $$$$, but the guys ideas I like. He reminds me a lot of the democrats of old, looking to even the playing field some while not totally upsetting the status quo.

[Cin]

You know the fact that Obama can give a pretty speech was, in my mind, never in question. And his State of the Union/reelection speech was no different. He knows what we want to hear. He knows what needs to be done. And he has great ideas for getting it done. Unfortunately that has yet to translate into him actually doing it.

The remark he made during his speech about students who face the threat of deportation is particularly telling. Telling in that there are so many issues which have played out exactly like this. Obama is accused of being soft on something or having an agenda surrounding something. He bends over backwards in the other direction to prove them wrong. His opponents continue to insist he is doing the opposite. And on and on it goes. It seems he never will stand up and do what he says he wants to do and what they say he is doing anyway. It makes my head hurt.

During the Obama administration there have been more deportation than ever before, close to 400,000 just this year alone. And still the GOP makes claims that Obama is soft on immigration. Right now the Halt Act, a bill to stop the Obama administration from blocking deportation for families of U.S. citizens who are being sent to dangerous countries, is in the House and while it is unlikely it will ever pass, it does act as a counter balance to the Democrats’ urging that Obama use this presidential power. This will likely, as we have seen over and over around a variety of issues during his administration, lead to Obama doing nothing at all. Nothing that is, but giving the issue lip service. Obama loves to give lip service. Apparently that costs him nothing at all and it might get him some votes back.

I think Obama would like to do at least some of the things he promised when many of us saw him as America’s great hope but he’s not going to. The cost during his time in office and after is too great. That said I am too frightened of what would happen should a Republican take office to vote for anyone else.

But according to the polls after the State of the Union, the prediction seems to be that a Republican will be elected. And you can be sure he, whoever he is, won’t be afraid to do exactly what he said he was going to do and he’ll have the support of the corporate media, Wall Street and the 1% behind him. Which means when the middle class gasps it’s last breath, it’s dead weight will come crashing down on top of the working class and the poor squeezing them into an even more limited future. All the while mainstream corporate owned media will tell us how much everything is improving now that the job creators are getting even more corporate welfare. And if you are part of the 99% and you happened to vote republican yet you are feeling the economic pinch, don’t worry because I’m sure the new republican administration in conjunction with that delightful republican congress will take some food stamps away from the hungry and some social security from the aged poor. No doubt that will tide you over while you wait for those job creators to commence creating.

[MsMerrick]

President Obama, has done some things, and can do more.. Yep, he ain't perfect, but . Are you seriously considering any of the alternatives ?
And we seem to neglect to point out what he has done.
Me ? I wouldn't now have Health Insurance if it wasn't for "Obamacare" !

Here's some basics, some of which I am not crazy about but many of whom I am happy about..
This is are posted post from Facebook...

MY President (reposted) 1. Got Osama Bin Laden...check 2. Unemployment rate 8.5%...check. 3. 1.6 million jobs created with no GOP help...check 4. 22 months of job and economic growth with no help...check 5. Ended war in Iraq ...check 6. Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal...check 7. Not one tax hike in 3 years....check 8. Brought out the extreme racism in the Gop...check 9. Still carry 80% of the black vote...check 10. Same wife for 15 years with no extramarital affairs...check 11. Save auto industry and 1.5 million jobs.. check 12. Assisted in ousting Khaddafi...check 13. Only active President to receive Nobel Peace prize while in office. 14. Mortgage modification to prevent home owners from losing their home. 15. STILL fighting for middle class families. 16. Reform Affordable healthcare.... check Despite what the GOP would have you believe, the President has been doing these things and more. Obama 2012 - RE-POST to support!!

[Kobi]

Interesting theories.




The main reason the Republican establishment overwhelmingly favors Mitt Romney over Newt Gingrich is that Romney stands a better chance of beating Barack Obama," says Jonathan Chait at New York. So it's a problem for Romney that "as the campaign goes on, this seems to be growing less true." A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that negative views of Romney have "spiked" over the past two weeks, from a net +4 favorability rating (39 positive/34 negative) to a -18 rating (31 positive/49 negative) — very similar to Gingrich's -22 rating (29/51).

The shift is most notable among independents, who went from generally liking Romney (41/34) to disliking him by a 2-to-1 margin (23/51). Democrats (21/62) and Republicans (58/32) have soured on Mitt, too. What's behind Romney's newfound unpopularity? Here, seven theories:

1. Voters are turned off by his wealth Americans have long known that Romney is rich, but his just-released tax returns highlight just how much he earns from doing so little, says Peter Foster at Britain's Telegraph. Someone who rakes in $60,000 a day from personal investments is clearly "part of the elite – the '1 percent' that lives by different rules from ordinary Americans." But "the raw amount of money isn't really Romney's problem," says Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post. "It's the exoticness of his finances" — a Swiss bank account, money parked in Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. "There is nothing more dangerous in politics than 'otherness,'" and Romney's fortune reeks of it.

2. And he's cagey about his fortune Romney's big weakness is that "he squirms like a worm on a hook whenever someone points out his wealth," says Charles Blow in The New York Times. Gingrich has deftly exploited that in recent debates, getting Romney to make a point of "'not apologizing' for getting filthy rich" by buying and disposing of companies. These "non-apologies reek of guilt and shame, which in turn puts people's antenna up."

3. Romney has alienated Reagan Democrats Romney's support has dropped among all voters, but it has plummeted among "blue-collar whites," says Greg Sargent at The Washington Post. That suggests his "wealth, privilege, low tax rates, and generally out-of-touch persona" are becoming a problem. "A smart candidate would use this fact and retool his message," at least acknowledging that Americans don't like "massive disparities of wealth," says Jamelle Bouie at The American Prospect. "But, like a petulant teenager, Romney has gone in the opposite direction," accusing critics of envy. Way to go, Romney, says Dan Riehl at Riehl World View. You've lost us the Reagan Democrats.

4. Being a venture capitalist turned out to be a liability Voters started turning on Romney when his rivals started attacking a resume line Romney had touted as a selling point: His private-sector success at private equity firm Bain Capital. And no wonder, says AJ Strata at Strata-Sphere. Romney isn't a product of Main Street who worked his way up. He's a "corporate raider who made millions the easy way — the Haarvaaard way." That's a liability with Wall Street Occupiers and Tea Partiers. Romney's not a job creator, he's a vulture capitalist. "Vultures have their purpose in nature and economics, but they are not what someone wants in a national leader."

5. The inevitability gambit backfired If I had to sum up Romney's growing unpopularity in one word, I'd pick "entitlement," says The American Prospect's Bouie. "From his refusal to engage his opponents for much of the primary, to his transparent pandering on virtually every issue under the sun, this sense of entitlement has carried over to every inch of his presidential campaign." Voters aren't stupid: They know when a candidate takes them for granted, and they much prefer to be seen as "supporters to be won, not obstacles to endure."

6. He can't handle his rivals' attacks Romney's spiking unpopularity "coincides with a difficult period" on the trail, says Nate Silver at The New York Times. His GOP rivals have been drawing blood with "attacks against him that may resonate more with independent voters than among actual Republicans." That validates my long-held theory that Romney can't "withstand the types of attacks used by Ted Kennedy (Bain) and John McCain (lack of core convictions)," says William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. Romney never went through the "withering assault and scrutiny" his opponents did last fall. Now that he is finally getting a taste, it's "showing up in polling."

7. Going negative hurt him After losing big in South Carolina, Romney and his surrogates started "going far more negative on Newt Gingrich," calling him a "disgrace" who "embarrassed his party," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. The problem is, "Romney isn't necessarily very good when he goes on the attack." Worse, this "Mad Mitt Beyond BlunderDome" routine is "most un-presidential and runs contrary to the finely crafted image his army of consultants have crafted for him," says Dan Riehl. When people ask for him to show more passion, they don't mean "angrily spewing slander."

http://news.yahoo.com/7-reasons-voters-souring-mitt-romney-094700884.html

[AtLast]

All SOTU speeches are political and more so in a general election year.

What I keep thinking about is without re-electing Obama and not getting more Democrats in Congress, we are just handing everthing to a republican party that will tear every piece of what Obama has been able to do apart. that is just unacceptable to me because I see hope in the Occupy Movement finally getting large factions of voters (including the so called "cloth coat," blue collar Republicans) to see and combat big money that has taken away every avenue of opportunity from the middle class.


I can't just sit back and stop fighting. Is Obama perfect in my eyes- hell no! But I can't accept the alternative without a fight. Although, I think that we need to be active locally in order to effect change. A foundation has to be built as it was during transformative political times in our past.

If one doesn't think voting matters- take a look at what is going on in the republican primary races. The establishment GOP can't even stop the anti-Romney sentiment by voters. yes, big money is involved, but voters are saying no to who the GOP establishment thinks is the best to run against Obama.

And look back to the '08 Democratic primaries when Hillary Clinton was the all out "favorite" for more than a year prior to those elections. Voters did speak.

[AtLast]

President Obama, has done some things, and can do more.. Yep, he ain't perfect, but . Are you seriously considering any of the alternatives ?
And we seem to neglect to point out what he has done.
Me ? I wouldn't now have Health Insurance if it wasn't for "Obamacare" !

Here's some basics, some of which I am not crazy about but many of whom I am happy about..
This is are posted post from Facebook...

MY President (reposted) 1. Got Osama Bin Laden...check 2. Unemployment rate 8.5%...check. 3. 1.6 million jobs created with no GOP help...check 4. 22 months of job and economic growth with no help...check 5. Ended war in Iraq ...check 6. Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal...check 7. Not one tax hike in 3 years....check 8. Brought out the extreme racism in the Gop...check 9. Still carry 80% of the black vote...check 10. Same wife for 15 years with no extramarital affairs...check 11. Save auto industry and 1.5 million jobs.. check 12. Assisted in ousting Khaddafi...check 13. Only active President to receive Nobel Peace prize while in office. 14. Mortgage modification to prevent home owners from losing their home. 15. STILL fighting for middle class families. 16. Reform Affordable healthcare.... check Despite what the GOP would have you believe, the President has been doing these things and more. Obama 2012 - RE-POST to support!!

I'm with you! When will what he has accomplished without support from even his own base be recognized?!!

Also, the Healthcare reforms have not even fully been implemented and there are many just like you that finally have coverage. Also, this year I finally got to tell some of my right-wing family members in small business (really small in the scheme of things) "Told Ya' So" because their cost to provide employee health care did decrease without any decrease in coverage (always a key issue in negotiating for employee programs)! Until now, those cost rose every year for at least a decade. Also, the choices did expand and that mean't being able to get plans that are just easier for employees to use overall (transportation & services more centralized- making these decisions also has to take into account your retirees that are aging).

I will never fully agree with any politician even if I loved them- who does! But, you bet I will be voting for him and giving my time for his re-election!

[Kobi]

He's making this up as he goes huh?

----------------

The race for the Republican presidential nomination is about to blast off into outer space: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced that, if elected, he'd establish a colony on the moon by 2020.

In a speech to supporters on the Florida space coast, Gingrich called for a "grandiose" effort to colonize space. "It's the second great launch of the adventure John F. Kennedy started," said Gingrich.

Gingrich opened up the possibility of the moon becoming the 51st state, something he believes could happen once a permanent settlement reaches a population of 13,000 Americans. While a 1967 United Nations document says that no one country can claim sovereignty over the moon, the U.S., Russia, and China failed to sign a more recent U.N. treaty to settle the question of who owns the moon.

The bold move hopes to boost the former speaker's presidential campaign in the Sunshine State, where space exploration remains a big industry. Florida will hold its GOP presidential primary vote on Tuesday, January 31. Polls show the race is close.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/newt-gingrich-promises-build-moon-colony-2020-u-211103078.html

[AtLast]

He's making this up as he goes huh?

----------------

The race for the Republican presidential nomination is about to blast off into outer space: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced that, if elected, he'd establish a colony on the moon by 2020.

In a speech to supporters on the Florida space coast, Gingrich called for a "grandiose" effort to colonize space. "It's the second great launch of the adventure John F. Kennedy started," said Gingrich.

Gingrich opened up the possibility of the moon becoming the 51st state, something he believes could happen once a permanent settlement reaches a population of 13,000 Americans. While a 1967 United Nations document says that no one country can claim sovereignty over the moon, the U.S., Russia, and China failed to sign a more recent U.N. treaty to settle the question of who owns the moon.

The bold move hopes to boost the former speaker's presidential campaign in the Sunshine State, where space exploration remains a big industry. Florida will hold its GOP presidential primary vote on Tuesday, January 31. Polls show the race is close.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/newt-gingrich-promises-build-moon-colony-2020-u-211103078.html


He's in a manic phase, or off meds - and in Florida, the space industry is big.

What bugs me the most with this is his attempt to sound Kennedy-esqe. He's no JFK!

[Kobi]

I love this article cuz it is talking about something I have been thinking myself. I figure by the time the republicans actually get to the convention, they will have scared the crap out of most Americans for one reason or another.

Also liked the quote from Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin...."With Gingrich, you never have the piece of mind that you have gotten to the bottom of his sleaze."

-----------------------


One of the most entertaining (and horrifying) things about this long Republican primary is watching the candidates attack each other using tactics that they'd previously mostly reserved for Democrats. It's not only that Newt Gingrich is going after Mitt Romney using the arguments from the left (he's anti-immigrant! he's a One Percenter!), but both candidate's drawn-out, bare-knuckle approach that usually comes into play across parties deeper into the general election.

Here are some accusations being traded within the Republican party that are making the primary so aggressive:

1. Moral bankruptcy


In previous campaigns, Newt Gingrich was a pioneer in taking out his opponents by portraying them as twisted and corrupt. He infamously sent out a memo in 1990 on how to use the right words --"sick," "anti-flag," etc -- could be used to portray Democrats as outside of the mainstream. In 1996, Gingrich said on Meet the Press, "I had a senior law enforcement official tell me that in his judgment up to a quarter of the White House staff, when they first came in, had used drugs in the last four or five years." In 1994, Gingrich said of his election goal, "It was to portray Clinton Democrats as the enemy of normal Americans."

This tactic is now being used by Romney against Gingrich. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent posts this flyer, at left, mailed to voters in Florida by the Romney campaign that points to Gingrich's "well of sleaze." Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Romney backer, told Politico's Alex Isenstadt and Jake Sherman Friday that the idea of Gingrich winning the Republican nomination "scares me to death... Newt Gingrich is an unreliable leader. He’s prone to becoming unhinged. He’s been mired in scandal in his personal and professional life. And he is a consummate D.C. insider." New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Gingrich an embarrassment. During Thursday night's debate, Romney called Gingrich's claim that he was anti-immigrant "repulsive."

Gingrich has a tougher time making this case against Romney, who has been married only once. But that doesn't stop him from trying. In Thursday's debate, Gingrich portrayed Romney as greedy and depraved, saying Romney had invested in firms that profited from foreclosing on Floridians. "So maybe Governor Romney in the spirit of openness should tell us how much money he's made off of how many households that have been foreclosed by his investments?" he asked.

2. Corruption

Gingrich took down Democratic incumbents by accusing them of violating ethics rules. He brought ethics charges against Speaker Jim Wright in 1988 (Wright resigned). He was involved in the House postage scandal that brought down Dan Rostenkowski. He pushed for an investigation into the House banking scandal, in which members of Congress -- including Gingrich himself -- bounced checks from their House bank accounts. And, of course, he led the impeachment of President Clinton. Now Romney is portraying Gingrich as a corrupt creature of Washington. On Gingrich's consulting work for Freddie Mac, Romney said at the debate, "You can call it whatever you like -- I call it influence peddling. It is not right. It is not right." The reverse side of the mailer Sargent posted, at right, calls him unethical.

Gingrich has tried to present his eat-the-rich attacks on Romney's business career as a question of ethics. Romney was "looting companies," Gingrich said. "It’s not fine if the person who is rich manipulates the system, gets away with all the cash and leaves behind the human beings," he said earlier this month. This time, "the system" is finance, instead of Washington. "Romney owes all of us a press conference where he explains what happened to the companies that went bankrupt and why Bain made so much money out of companies that were going bankrupt."

3. Elitism

Since the Nixon era, Republicans have argued that uppity liberals want to impose their rules on hardworking, upstanding "traditional" families. It worked against John Kerry in 2004. Barack Obama played into this one in 2008, when he said the working class bitterly clung to guns and God, which offered quite the opening for Sarah Palin. Gingrich said of Romney this week, "I think you have to live in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and automatic -- you know, $20 million a year of no work -- to have a fantasy this far from reality." Worse, Gingrich said in a campaign speech, Romney thinks you're a moron. Referring to Romney's questioning of his Reaganite credentials, Gingrich said, "This is the kind of gall they have to think we're so stupid and we're so timid... The message we should give Romney is, 'We aren't that stupid and you aren't that clever.'"


So far, Romney hasn't tried this one yet. In fact, he makes it pretty clear that he does think he's better -- than Gingrich, at least. Romney called Gingrich zany, and at the debate, he scoffed, "I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I'd say, 'You're fired.'"

What's been the result? Well, just as they work against Democrats, these tactics work against Republicans, too. On Friday, a poll from NBC News/The Wall Street Journal showed that Romney has a net unfavorable rating -- a rarity at this stage in the election. "All of the GOP candidates are a net-negative in favorability ratings, with Santorum getting the best marks -- 26 percent positive, 27 percent negative," NBC's Domenico Montanaro reports. "Romney scores 31-36, and it’s worth noting that Bob Dole, John McCain, and George W. Bush were all net-positives at the same time in their fights for the nomination. The exception of a recent major party nominee being a net-negative at this point -- John Kerry, who was 22-26 in January 2004."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/how-republicans-are-using-their-anti-democrat-moves-destroy-each-other/47977/

[AtLast]

On Need to Know (PBS) last night, the role of elderly voters in FL was discussed within the GOP. Interesting, as most of this population is steadfast on both Social Security & MediCare being off-limits in terms of cuts or even tinkering with other than needs-analysis. The GOP has a big problem going on as we boomers are retiring in huge numbers no matter party what party we belong to.

[Cin]

'Let’s Stay Together' -- Can Obama’s Charm Offensive Woo Back Disgruntled Progressives?

How do we reconcile our need to hold the president accountable with our reaction to this renewed charm offensive?
By Sarah Seltzer

Progressives were furious at Barack Obama a few weeks ago. Between his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act and the horrible decision to overrule the FDA on emergency contraception availability, added to his pursuit of the “war on terror” using methods as questionably legal as Dick Cheney's, it felt like the last vestiges of hope and change from 2008 had finally burned out.

But on the internet these past few weeks, the disappointing President Obama ceded the spotlight once more to the beguiling Candidate Obama, reminding some of his former supporters how utterly entranced we were by the man we pulled the lever for three long years ago--and leading us to wonder how much it matters now.

The Man Vs. The Politician

To put this dichotomy another way, there's the political Obama who seems, maddeningly, to value compromise itself over what compromise actually achieves--who doesn’t come out swinging. And then there’s the cultural Obama, who is swinging: comfortable being himself and also one of us. He's clever, attuned to social currents, a little bit dorky, accessible, with an image we love to see, admire and joke about -- and most importantly who refuses to be cowed by the racist tenor of attacks he receives. In his cultural existence, he can blend an attitude that's above the fray with that refusal to bow to his critics. It's a balance he has yet to achieve politically.

Before I dissect this duality, it's important to note that some liberals have been loyal to the president despite his betrayals and disappointments (and been dubbed Obama-bots), while others remain furious at President Obama for some of his more disastrous policy decisions -- and will be unmoved by his reemergence into the cultural space. There's also been a robust debate about the racial element of progressive disappointment at the President.

But I'm referring here to a broad swath of us who to some degree are in both categories -- who despair over the politician and delight in the man, who do sympathize with his position politically while still feeling he's failed to lead at key moments. How much will his personality, as it's showcased during election season, be able to reel that group back in?

Despite brilliant efforts from his campaign to begin that wooing -- selling his voice singing Al Green as a ringtone, or hawking a “birth certificate” mug poking fun at the birthers -- the rise of Occupy Wall Street indicates this: for many young Obama supporters, his first term demonstrated the utter failure of the political system at large, its inability to be transformed by one leader. Our journey has parallels to his own political journey, moving from a politician who truly believed in the concept of hand across the aisle to a politician, it seems, who has realized that in Washington, you need to fight.

Obama Rules The Internet

So in embracing "change we can believe in" perhaps we, the supporters, were as naive as he was. Still, Candidate Obama's reemergence reminds us there are some things that a leader can transform. So let's return to the Obama who has dominated the internet this past week with new viral memes starring his best self. Each one offers us insight into his appeal to progressives, even the most fed-up ones.

First, there’s the photo of him giving a fistbump to a maintenance man in a White House hallway, which I keep seeing on Facebook. Can you imagine Mitt Romney, or even notoriously germophobic George W. Bush having such a natural “man of the people” touch?

Another meme was born when people began to eagerly circulate the YouTube video of President Obama singing--on key--the tough opening bar of Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together” at a fundraiser at the Apollo Theater, with Al Green himself watching approvingly from the sidelines. It soon became a ringtone and garnered millions of views.

How symbolic that choice of tune is. One of the most memorably catchy and plaintive songs of its era, it's about a lover bemoaning the need of other couples to break up, pleading for longevity in his own relationship, perhaps even wooing his estranged partner back. Sound familiar? Sitting in our kitchen this past weekend, my spouse and I both confessed that we felt like the president was singing right to us, asking us for a second chance, asking us to stay together through 2016.

Hilarious, yes, and clever. But these Internet sensations aren’t just measures of how au courant our President is or how great his singing voice is. Rather, they're about a certain defiance he maintains against the vitriol coming his way. The fistbump and the Al Green, after all, are affirmations of Obama’s unflinching identification with black culture -- as well as a broader pop culture that is diverse and frankly, pleasurable. He’s our first hip-hop loving president, after all. He's the political version of a style icon: a trendsetter. A celebrity.

Culturally Defiant

The president's personal choices to have Jay-Z on his mp3 player and a fistbump at the ready, therefore, are important. They fly in the face of the increasingly racially-loaded attacks he’s been receiving from his opponents: accusations of being a “food stamp president” and a “Saul Alinksy radical.”

Because Obama has actually governed as a complete moderate, maybe even a conservative, these insane charges just don't stick in terms of policy. Instead, the accusations coming from the Right are aimed at very same personality that delights many progressives: proudly African American, urban, intellectual, and hip.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are desperately vying to reclaim a starched-shirt version of White America from the black president some voters still can’t believe we elected. So by singing Al Green, by having "date night" with Michelle, by inviting the hip-hop artist Common to the White House, or by hosting a Tim Burton-influenced Halloween party in the White House, Obama is quietly but firmly giving the kiss-off to those who hate him for these reasons.

Which brings us to our third viral meme: A photo that was circulating widely on Facebook depicting a fake, doctored Washington Post front page, juxtaposing a laughing President Obama with the headline of Newt Gingrich’s victory in the South Carolina primary. Even though the image was false, the message was clear, to use the language of another meme: look at how many fucks Obama gives about you, Newt. Zero.

This picture is a fantasy, though because the political Obama is more likely to take his GOP colleagues seriously than to laugh at them -- and maybe he should. Certainly he would face a major backlash if he really did treat his opponents with the scorn they deserve, while they get a free pass for their dogwhistles at him. The point is, this image of Obama--simultaneously mocking his opponents (literally) while also defying their treatment of him, being both above the fray and in it, is only achievable in the cultural space, not the political one. You can't be above the fray in Washington.

We've Always Liked Him

The fact is, many progressives never stopped liking Obama as a figure, and we’ve loved his wife and family fiercely all the way through his term. We're also sympathetic to the unique position he's in as the recipient of ugly, outsized and racially tinged attacks. So when he isn’t kowtowing to completely insane Republicans or sending drones into Pakistan, leaving innocents dead, when he isn't doing things that make us bang our heads against the wall, Obama remains a likeable guy. He has been all along--and the feeling that there’s a badass, smart, brilliant person who has it in him to raise the middle finger to his critics makes his failures more frustrating. Where was that guy during the debt ceiling debacle? Where was he when the NDAA came to his desk?

So as we move forward into campaign season, the question is how to reconcile our need to continually hold the president accountable with our reaction to this renewed charm offensive. And if we are indeed charmed and at least want to see him re-elected, how to avoid falling into Obama-bot mode, defending him against legitimate and important charges from the Left?

The answer is that we can hold multiple ideas at the same time. We can like the man and many of his policy accomplishments, while deploring his policies of empire and political entanglement with the one-percent. We can believe he was hamstrung by a ridiculous Congress and subject to baseless racist attacks while also feeling he hasn't done enough to boost progressive ideas and policies. We can support his reelection while remaining convinced that such an event won't be nearly enough to set the country on the right track--and that policies like detention without trial, corporate welfare, income inequality, stalemate on women's rights, a lack of urgency on the environment, and a creeping police state will continue unless we ourselves combat them with actions more drastic than the ballot.

Perhaps most importantly, we have to continue to push President Obama to live up to the ideals of his campaign persona -- not the post-partisan one, but the tough and idealistic one -- even in the face of an obstructionist, personally vindictive opposition, and to be as confident and uncompromising in his political identity as he appears to be in his personal one.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153857/%27let%E2%80%99s_stay_together%27_--_can_obama%E2%80%99s_charm_offensive_woo_back_disg runtled_progressives__/?page=entire

[Cin]

I get Obama is the only game in town. The alternative is too grim to consider. But that doesn't change the reality of what is going on. I will vote for Obama. But I won't believe that he plans to do what he says he will do. I just believe he is the lesser of the evils we have to choose from.

State of Obama: Immunity for Wall Street

by Glen Ford
Black Agenda Report executive editor

President Obama had hoped to put on a big show – a huge con, really – at his State of the Union address, by announcing a monetary “settlement” of massive banker criminality in housing foreclosures. “Obama’s operatives have doggedly pressed for a settlement that would effectively give banks immunity from prosecution.” But he was thwarted by a small group of state attorneys general that wanted a real investigation into “the crime of the century.” So the president “was finally forced to set up a federal unit of his own.” Since Obama’s own law enforcers have failed to send a single banker to jail, Wall Street immunity is likely to remain the real State of the Union.

“Every action he has taken as president has been to protect the innocents on Wall Street.”

Empire and the banks. President Obama’s State of the Union address, bracketed by imperial bombast, made actual news with yet another administration maneuver to protect Wall Street from the wrath of the states. The remainder of his speech was mainly a rehash of previous policies, heavy on tax tinkerings that would have made a previous generation of moderate Republicans – a now extinct breed – proud.

The only newsworthy item, the creation of a “special unit of prosecutors” that the president announced would “expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis,” is not an Obama initiative, but a response to unwanted pressures. Up until almost the moment of the presidential address, the administration has been bullying state attorneys general to drop their independent investigations into banker criminality in the 2008 meltdown and the foreclosure of millions of Americans’ homes. The so-called “robo-signing” scandal calls into question the fundamental legality of Wall Street mortgage securities practices – what some have described as the “crime of the century.” The small group of attorneys general – variously numbered between 5 and 15 – have been buttressed by a vocal Campaign for a Fair Settlement, made up of consumer and labor groups and activist organizations such as MoveOn.

“Obama had hoped to roll over the recalcitrant attorneys general in time to make the settlement the centerpiece of his State of the Union.”

Obama’s operatives have doggedly pressed for a settlement that would effectively give banks immunity from prosecution. Instead, home owners would be “compensated” from a paltry fund of no more than $25 billion – a drop in the bucket, considering the trillions in housing values that disappeared into illegally securitized air in the catastrophe, and much of the money might not even come out of the bankers’ own accounts. Obama had hoped to roll over the recalcitrant attorneys general in time to make the settlement the centerpiece of his State of the Union.

The “special unit of prosecutors,” officially dubbed the Unit on Mortgage Origination and Securitization Abuses, is to be co-chaired by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whom the White House had booted out of a negotiating committee because of his opposition to Obama’s banker protection racket. Last night, at the joint session of Congress, Obama sat Schneiderman in the First Lady’s box, to give the impression that he and the obstinate New Yorker had been on the same page all the time. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Obama was trying to shut down the attorney generals’ probes into banker criminality, and was finally forced to set up a federal unit of his own. However, with the “investigation” now in Obama’s hands, de facto banker immunity may have been achieved, and the puny “settlement” could soon be announced. Wall Street will be pleased, and no doubt reciprocate with hundreds of millions in campaign contributions.

“With the ‘investigation’ now in Obama’s hands, de facto banker immunity may have been achieved.”

U.S. Attorney Eric Holder, the former corporate lawyer, has been a good soldier. His own investigations of the meltdown and its aftermath – if they actually existed – have resulted in not a single corporate bad actor going to jail. Although Obama told the Congress and the people that what happened when the “house of cards collapsed” was “wrong,” he has also opined that most of what the bankers did was “not illegal.” Every action he has taken as president has been to protect the innocents on Wall Street.

“We’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again,” said the president. Nonsense. Obama fought tooth and nail to defend the fatal derivatives market from serious tampering by progressive Democrats. The crisis of 2008 was set off by the multiplier effect of derivatives on the collapse of toxic mortgage securities. At the time, at least $600 trillion dollars in derivatives loomed over the planet. Today, derivatives have rebounded to…over $600 trillion. The banks that were “too big to fail” are even bigger, and there are fewer of them – meaning, capital is more concentrated than before. Obama’s “new rules” have preserved and further consolidated the hegemony of finance capital over U.S. economic and political life. The world economy teeters on the brink.

But, “America is back!” says the president. It is the “indispensable nation” – the one that treats the rest of the planet, and most of its own citizens, as entirely dispensable. Hail to the Chief!

[Toughy]

http://www.npr.org/webapp#1001/146099697

Study: SuperPACs Behind Nearly Half Of 2012 Ads
By Peter Overby
January 30, 2012
All Things Considered [ 3 min. 47 sec. ]

A new analysis shows that in the deluge of TV ads in the early voting states for the Republican presidential primaries, nearly half of the ads are coming not from the candidates but from superPACs — the new breed of political committees that raise unregulated money.

Political scientists at Wesleyan University in Connecticut found that so far, there have been about the same number of GOP primary ads as there were four years ago.

What's different — and different in a big way — is the role of outside money groups, mostly superPACs, says Erika Franklin Fowler, a director of the Wesleyan Media Project. "They went from about 3 percent of total ad airings in the 2008 race to almost half, about 44 percent, in 2012," she says. <snip>

[Toughy]

I read Aljazeera daily

http://chrome.aljazeera.com/#!/news/article/201213017598357206

Romney surges in polls ahead of Florida vote

Polls show Newt Gingrich struggling to halt rival's momentum, a day ahead of state's US presidential Republican primary. <snip>

[Toughy]

because I come from white privilege (with or with out consent) I am required to ask myself if I (and anyone else including the press) hold President Obama to a different standard because he is not a white man......

Would the same columns be written about his failures as the focus or would the columns be about his successes. He has accomplished much.....great strides similar to the great junior god Bill Clinton. Why is the focus on what he has NOT done rather than what he HAS done. Bill in spite of cigars and blue dress stains came out smelling like a rose and probably would get elected today if he could run. In terms of policy, there is not the width of a single strand of silk difference between Bill and Barack.

Yet the latte liberals all love Bill and talk shit about Barack failures rather than for his successes..... stinks of white privilege.....

[Cin]

because I come from white privilege (with or with out consent) I am required to ask myself if I (and anyone else including the press) hold President Obama to a different standard because he is not a white man......

Would the same columns be written about his failures as the focus or would the columns be about his successes. He has accomplished much.....great strides similar to the great junior god Bill Clinton. Why is the focus on what he has NOT done rather than what he HAS done. Bill in spite of cigars and blue dress stains came out smelling like a rose and probably would get elected today if he could run. In terms of policy, there is not the width of a single strand of silk difference between Bill and Barack.

Yet the latte liberals all love Bill and talk shit about Barack failures rather than for his successes..... stinks of white privilege.....

Well seems to me that it is not only white people who understand what is going on politically and why. Nor is it only white people who are left of center.

Glen Ford the executive editor of the Black Agenda Report wrote the article
State of Obama: Immunity for Wall Street.http://blackagendareport.com/?q=blog/101

I don't think you have to be white to see the writing on the wall.

I think Clinton caught a break, if you can call what happened to him a break, because economically the country was in pretty good shape. I think it was the comedian Chris Rock that said something to the effect that since Clinton balanced the budget he deserved a blow job or some such thing.

It's a different financial world. People are hurting. That's the only difference I see. Because Clinton was no different. He was no better. The way the system is set up no president can ignore corporate power. Corporations run the country, hell they run the world. They assert global control. That must be at least somewhat clear at this point.

While race certainly plays into how Obama is viewed and assessed, it doesn't mean he need not be held accountable for his actions.

[Cin]

Gingrich and Romney Want to Say Adios to Bilingual Ballots
The GOP front-runners endorse a plan that could disenfranchise millions of voters—including their own.
By Adam Serwer

As Republican primary voters head to the polls in Florida on Tuesday, both GOP front-runners have endorsed a policy that would contradict existing law and could disenfranchise millions of voters across the country.

During a recent debate, both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney supported getting rid of bilingual ballots when the topic was brought up by the moderator. "I would have ballots in English," Gingrich said. "And I think you could have programs where virtually everybody would be able to read the ballots." Romney agreed. "I think Speaker Gingrich is right with regards to what he's described," he said.

That wasn't much of a stretch for Gingrich, who once called Spanish "the language of living in a ghetto." Yet their glib demand for English-only ballots would require amending the Voting Rights Act and doing away with hard-won legal requirements that have existed for decades. It's a sharp turn away from the Bush administration, which despite a spotty civil rights record filed more ballot access cases on behalf of non-English speakers than any administration had before.

"We used to have poll taxes, we used to have whites-only primaries, we used to not let women vote," says Myrna Perez, senior counsel with the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "Policies that would make our ballots less accessible to Americans based on what language they speak would be at odds with that historical arc towards expanding the franchise."

Bilingual ballots are no abstract issue in Florida, which has a sizeable population of Americans whose first languages are Spanish or Haitian Creole. "The Haitian population is a voting bloc, the Hispanic community is a voting bloc," says Carolyn Thompson, a Florida-based activist with the Advancement Project, a civil rights group. "They pay taxes, they've won the right to vote in their language."

Under the 1975 revision of the Voting Rights Act, communities whose non-English speaking populations reach a certain level have to provide voting materials in alternate languages.

There are 238 jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act's language requirements. It's hard to tell how many voters would be impacted by the repeal of those provisions, but the census estimates that there are more than 19 million eligible voters who come from the communities the law is meant to serve. Ten counties in Florida are among them, four of which went Republican in the last presidential election.

"Some of these ballot measures involve very complex legal language," Camila Gallardo of the Latino civil rights organization National Council of La Raza points out. "Some of the language is hard to understand even for fluent English speakers, let alone if your first language isn't English."

Republicans have long had a complex relationship with Florida. It's the site of great conservative victories, like George W. Bush seizing the presidency in 2000 and Marco Rubio crushing his challengers in 2010's Senate race. But it's also the kind of place where moderates like Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist thrive, a cosmopolitan state that anti-immigrant ex-GOP congressman Tom Tancredo once compared to the Tower of Babel. That's why Gingrich followed up Monday's debate with an appearance on the Spanish-language station Univison in which he called Romney's draconian approach to curtailing illegal immigration an "Obama-level fantasy," and why Romney turned Gingrich's remarks about Spanish being "ghetto" into a campaign ad. In Florida, a Republican who comes off as anti-immigrant or anti-Hispanic could see their political ambitions cut short fast. It's a difficult balancing act for members of a party that is seen as increasingly hostile by Latino voters, who are becoming more influential in American elections.

"They try to appeal to Latinos and Florida and during the general election, but everywhere else they're trying to be tough guys," says Dr. Gary Segura of the national polling firm Latino Decisions. "It's going to be very difficult for them to have it both ways."

More than 1 out of 10 Republican primary voters is Latino in Florida, so it's possible that Romney and Gingrich's commitment to English primacy, if applied, could disenfranchise part of their own base in the state. Or they could just be banking on the possibility that their voters are more likely to be completely bilingual.

"The Cuban population heavily concentrated in the Republican Party are bilingual, fluent, are likely to be able to hang with that," says Segura. "Some number of Republicans would be disenfranchised, but the largest number would be first-generation Puerto Rican Democrats."

Changing federal law isn't easy of course, and the Voting Rights Act was renewed in 2006 for another 25 years. By the time it's up for consideration again, Republicans might have even less interest in ensuring that language minorities have equal access to the ballot box, even in Florida.

"For a long time, Cubans were staunchly in the Republican column, although that demographic is really changing," says Gallardo. "[Today] you see a lot of young Hispanics registering with no party affiliation."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/gingrich-and-romney-want-say-adios-bilingual-ballots

[MsMerrick]

My thoughts...
Yes of course, WP plays into everything, it just always does... but that's certainly not the only thing
I like the President, I do not like a lot of things he has not done, or has been done.. BUT, overall, I still like the stuff he has done..
My expectations, and dare I say, everyone's expectations ran higher than ..well than I can ever remember, and i am born in 1950, so you do the math !
I look at some of the papers and covers, that came out when President Obama was elected, and damn, we really did pin everything on him ..!
Everyone was disappointed, because..Well there really wasn't any way that we wouldn't have been. He is not the second coming of anything...The emotional toll has been deep.
Enough said. Reality is, he isn't that bad.. and he is better than many tend to think, for whatever reason, there's a blind spot .. But as Al Sharpton famously said ( ok I am not quoting merely paraphrasing because I am too lazy to look it up ) ..Obama may not walk on water, but he's still the best swimmer we got !
I have been deeply angry and disappointed at times...
BUT..when I hear people saying that there is no difference, and i have been hearing this too much lately, between President Obama and ..any of the candidate s on the Right..
I beg to differ..
No, I demand to differ STRONGLY !
There was a time I thought Republicans , Democrats, whatever, they were all teh same..
Then I lived through 8 years of Bush....
Actually now looking back, it all started with Reagan, but Bush.. capped them all, with his total disregard for the Country in his own pursuit of or fleeing from, his own demons ..or whatever the fuck moved him to destroy so many lives, ruin our economy, and kill our standing in the world....
But its not a matter of saying Obama is only marginally better.. He is Way better than anything on the right .... He did pass a healthcare bill, which NO ONE has been able to do since Roosevelt ! He needs a second term and we need him to have one...
Yes of course, keep pushing him towards more progressive policies..Yes, don't let up, demand more.. Push all the time, but don't lose sight of the overall picture !
I probably have more to say but for the moment.. I think thats it ...

[Martina]

‘Everyone step on his toes!’ Gingrich security harasses Ron Paul supporter (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/everyone-step-toes-gingrich-security-harasses-ron-paul-165042767.html)

WINDERMERE, Fla.--Next time, Eddie Dillard won't wear flip-flops.

Dillard, a 29-year-old Ron Paul supporter from this suburb near Orlando, arrived to vote at his precinct at Winderemere Baptist Church early Tuesday morning. Pulling into the parking lot, Dillard noticed a man outside the polling place with a Gingrich sign. He decided to run home, slip into his "Ron Paul Rocks America" T-shirt, grab a "Ron Paul 2012" sign from his garage, and return to give his candidate some representation outside the precinct after he cast his vote.

Dillard found a quiet spot along a sidewalk lined with tiny American flags and held up his sign. Little did he know, Newt Gingrich had chosen that very spot to make his first Primary Day campaign stop.

When Gingrich's bus pulled up, Dillard stood silently holding his sign and watched the news-media horde swamp the candidate. Gingrich stepped down from the bus and made a beeline for Dillard. He stopped in front of Dillard and his sign and parked himself for a round of handshaking and pictures with voters. The placement couldn't have been worse. There was Gingrich, standing with his wife Callista at their first event of the day, and a giant Ron Paul sign floated inches from their crowns.

Noticing the awkward optics, Gingrich aides and security personnel swarmed Dillard, trying to intimidate him into moving. One of Gingrich's security agents stepped in front of him. When Dillard didn't budge, the agent lifted his heeled shoe over Dillard's bare foot and dug the back of it into his skin, twisting it side-to-side like he was stomping out a cigarette. Shocked, Dillard kept his ground and took a picture of the agent with his phone, which was quickly knocked out of his hand. Dillard slipped off his flip-flop to pick up the phone with his foot, and a Gingrich supporter kicked the sandal away.

"Don't kick me!" Dillard said to the man who knocked away his sandal. More members of Gingrich's security retinue approached, shoving their shoulders and chests in front of him.

"Just block him!" a Gingrich campaign aide said. "Everyone step on his toes!"

Gingrich supporters handed a "Newt 2012" yard sign up to the front to put in front of Dillard's Paul sign. The two signs, zipping back and forth inches from Gingrich's head, circled each other in the air like a fighter jets in a dogfight.

When the candidate finished taking pictures with voters, furious Gingrich aides grilled Dillard.

"If we did this to you, you guys would be furious," said an aide before stomping back toward the bus. "They have no class. No class."

As Gingrich pulled away, Dillard looked down at his foot. With the adrenaline pumping, he hadn't noticed the pain, but now it was starting to sink in. A bruise was forming, and there was a cut mark where the security agent had dug in his heel.

"That was really something," Dillard said afterwards. "My heart's racing. Not what I expected to happen today."

[Gráinne]

I hope this goes viral everywhere. Post it on your political sites:

Mitt Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-very-poor_n_1246557.html

Talk about giving the opposition soundbites from here until the election!

[AtLast]

Anyone else catch the exchange with Rev Al and Gingrich's SuperPac head after FL results? About racial "coding?"

Thoughts?

[Sassy]

Anyone else catch the exchange with Rev Al and Gingrich's SuperPac head after FL results? About racial "coding?"

Thoughts?

I missed that last night... caught it on huffingtonpost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/al-sharpton-rick-tyler-abort-babies-maddow-gingrich_n_1246425.html) this evening....

Thanks for bringing it to attention.

[MsMerrick]

I missed that last night... caught it on huffingtonpost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/al-sharpton-rick-tyler-abort-babies-maddow-gingrich_n_1246425.html) this evening....

Thanks for bringing it to attention.

I love Al Sharpton.. :) I do....~ Ok Rachel too but AL truly brought it to this idiot !

[AtLast]

I love Al Sharpton.. :) I do....~ Ok Rachel too but AL truly brought it to this idiot !

Yup, Al Sharpton stood his ground and brought it home!

Whoops- want to add something.

I know that a big part of this comes from my past professional life, but, I am really having a hard time with the fact that Newt Gingrich has displayed textbook bi-polar behavior as well as a whole lot of traits that fit into Narcissistic Personality Disorer- and this just gets glossed overby the media. His grandiosity is delutional in nature, but, because he is bright and has been able to make "normalcy approximations" & social adaptations in life to "hide" the actual pathology he has, it is never really called out.

There is evidence that bi-polar disorder is genetically linked and his mother suffered from this mental disorder. His marriage history from marrying his high school math teacher at the age of 19 and his mother saying that his first wife continued "mothering" him so he could grow up is just so chracterological!

Why the hell isn't this getting the attention it should? many people with bi-polar disorders do really well in life when they are treated, but the office of the presidency would be one stressful situation for someone with this disorder to function effectively. Add the personality disorder stuff and this is not a good combination for someone that has the power to use nuclear weapons within a few seconds.

I'm getting tired of Gingrich's behavior getting passed off as simply erractic. I think that voters do have a right to know about a presidential candidate's mental health history. The real history. This is saying alot because I believe strongly in confidentiality about these matters. But he is running for president and questions about his mental and emotional stability have been floating around for 3 decades. Frankly, in stead of his ex-wives being questioned about fidelity, I'd like to see them interviewed about any psychiatric history and medications he may have taken or is taking. Psychiatric records are not contained in regular medical records, so even if he presented medical records, this information would not be present.

[Corkey]

Yup, Al Sharpton stood his ground and brought it home!

Whoops- want to add something.

I know that a big part of this comes from my past professional life, but, I am really having a hard time with the fact that Newt Gingrich has displayed textbook bi-polar behavior as well as a whole lot of traits that fit into Narcissistic Personality Disorer- and this just gets glossed overby the media. His grandiosity is delutional in nature, but, because he is bright and has been able to make "normalcy approximations" & social adaptations in life to "hide" the actual pathology he has, it is never really called out.

There is evidence that bi-polar disorder is genetically linked and his mother suffered from this mental disorder. His marriage history from marrying his high school math teacher at the age of 19 and his mother saying that his first wife continued "mothering" him so he could grow up is just so chracterological!

Why the hell isn't this getting the attention it should? many people with bi-polar disorders do really well in life when they are treated, but the office of the presidency would be one stressful situation for someone with this disorder to function effectively. Add the personality disorder stuff and this is not a good combination for someone that has the power to use nuclear weapons within a few seconds.

I'm getting tired of Gingrich's behavior getting passed off as simply erractic. I think that voters do have a right to know about a presidential candidate's mental health history. The real history. This is saying alot because I believe strongly in confidentiality about these matters. But he is running for president and questions about his mental and emotional stability have been floating around for 3 decades. Frankly, in stead of his ex-wives being questioned about fidelity, I'd like to see them interviewed about any psychiatric history and medications he may have taken or is taking. Psychiatric records are not contained in regular medical records, so even if he presented medical records, this information would not be present.



Spiro Agnew sound familiar?

[Kobi]

Yup, Al Sharpton stood his ground and brought it home!

Whoops- want to add something.

I know that a big part of this comes from my past professional life, but, I am really having a hard time with the fact that Newt Gingrich has displayed textbook bi-polar behavior as well as a whole lot of traits that fit into Narcissistic Personality Disorer- and this just gets glossed overby the media. His grandiosity is delutional in nature, but, because he is bright and has been able to make "normalcy approximations" & social adaptations in life to "hide" the actual pathology he has, it is never really called out.

There is evidence that bi-polar disorder is genetically linked and his mother suffered from this mental disorder. His marriage history from marrying his high school math teacher at the age of 19 and his mother saying that his first wife continued "mothering" him so he could grow up is just so chracterological!

Why the hell isn't this getting the attention it should? many people with bi-polar disorders do really well in life when they are treated, but the office of the presidency would be one stressful situation for someone with this disorder to function effectively. Add the personality disorder stuff and this is not a good combination for someone that has the power to use nuclear weapons within a few seconds.

I'm getting tired of Gingrich's behavior getting passed off as simply erractic. I think that voters do have a right to know about a presidential candidate's mental health history. The real history. This is saying alot because I believe strongly in confidentiality about these matters. But he is running for president and questions about his mental and emotional stability have been floating around for 3 decades. Frankly, in stead of his ex-wives being questioned about fidelity, I'd like to see them interviewed about any psychiatric history and medications he may have taken or is taking. Psychiatric records are not contained in regular medical records, so even if he presented medical records, this information would not be present.



In my jaded cynicism, I just presume anyone who thinks they should be President has a wee bit of mental dereangement going on. :)

[Cin]

In my jaded cynicism, I just presume anyone who thinks they should be President has a wee bit of mental dereangement going on. :)


Well at the very least a more than ample dose of grandiosity if not out right megalomania. :| With maybe a side order of narcissism. :tease:

[Cin]

Romney's Horrific Immigration Plan: Make Immigrants' Lives Miserable So They Leave

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney stole a page from the restrictionists’ playbook this week when he promoted the idea of “self-deportation” during a presidential debate. “If people don’t get work here,” Romney stated, “they’re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work.” Rather than initiate a constructive solution to our nation’s immigration problems, Romney is jumping in bed with immigration restrictionist groups who support policies that tear American families and communities apart, devastate local economies, and place unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants.

Romney’s use of the term “self-deportation” is not at all surprising given his recent collaboration with Kris Kobach, the current Secretary of State of Kansas who continues to serve as chief legal counsel to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Kobach, the self-professed author of several state and local immigration-control bills, advised Romney on immigration during his 2008 presidential bid and has long-promoted the strategy of “attrition through enforcement”— the immigration-control strategy to drive away the unauthorized population by making their lives so miserable that they will choose to “deport themselves” rather than remain in the U.S.

“Attrition through enforcement” laws—like Arizona’s SB1070 and Alabama’s HB56—were explicitly designed to interfere with the everyday activities of immigrants and go far beyond denying unauthorized immigrants work. These laws deny access to housing, school, work, and even water and electricity to anyone who can’t prove legal status. The laws’ supporters have made it clear that making people miserable and encouraging them to leave the state is the intended consequence of their policies.

It’s troubling that a serious Presidential candidate would adopt the code words of extremist immigration control organizations and propose that making people’s lives miserable so that they’ll leave is an acceptable policy goal. By using the term “self-deportation,” Romney is making it clear that he is on board with restrictionists groups’ strategy to force all unauthorized immigrants to leave the U.S., regardless of the time they have spent here, U.S. citizen family members, and their years of tax contributions.

Doesn’t this country deserves to hear more detailed and thoughtful approaches from politicians and policy makers—approaches that offer a way forward rather than divisive and punitive so-call “solutions” to unauthorized immigration?

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/770233/romney%27s_horrific_immigration_plan%3A_make_immig rants%27_lives_miserable_so_they_leave/

[Kobi]

I was mulling this over while having coffee this morning wondering why is this newsworthy? Has Donald Trump become that important a figure in the landscape of the USA? Or is his opinion just a sign of the times?

I miss the country we once were. We used to run the place, I think, based on a certain set of values and principles guided by a certain ideology to protect the wellbeing of the collective people.

We have become, it seems, a different place. We have become a place where economics has become our ideology, and certain values and principles have become paramount as a result. And, these things are not only in direct opposition to the wellbeing of the collective people, money is systematically and deliberately being used to change the behavior and beliefs of the collective to bring them into the fold of the economic ideology. And, the scary part is, it is working brilliantly.

The paradigm shift is very odd. Fascinating.

[Kobi]

Did Romney's self deportation thing apply to Americans who self deport to save their sanity? Times like this when a moon colony is looking like an attractive option.

Sooooo, which of my Canadian pals is going to sponsor me until I get settled? I know Tim Horton's and Players smokes, and Canadian Tire (is that your version of Walmart?), and eh. And, I'm relatively housebroken. ;)

[AtLast]

My current fantasy- is that on Sunday there is a massive pro union demonstration at the Super Bowl in Indianna. And that the NFL player's association announces that no future Super Bowls can be played in any right to work state- starting now. So, all existing schedules for this event will be cancelled as of Sunday in those state's already chosen (including 2013) that are right to work states.

No union players in right to work states! Then it all moves onto the NBA, NHL, MLB.......

[Cin]

Did Romney's self deportation thing apply to Americans who self deport to save their sanity? Times like this when a moon colony is looking like an attractive option.

Sooooo, which of my Canadian pals is going to sponsor me until I get settled? I know Tim Horton's and Players smokes, and Canadian Tire (is that your version of Walmart?), and eh. And, I'm relatively housebroken. ;)


LOL. Well, let me say this about that, Canada's PM at the moment is really not a nice guy. So I don't think it's gonna be that different once you get here. That said, Canada does have a more open immigration policy. And they appreciate immigrants. Still one does have to actually meet the criteria to be able to immigrate.

[AtLast]

LOL. Well, let me say this about that, Canada's PM at the moment is really not a nice guy. So I don't think it's gonna be that different once you get here. That said, Canada does have a more open immigration policy. And they appreciate immigrants. Still one does have to actually meet the criteria to be able to immigrate.

Maybe you have to come from California.... really glad Maddow brought this up, I remember it well and we have to give credit where credit is due!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/self-deportation-was-always-a-joke_n_1251155.html?ref=latino-voices


Self-deportation.
The brilliant idea was not Mitt Romney's. But ever since he introduced it as a viable solution to the country's broken immigration system, he's been getting all the credit.



Long before the Republican front-runner made it a tenet of his immigration policy, Daniel D. Portado, founder of Hispanics Against Liberal Takeover (HALTO), a "militant, self-deportation movement encouraging all minorities to leave the United States" was championing the cause in the early 1990s following the passage of anti-immigrant Prop.187 in California -- on the radio, to talking heads, even California's Governor Wilson adopted self-deportation as a solution.

Only it was a joke.



In an interview from 1996 with This American Life radio host Ira Glass, Daniel D. Portado is asked why he is still in California if his mission is to self-deport.



He replies, "Well, I am here to help everyone get out. I hope to look forward to the day where I will stand at the border and say, will the last Mexican out of California please turn out the lights? That will be me."


Political cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz, the creator of the satirical movement, talks to Rachel Maddow about the gift that keeps on giving.


I wonder if Daniel D. Portado -- aka. Mr. Alcaraz -- is receiving royalties from Mitt Romney's camp for the trademark?


He has already sent a Cease and Desist notice to Patriots for Self-Deportation for use of the word he coined. But more importantly, is he being considered for a cabinet post? Secretary D. Portado.


For more updates by the noted right-wing Hispanic Self-Deportationist: Daniel D. Portado's Twitter


------

Prop 187 was a horrible experience in our state.

[Soon]

/excerpt/

"The 45-year-old Callista has created an entirely new model for a spouse, standing mute in her primary color suits and triple-strand pearls looking at the 68-year-old Newt for the whole event, her platinum carapace inclined deferentially toward his shaggy gray mane. While a trophy wife is admired by her man, the admiring eyes of a Transformational Wife are there to propel her man to the next level. And when a woman who wants to be a Transformational Wife merges with a man who calls himself a Transformational Figure, you can expect a narcissistic blastoff."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-great-mans-wife.html?_r=2

[Toughy]

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?ps=915&rip_id=%3CD9SNPCD80%40news.ap.org%3E&news_id=18950965&src=most_popular_viewed

Romney latest pol to join wait-let-me-explain club

Mitt Romney's remark that he's not worried about the very poor, the latest gaffe in a campaign rich with blunders, joins a long list of wait-let-me-explain episodes in presidential election history. <snip>




The pic that accompanies this article of Daddy Bush looking at his watch during a debate is one of my favorites

[Toughy]

/excerpt/

"The 45-year-old Callista has created an entirely new model for a spouse, standing mute in her primary color suits and triple-strand pearls looking at the 68-year-old Newt for the whole event, her platinum carapace inclined deferentially toward his shaggy gray mane. While a trophy wife is admired by her man, the admiring eyes of a Transformational Wife are there to propel her man to the next level. And when a woman who wants to be a Transformational Wife merges with a man who calls himself a Transformational Figure, you can expect a narcissistic blastoff."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-great-mans-wife.html?_r=2

I still cannot decide if she is a member of the Stepford Wives or a narcissistic blastoff. If there are folks who have not seen that movie...........RENT IT!!

[Martina]

That piece was funny as hell. i actually repped it on the NYTimes website when i read it. i had to look up "carapace." LOL. Her hair does look like a turtle shell propped up there. /excerpt/

"The 45-year-old Callista has created an entirely new model for a spouse, standing mute in her primary color suits and triple-strand pearls looking at the 68-year-old Newt for the whole event, her platinum carapace inclined deferentially toward his shaggy gray mane. While a trophy wife is admired by her man, the admiring eyes of a Transformational Wife are there to propel her man to the next level. And when a woman who wants to be a Transformational Wife merges with a man who calls himself a Transformational Figure, you can expect a narcissistic blastoff."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-great-mans-wife.html?_r=2

[AtLast]

/excerpt/

"The 45-year-old Callista has created an entirely new model for a spouse, standing mute in her primary color suits and triple-strand pearls looking at the 68-year-old Newt for the whole event, her platinum carapace inclined deferentially toward his shaggy gray mane. While a trophy wife is admired by her man, the admiring eyes of a Transformational Wife are there to propel her man to the next level. And when a woman who wants to be a Transformational Wife merges with a man who calls himself a Transformational Figure, you can expect a narcissistic blastoff."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-great-mans-wife.html?_r=2

This ranks as one of the best!

What is interesting to me about her hair is that it covers so much of her face.

[Kobi]

I'm waiting for the candidates to pick this one up.



Last year, a federal program paid out $1.6 billion to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. The program, overseen by the FCC and intended to help low-income Americans, is popular for obvious reasons, with participation rising steeply since 2008, when the government paid $772 million for phones and monthly bills. But observers complain that the program suffers from poor oversight, in which phones go to people who don't qualify, and hundreds of thousands of those who do qualify have more than one phone.

Last summer, a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review story shed some light on a government program that relatively few Americans knew existed. The Lifeline program provides low-income Americans with free cell phones (basic ones such as those made by Tracfone, not smartphones) and covers up to 250 free minutes each month. As many as 5.5 million residents in Pennsylvania alone could qualify for the program, which is funded primarily by the Universal Service Fund fee added to the bills of land-line and wireless customers.

The program came to be after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, and the FCC created the Universal Service Fund to help "to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates," among other things. All telecommunications carriers must pay into the fund, and many do so by tacking on a fee to each of their customers' bills. It's probably added into your monthly wireless bill and your landline bill, if you still have one.

The Universal Service Fund provides discounts on phone services, or in some cases, entirely free services to low-income Americans. The fund helps pay for landlines or cell phones, whichever the recipient prefers. There's also a one-time discount of up to $30 to cover an installation fee or a cell phone. Considering how cheap some cell phones are nowadays, the money more than covers the costs of a basic phone. Then, the fund covers phone bills to the tune of $10 a month, which typically translates as 250 minutes for wireless plans of the types of phones we're talking about. Americans who receive food stamps, Medicaid, or other federal aid, or who earn up to 135% of the federal poverty guidelines, qualify for the program.

Now, Bloomberg Businessweek reports, we have a pretty good idea of how much the program pays out -- and how quickly it's growing as more and more people find out about it. In 2011, Lifeline paid out $1.6 billion, more than double the amount paid in 2008 ($772 million).

What's more, an FCC audit of the program last year showed that many participants in the program were taking more than their fair share. According to Businessweek:

269,000 wireless Lifeline subscribers were receiving free phones and monthly service from two or more carriers.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has been taking a closer look at the program since she personally received an invitation to apply for a free, government-subsidized cell phone in the mail. McCaskill has asked the FCC to investigate Lifeline. As a result, the FCC is building a database to see if a subscriber has more than one subsidized phone. In other words, until recently, such a database didn't exist.

The FCC, which announced the changes by using the euphemism that it is "modernizing" Lifeline, has set a goal of saving $200 million on the program in 2012. After eliminating nearly 270,000 of the duplicate subscriptions discovered in the audit last year, the FCC said it has already "saved" $33 million.

http://news.yahoo.com/washington-footing-cell-phone-bill-millions-low-income-202500656.html

[Corkey]

I was sent an ad for this program, I do not qualify. As there is a review of the application, I am not concerned about how many indeed use this program. There are many who are unemployed and differently abled who do qualify for this program who would never know but for an ad. There is a financial qualification to the program, and one must be on Medicaid.

[Cin]

I'm waiting for the candidates to pick this one up.



Last year, a federal program paid out $1.6 billion to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. The program, overseen by the FCC and intended to help low-income Americans, is popular for obvious reasons, with participation rising steeply since 2008, when the government paid $772 million for phones and monthly bills. But observers complain that the program suffers from poor oversight, in which phones go to people who don't qualify, and hundreds of thousands of those who do qualify have more than one phone.

Last summer, a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review story shed some light on a government program that relatively few Americans knew existed. The Lifeline program provides low-income Americans with free cell phones (basic ones such as those made by Tracfone, not smartphones) and covers up to 250 free minutes each month. As many as 5.5 million residents in Pennsylvania alone could qualify for the program, which is funded primarily by the Universal Service Fund fee added to the bills of land-line and wireless customers.

The program came to be after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, and the FCC created the Universal Service Fund to help "to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates," among other things. All telecommunications carriers must pay into the fund, and many do so by tacking on a fee to each of their customers' bills. It's probably added into your monthly wireless bill and your landline bill, if you still have one.

The Universal Service Fund provides discounts on phone services, or in some cases, entirely free services to low-income Americans. The fund helps pay for landlines or cell phones, whichever the recipient prefers. There's also a one-time discount of up to $30 to cover an installation fee or a cell phone. Considering how cheap some cell phones are nowadays, the money more than covers the costs of a basic phone. Then, the fund covers phone bills to the tune of $10 a month, which typically translates as 250 minutes for wireless plans of the types of phones we're talking about. Americans who receive food stamps, Medicaid, or other federal aid, or who earn up to 135% of the federal poverty guidelines, qualify for the program.

Now, Bloomberg Businessweek reports, we have a pretty good idea of how much the program pays out -- and how quickly it's growing as more and more people find out about it. In 2011, Lifeline paid out $1.6 billion, more than double the amount paid in 2008 ($772 million).

What's more, an FCC audit of the program last year showed that many participants in the program were taking more than their fair share. According to Businessweek:

269,000 wireless Lifeline subscribers were receiving free phones and monthly service from two or more carriers.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has been taking a closer look at the program since she personally received an invitation to apply for a free, government-subsidized cell phone in the mail. McCaskill has asked the FCC to investigate Lifeline. As a result, the FCC is building a database to see if a subscriber has more than one subsidized phone. In other words, until recently, such a database didn't exist.

The FCC, which announced the changes by using the euphemism that it is "modernizing" Lifeline, has set a goal of saving $200 million on the program in 2012. After eliminating nearly 270,000 of the duplicate subscriptions discovered in the audit last year, the FCC said it has already "saved" $33 million.

http://news.yahoo.com/washington-footing-cell-phone-bill-millions-low-income-202500656.html

Footing the bill for the poor to have a phone? These are the kinds of issues that need immediate attention. That's why we are on the brink of financial disaster. Between this and food stamps these poor people are living large. We need to take away their phones and cut food stamps at the very least. I mean there are people trying to scrape by on a mere $250,000 a year, a family of four can't be expected to survive on that! They need the government's help. They need tax breaks. We should have a fund so we can all pay in to help these guys struggling to survive on a quarter of a million dollars a year.
Oldie but a Goodie, Down and Out on 250000 a Year. (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2010/12/07/Down-and-Out-on-250000-a-Year.aspx#page1)

[AtLast]

It's CPAC convenstion time. A bunch of viagra filled old white Republican men meet and try to pick who among them is more Godly.....

[Kobi]

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama, in an abrupt policy shift aimed at quelling an election-year firestorm, announced on Friday that religious employers would not be required to offer free birth control to workers and the onus would instead be put on insurers.

But Catholic Church leaders and Obama's Republican opponents, who had railed against the Democratic president's new rule on contraceptives as a violation of religious freedom, signaled that divisions remain over the hot-button social issue.

The compromise by the Obama administration sought to accommodate religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, outraged by a new rule that would have required them to offer free contraceptive coverage to women employees.

Instead, the new approach puts the burden on insurance companies, ordering them to provide workers at religious-affiliated institutions with free family planning if they request it, without involving their employer at all, the White House said.

"Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women," Obama told reporters in the White House briefing room as he sought to put the political furor to rest.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called Obama's move a "first step in the right direction" but said it was still concerned about the issue and would reserve judgment.

Weighing in publicly on the issue for the first time, Obama acknowledged that religious groups had "genuine concerns" about the birth control rule, but he accused some of his opponents of a cynical effort to turn the issue into a "political football."

"The result will be that religious organizations won't have to pay for these services," Obama said. "But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptives just like other women."

The rule had sparked an outcry not only from Catholic leaders but from social conservatives, including Republican presidential hopefuls on the campaign trail, and had also sown dissent among some of Obama's top advisers.

Health insurance giant Aetna Inc said it would comply with the policy but needed "to study the mechanics of this unprecedented decision before we can understand how it will be implemented and how it will impact our customers."

Republicans seized on the issue, seeing a chance to paint Obama as anti-religion and put him on the defensive as signs of economic recovery appear to have re-energized his re-election bid.

The policy shift was aimed at preventing the issue from becoming a liability for Obama with Catholic voters, while at the same time trying not to anger his liberal base.

[Kobi]

Funny how politicians always go after "social programs" but never stuff like this:


You don't have to look very far to find the U.S. government wasting money. It's everywhere. It's where you think it is and in places where you'd never even think of looking. The government's wasteful spending habits go way beyond the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.

With a federal debt north of $15 trillion and projected annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion as far as the eye can see, it's clear that the federal government has difficulty controlling costs or living within a budget. If it can't cut the low-hanging fruit listed in this article, how can anyone expect the politicians to make tough reductions in spending?

These are seven ways that the U.S. government wasted tax dollars in 2011. For a more lengthy view, discover all 100 ways in Sen. Tom Coburn’s Wastebook. (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/6946d43b-bccf-4579-990e-15a763532b40.html)

$175,587 - Study on Cocaine and the Risky Sex Habits of Quail
Why quail? The reason is because they easily reproduce in a laboratory and provide an alternative to standard laboratory pigeons and rats. Apparently, the government felt the need to prove what numerous studies have already determined - that cocaine use may increase high-risk sexual behavior in humans. Worse yet, the study is slated to continue through 2015.

It only sounds more ridiculous when you learn that the first installment of $181,406 was received in 2010 from the National Institute of Health to see how cocaine boosted the sex drive of Japanese quail.

The NIH provided the money to the study in order to better understand the correlation between drug use, risky sexual behavior and the spread of STDs in inner city neighborhoods. It will also look at how drug use affects sexual motivation.

$550,000 - A Movie on How Rock 'n' Roll Helped Defeat Communism
This documentary, directed by Jim Brown, is scheduled for release in May 2012. The 90-minute documentary will focus on the arrival of the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band in the Soviet Union during the late 1970s.

This was shortly after the release of their album Will the Circle be Unbroken, and the reception they received was reminiscent of the Beatles. Rock the Kremlin emphasizes the benefits of soft power and cultural diplomacy, and intends to show how music imported from the West contributed to ending the cold war.

$592,527 - Proving That Feces-Throwing Is a Communication Skill for Chimps
The purpose of this study was to determine why chimpanzees often throw feces and food at passersby and what that has to do with the neurological origins of communications among the species.

The money from the NIH National Institutes of Health was given to Yerkes National Primate Research Center (associated with Emory University). The study found that Iin the wild, chimps learn to throw objects to manipulate the control of other chimps and primates. At a cost of over half a million dollars, it was discovered that the chimps that excelled at throwing feces also had the best communication skills.

This is not the only primate related study to receive funding. Emory University is also studying handedness in primates and its correlation to reproductive success.

$742,907 - Study on Sheep Grazing to Control Weeds
The Department of Agriculture gave money to Montana State University to conduct the study and develop two courses that cover and explain the findings. While most of us already knew that sheep will munch on weeds, apparently three quarters of a million dollars were needed to authenticate the obvious.

Since it doesn't require chemicals, organic farmers can use sheep to clear their fields instead of tilling, which can subject the topsoil to blowing or washing away. They also discovered that sheep manure will act as a natural fertilizer. The American Sheep Industry Association sells a $25 handbook that contains the same information.

The grant was one of 23 awarded last year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture, totaling $19 million.

$765,828 - Pancakes for Yuppies
Your tax dollars were used to partially fund a new International House of Pancakes in the popular Washington, DC neighborhood of Columbia Heights. While the money was intended for an underserved community, it made its way to this shopping hotspot that also features other prominent retailers such as Best Buy and Target. The irony is that the funding came from the Department of Health and Human Services, which is currently fighting a war against obesity. The IHOP serves two items from Men's Health magazine's Top 20 Most Unhealthy Menu Items list.

The development money was given to the Anacostia Economic Development Corporation, an organization that promotes real estate and business development in the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, DC. According to the Congressional Research Service, a majority of the funding was used as an equity injection into DC Pancakes LCC for a 19% stake in ownership.

$17,800,000 - Gifts to China
Over $1 trillion of the U.S. national debt is owed to China. So why are the Department of State and Agency for International Development giving millions of dollars to that country when it could be used to pay down the debt? About $4.4 million was used to improve China's environment and $2.5 million went to various social services. These are noble goals, but China can afford to pay its own way. While the U.S. debt now exceeds GDP, China's debt is only 26% of GDP.

$120,000,000 - Government Benefits for Dead People
The government has been paying the dead for a while, costing tax-payers more than $600 million over the past five years. Most of the money consists of retirement and disability payments to deceased federal employees. In one egregious example, a son cashed his dead father's checks for 37 years, totaling more than $500,000. This scam was only discovered when the son died and he was no longer around to cash the checks. None of the money was ever recovered.

The problem lies, ultimately, in the improper and often complete lack of, reporting regarding the deaths of former employees. Recommendations have been made to correct the issue, and some improvements have been made, though only partial improvements, at best. More work clearly needs to be done on this front.

The Bottom Line
The programs covered here are hardly national priorities and only scratch the surface of Washington's wasteful and frivolous spending habits. Despite claims from all political corners that earmarks and pork-barrel spending will no longer be tolerated, the reality is that the waste continues unabated.

As the debt continues to climb exponentially and the value of the dollar is further jeopardized, the need to eliminate waste is more compelling than ever. If that can't be done, there's little hope for achieving a balanced budget.

[Cin]

These people are so scary. The government is secular for a reason. The most frightening and inherently dangerous thing I can imagine is to be governed by a theocracy. But if this present batch of conservatives is any indication, that may be our future. It's really frightening and a bit nauseating to read their rabid reactionary religious rubbish. And apparently when I get nauseous and frightened I alliterate.

Republican candidates accuse Obama of declaring war on religion. 5 Big Lies About the Phony "War on Religion" (http://www.alternet.org/story/154059/5_Big_Lies_About_the_Phony_%27War_on_Religion%27/)

[Cin]

The Montana Supreme Court in an attempt to get around the holding of Citizens United, took SCOTUS’s statement that independent spending cannot corrupt and pointed to evidence that such spending has in fact corrupted in Montana. When the state of Montana loses this battle, and it will, they will have forced the U.S. Supreme Court into making it abundantly clear to all who are listening that they are uninterested and actively hostile toward state anti-corruption laws. It will be impossible to ignore the meaning behind the Supreme Court's ruling which is that all they are really interested in is that the wealthy and the corporations get to use their overwhelming, unequitable, and unfair percentage of the wealth to control elections.

Will anyone be listening? Can that government be saved, the one that is of the people, by the people, for the people and in real danger of perishing from the earth?

Montana Ban on Corporate Campaigning Heading to U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/782899/montana_ban_on_corporate_campaigning_heading_to_u. s._supreme_court/)

Going for Broke in Montana Campaign Finance Case (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29674)

Fact? We Don't Need No Stinking Facts: The Montana Supreme Court, SCOTUS, and Citizens United. (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27232)

[AtLast]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html?wpisrc=twitter _socialflow

Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception By Amanda Marcotte


After two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on contraception access under the banner of "religous freedom," Obama finally announced what the White House is proposing an accomodation of religiously affiliated employers who don't want to offer birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it's cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there's very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they're eligible.

That's the nitty-gritty. The fun part of this is that Obama just pulled a fast one on Republicans. He drew this out for two weeks, letting Republicans work themselves into a frenzy of anti-contraception rhetoric, all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty, and then created a compromise that addressed their purported concerns but without actually reducing women's access to contraception, which is what this has always been about. (As Dana Goldstein reported in 2010, before the religious liberty gambit was brought up, the Catholic bishops were just demanding that women be denied access and told to abstain from sex instead.) With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.

My guess is that they'll take their knocks and go home, but a lot of the damage has already been done. Romney was provoked repeatedly to go on the record saying negative things about contraception. Sure, it was in the frame of concern about religious liberty, but as this incident fades into memory, what most people will remember is that Republicans picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage and lost. This also gave Obama a chance to highlight this benefit and take full credit for it. Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along.

[Kobi]

Good idea. Maybe not so good name. "Truth teams" make me think Quantanamo and Cheney and Joe McCarthy and related stuff. :|


The Obama campaign is today beginning a new effort to enlist and educate at least 2 million supporters for a "grassroots communications team" they're calling the Truth Team.

"The goal is to ensure that when Republicans attack President Obama's record, grassroots supporters can take ownership of the campaign and share the facts with the undecided voters in their lives," the campaign said in a statement.

The teams will be first launched in 13 "swing states," including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.

The rollout also includes a social media blitz, directing supporters to three new websites: KeepingHisWord.com, which highlights Obama's record and "promises kept"; KeepingGOPHonest.com, which highlights GOP policy positions; and AttackWatch.com, which fact-checks claims made against Obama on the campaign trail.

"If the other guys are going to run a campaign based on misrepresenting the president's record - and their own - we have two options: sit back and let these lies go unchallenged, or fight back with the truth," deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said in an email. "We're fighting back."

So far, the "other guys" mentioned on the three websites are almost exclusively limited to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. There is one mention of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and one mention of the pro-Republican super PAC Americans for Prosperity.

Obama organized a similar grassroots effort in 2008 - Fight the Smears - that involved more than 1 million supporters, campaign aides said.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/obama-campaign-launches-truth-teams-131411002--abc-news.html

[Cin]

Published on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Believe It or Not, Santorum's Surge Is Scary
by Tony Norman

I've been told that it is way too early to begin showing signs of Rick Santorum derangement syndrome.

A well-meaning reader suggested that even if the Republicans were suicidal enough to hand the former Pennsylvania senator the nomination, his defeat in the general election would dwarf the blowout Barry Goldwater suffered at the hands of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The argument goes like this: Rick Santorum is such an implacable foe of modernity that casting a vote for him is only possible if one shares his nostalgia for the chauvinism, authoritarianism and unbearable whiteness of the 1950s.

According to this argument, Mr. Santorum is a protest vote writ large across the Republican firmament by grass-roots conservatives repulsed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's malleability and phoniness. It isn't a vote for Mr. Santorum's political theology as much as it is a rejection of the likely apostasy of the Republican frontrunner.

This also happens to be the prevailing view of the pundits toiling daily in newspapers and the cable news commissariat. The assumption that Rick Santorum can't be elected president is axiomatic in the circles I frequent, too. He was a punch line long before he lost his Senate race by 18 points in 2006.

Yet, a mere half dozen years after what should have ended his dreams of ever holding elected office again, Mr. Santorum is poised to steal the Michigan primary from Mr. Romney, although the polls have tightened in recent days.

Many Democrats are salivating over the prospect of an Obama/Santorum showdown in November. The only contest that could possibly make a Democrat happier would be one in which Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump were the Republican nominee.

Ironically, Mitt Romney, the gelatinous Gibraltar of Republican politics, stands the best chance of making the race for the White House competitive among independent voters he has alienated in recent months. After a hard tack to the right, Mr. Romney wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep embracing the middle to beat Mr. Obama in November. It's that kind of mercenary pragmatism that enrages conservatives who value principle over short-term electoral victory.

Because Mr. Romney has residual appeal with independents, Democrats would rather Mr. Obama faced someone with more extremist views -- someone like Rick Santorum. I understand the logic. I just don't buy it.

I think it is irresponsible to underestimate the appeal of a demagogue when so many Americans are suffering and the public mood is so mercurial. All it would take would be a few weeks of $5 a gallon gas and a Democratic electorate demoralized because of some administration misstep to put even the strangest protest candidacy into play.

Mr. Santorum is a principled culture warrior who doesn't believe in evolution, man-made global warming, sex for purposes other than having children, separation of church and state, tax-financed public education (except by Penn Hills of his home-schooled kids), a Constitutional right to privacy, contraception, some forms of prenatal testing, or freedom of conscience if it contradicts his church's edicts or his party platform.

Mr. Santorum would like to see doctors who perform abortions criminally prosecuted. He has said that war with Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions is in America's best interests, despite the painful lessons of the past decade and the skepticism of our own generals.

If he is elected president, women should expect an administration openly hostile to their interests on a number of fronts. As for "blah people" -- union members and academics -- well, they can just forget it.

The former senator's comments about Mr. Obama's "theology" over the weekend make it clear that his version of environmental stewardship is more about exploiting the earth than respecting it. It is a mentality closer to that of a 19th-century robber baron than someone informed by modern science or concerns about environmental integrity.

So, how did Mr. Santorum make it this far? How is his candidacy even possible in the modern world? Some pundits refer to his "likability" compared to his rivals. What are they talking about? What has he said or done during his surge that paints him in any way as likable?

There's some Rick Santorum derangement syndrome going around all right, but it's not affecting me.

[Toughy]

Rick Santorum has pissed off the Dutch...............yep he has the Dutch people and government mad at him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#46520567

[MsDemeanor]

Rick Santorum has pissed off the Dutch...............yep he has the Dutch people and government mad at him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#46520567

A bunch of socialist bicycle-riding tulip growers are upset - like that's going to disturb a conservative.

[MsMerrick]

The President of Ireland vs a Tea Bagger...
Michael D Higgins v Michael Graham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B5OWRRJh-PI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B5OWRRJh-PI)

[Cin]

Time on the Cross With Rick Santorum
by ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Surely Rick Santorum is the most fanatical Christian to run for the Republican nomination in the modern era, maybe any era. Next to him Pat Robertson, billionaire founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, who ran for the nomination in 1988, has the tolerant, glassy-eyed bonhomie of the late Dean Martin. Robertson has always been in show business. Four years ago we had Mike Huckabee, the evangelist and former governor of Arkansas, one of the boys, shacked up with Mrs Huckabee in his doublewide on the grounds of the Arkansas gubernatorial mansion. He has always been in show business too.

But with Santorum – a conservative Roman Catholic and member of Opus Dei – there’s a truly manic edge to his religious pronouncements and activities. It was Santorum and Mrs S, don’t forget, who took their still-born baby home from the hospital and laid it among their living tots, telling them, “he’s with the angels now,” an episode Mrs Santorum later recorded in a memoir.

Santorum doesn’t believe in the right to privacy. Not that Obama has any qualms about taps on your phone and powers of arbitrary arrest, but he probably doesn’t care too much about whatever human combos are being tried out in the bedroom. Santorum frets 24/7 about beastliness and unnatural acts, and yearns to restore full rights to snoops to kick down the motel door, twitch aside the blankets and haul couples off for all manner of moral abominations.

Contraception in Santorum’s opinion is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”. Pre-natal testing is also a no-no for Santorum, father of eight.
 
In 2003 Santorum said he favored having laws against polygamy, adultery, sodomy, and other actions “antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family”. The possibility of bestiality in today’s licentious times bothers him a lot — “man on dog,” as he famously put it on a talk show. Not for him the possibility of abortion in cases of rape: “I believe and I think that the right approach is to accept this horribly created, in the sense of rape, but nevertheless, in a very broken way, a gift of human life, and accept what God is giving to you.”

Santorum was two when the Sixties began. But like so many cultural conservatives he believes to the bottom of his soul that everything went to hell when the love generation came of age: “Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. They prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom.”

In 2008 he gave a speech in which he ventured that “Satan has his sights on the United States of America. Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that have so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

Santorum traces Satan’s hoofprints back to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Just the other day he told an audience: “They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”

The whole diatribe is thrilling, but utterly ludicrous, not least because it was the revolution that promulgated the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which defined individual and collective rights for all men.

Why is a guy like this currently running neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination? The usual maps drawn by political experts stipulate that at some point in the prolonged nomination battle the candidate has to shed the gothick nuttiness and over-the-topness that got him traction in the early primaries and reach out to the independents without whose support no presidential bid can succeed.

There’s zero sign that Santorum is of any disposition to do this. So why does he turn out to be the last man standing in the path of the Mormon billionaire Mitt Romney in the battle for the nomination?

First and foremost, he’s not Mitt Romney.

Candidates, now long forgotten, like Herman Cain, or still vaguely remembered like the fading Newt Gingrich, fared well with this simple asset. Blue-collar Americans in the old industrial states don’t care for Romney, who began life as a rich kid and then became a lot richer by buying up businesses, putting them on a “sound footing” (fire half the work force), selling them and moving on.

So Santorum can work the blue-collar vote with a few populist rhetorical gestures.. He can also work the racist, anti-Obama vote by hinting that the president is driven by a non-Christian, environmentalist, New Age, putatively Satanist agenda. A few days ago Santorum declared that Obama’s actions are motivated by “some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible….The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine.”Then he added a day later by way of clarification that he understands Obama is a Christian, but that the president was misinterpreting God’s truth.

After the Florida primary everyone thought Santorum was toast and Romney coasting to the crown. Then Santorum won three fairly insignificant contests in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota. A billionaire, Foster Friess, gave his campaign a huge wad of money and he was on his way again.

Suddenly Romney was fighting for his life in Michigan (next Tuesday’s primary), where he was born and where his father was governor. Polls show Santorum ahead, both in Michigan and nationally, and also with a slightly better chance than Romney of beating Obama in November, though the president leads both of them by around four to six points.

The very latest poll, taken as Romney has desperately poured money into a fresh negative ad campaign against Santorum, shows the Mormon two points ahead in Michigan – no small achievement since Romney has denounced the bailout initiated by George Bush and ratified by Obama that saved GM and Chrysler, both companies now doing well and hiring thousands in a stricken state. In a lower key, Santorum also denounces the bailout, which shows just how insane these Republicans are.

On Wednesday night, in a debate in Arizona, where he has a decent lead, Romney was pronounced the clear winner, not least because he had Ron Paul on Santorum’s other side, thumping him for being a Washington insider and phony. It would be folly to predict what will happen next Tuesday night. If Santorum prospers, a huge disaster for the Republicans looms in November, far beyond even the Goldwater debacle of 1964. Don’t believe the talk about a brokered convention and someone like Jeb Bush or Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey parachuted in by the Republican establishment.

These are cheering days for the Obama campaign.

[Toughy]

So Rick said JFK's comments about separation of church and state made him want to throw up..............

Here's Kennedy in September 1960:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote," Kennedy said in a speech at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association

here is Rick:

“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Santorum said.
“That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square,” he said.

and Rick makes it more fun today about that and then goes after college education....this video is a big long the first 3 minutes is the good stuff:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/46545618/#46545618

and apparently Magic Underwear Mitt said something about Big Bird and corn flakes sponsorship because PBS is to expensive.....

[Martina]

i do hope Santorum wins the nomination though. Everyone says it's not possible, but the Dems are getting out the vote for him in Michigan. And that would be a tough loss for Romney.

i just would love to see the humiliating ads etc that he would be subject to as a national candidate. The entire country making fun of a religious fanatic would be a pleasant diversion.

The nutjobs who are getting so much attention right now would be reminded of just how marginal they really are.

[Ebon]

i do hope Santorum wins the nomination though. Everyone says it's not possible, but the Dems are getting out the vote for him in Michigan. And that would be a tough loss for Romney.

i just would love to see the humiliating ads etc that he would be subject to as a national candidate. The entire country making fun of a religious fanatic would be a pleasant diversion.

The nutjobs who are getting so much attention right now would be reminded of just how marginal they really are.

I hope he gets it too. The Daily Show and Colbert Report are already hilarious but it's going to be even more hilarious. Plus it's a shoe in for Obama, the lesser of the two evils. Santorum will embarrass himself so bad that no one will want to vote for him.

[Cin]

and the GOP is in turn controlled by a lunatic fringe. Elected Republicans must pander to this lunatic fringe. We need look no further than the recent attacks on women's rights to realize it's not as funny as it appears. The U.S. is a two party country, to me that makes this actually quite frightening.

It wasn't always this way.

Here's an excerpt from an article about Barry Goldwater and a quote from him regarding the religious right

Barry Goldwater rose to prominence as a man of deep conservative convictions. Liberals called him an extremist (which he was in his time) and his often colorful and controversial rhetoric cost him the Presidency in 1964. But Goldwater, as controversial as he was back then, also had the guts to call out his own party. For example, ‘Mr. Conservative’ rejected the Christian Right Wing element of the party. As a firm believer in personal liberty, he saw their views as a violation of personal privacy and individual liberties. In fact, he believed in this creed so much that he voted to uphold legalized abortion and supported gay rights. He also rejected the use of God in political discourse and refused to vote in Congress the way the religious right wanted him to. Here is a portion of what Goldwater had to say about the religious right.

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”
~Barry Goldwater



The Sad Race for Bottom on the Loony Right
As Santorum and Romney battle for the extremist vote, progressives should be worried, not gloating.
February 27, 2012 |
By Robert Reich
My father was a Republican for the first 78 years of his life. For the last twenty, he’s been a Democrat (he just celebrated his 98th.) What happened? “They lost me,” he says.

They’re losing even more Americans now, as the four remaining GOP candidates seek to out-do one another in their race for the votes of the loony right that’s taken over the Grand Old Party.

But the rest of us have reason to worry.

A party of birthers, creationists, theocrats, climate-change deniers, nativists, gay-bashers, anti-abortionists, media paranoids, anti-intellectuals, and out-of-touch country clubbers cannot govern America.

Yet even if they lose the presidency on Election Day they’re still likely to be in charge of at least one house of Congress as well as several state legislators and governorships. That’s a problem for the nation.

The GOP’s drift toward loopyness started in 1993 when Bill Clinton became the first Democrat in the White House in a dozen years – and promptly allowed gays in the military, pushed through the Brady handgun act, had the audacity to staff his administration with strong women and African-Americans, and gave Hillary the task of crafting a national health bill. Bill and Hillary were secular boomers with Ivy League credentials who thought government had a positive role to play in peoples’ lives.

This was enough to stir right-wing evangelicals in the South, social conservatives in the Midwest and on the Great Plains, and stop-at-nothing extremists in Washington and the media who hounded Bill Clinton for eight years, then stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, and Swift-boated John Kerry in 2004.

They were not pleased to have a Democrat back in the White House in 2008, let alone a black one. They rose up in the 2010 election cycle as “tea partiers” and have by now pushed the GOP further right than it has been in more than eighty years. Even formerly sensible senators like Olympia Snowe, Orrin Hatch, and Dick Lugar are moving to the extreme right in order to keep their seats.

At this rate the GOP will end up on the dust heap of history. Young Americans are more tolerant, cosmopolitan, better educated, and more socially liberal than their parents. And relative to the typical middle-aged America, they are also more Hispanic and more shades of brown. Today’s Republican Party is as relevant to what America is becoming as an ice pick in New Orleans.

In the meantime, though, we are in trouble. America is a winner-take-all election system in which a party needs only 51 percent (or, in a three-way race, a plurality) in order to gain control.

In parliamentary systems of government, small groups representing loony fringes can be absorbed relatively harmlessly into adult governing coalitions.

But here, as we’re seeing, a loony fringe can take over an entire party — and that party will inevitably take over some part of our federal, state, and local governments.

As such, the loony right is a clear and present danger.

[Kobi]

In a move that stunned Washington, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine announced today that she won't run for a fourth term in the Senate for a simple reason: gridlock.

"I am well prepared for the electoral battle, so that is not the issue," said Senator Snowe, who won her last race with 74 percent of the vote. “However, what I have had to consider is how productive an additional term would be.”

“Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term,” she added.

An iconic Senate moderate, Snowe often cast crucial votes in a closely divided Senate, forcing Republicans to take steps to curb the federal deficit, even when the core GOP issue of tax cuts were involved. More than once, her party's leaders had to rein in the scope of proposed tax cuts or to find offsetting sources of income win her vote.

She also helped organize the bipartisan Gang of 14 to preserve the minority's right to filibuster judicial nominations – even though Democrats were in the minority at the time.

Dubbed the “girls from Maine” by antitax activist Grover Norquist, Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins ranked as the two most liberal Republicans, according to a Feb. 25 survey by the National Journal. But despite the grumbling that Snowe is a RINO, or "Republican in name only," conservative activist groups weren’t out to topple her – a move that would risk handing the seat to a Democrat.

“She was not at all facing a tough race, and that’s what makes her decision so perplexing,” says Jessica Taylor, senior analyst at the Rothenberg Political Report in Washington.

“This was rated a safe Republican seat – a seat neither party expected to spend much money on."

“It’s a huge break for Democrats. This is now one of the races that Republicans will have to spend money in. It’s a pick up that Democrats would need. It plays a crucial role in determining who controls the Senate next year."

The Senate Democratic Campaign Committee trumpeted Snowe's announcement as an immediate opportunity to pick up a seat in a year when Republicans needed to win four Senate races to take control of chamber.

“Maine is now a top pickup opportunity for Senate Democrats," said DSCC spokesman Guy Cecil in a statement. "Democrats not only hold a strong registration advantage in the state, but this is a state that the president won by 17 points in 2008 and will likely win by a significant margin this year as well.”

With the filing deadline is only two weeks away, it’s not going to be easy to come up with a strong candidate.

Snowe "did not face a difficult race, and it’s too soon to say whether this is now beyond the GOP’s reach,” says Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report. “Democrats didn’t have a strong candidate in the race so they are searching, too.”

Two-term Rep. Chellie Pingree (D) of Maine – the most likely prospect for Democrats – called the next election “critical to the future of our working families around the country.”

“In the coming days I will carefully consider how I can best serve the people of Maine,” Congresswoman Pingree said in a statement on Tuesday. She will be holding a press conference when she returns to Portland on Friday, according to the release, to further discuss her plans.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/olympia-snowe-delivers-stunning-rebuke-decision-leave-senate-004200844.html

[Kobi]

If the exceeding long campaign season just isn’t giving you enough of the GOP candidates, now you can have them in your own home. And you can even set them up in amusing poses.

Connecticut-based company Hero Builders has released dolls depicting the Republican frontrunners: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Other available action figures include Rick Perry (regular man and executive versions!) and Herman Cain (solo and “with playmate” versions!)

Likely to rake in the most revenue is Rick Santorum who, of course, sports his signature sweater vest. And Gingrich looks uncharacteristically broad-shouldered in a gray suit and shiny red tie. Romney comes buttoned-up, neatly groomed and, best of all, for an extra $100 you can get a miniature car roof with detachable dog! (Just kidding, but that would probably be quite lucrative.)

For just $49.95 apiece, these GOP action figures can be yours. For an additional $10, you can even get the speaking version of Santorum and listen to him talk about theology. (And we’re not kidding about that one.)

Emil Vicale, owner of Hero Builders, told the Detroit Free Press that the company usually sells a few hundred of each political doll. Sarah Palin has been the top seller, while Barack Obama has lagged behind. The most affordable doll is Hillary Clinton, who goes for $29.95, while the priciest is Herman Cain (with playmate) for $65.95.

According to Slate’s Mitt Romney income calculator, it would take Romney three minutes and 38 seconds to earn the money to buy all three GOP frontrunner dolls, but for the rest of us, they might just be too much of a splurge.


Read more and see pics: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/29/romney-gingrich-and-santorum-action-figures-hit-the-market/#ixzz1np3ICT5N

[Cin]

A Few Crumbling Myths About the Republican Party (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/01/1070015/-A-Few-Crumbling-Myths-About-the-Republican-Party)

[Toughy]

this is such a catchy little tune

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/03/09/family-bands-rick-santorum-campaign-music-video-game-on-goes-viral/

[Kobi]

Two of the nation's leading anti-abortion-rights groups rallied behind Mitt Romney on Thursday following the exit of Rick Santorum from the presidential race.

The Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List and the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) both endorsed Romney's candidacy, burnishing the former governor's credentials with conservatives. SBA had previously endorsed Santorum, while the NRLC had taken a wait-and-see approach out of fear of weakening the eventual nominee.

Romney supported abortion rights during his 2002 campaign for governor, but has worked to convince Republicans he had a genuine change of heart in 2004.

"Now is the time to unite behind Gov. Romney in order to defeat the most ideologically pro-abortion president in our nation's history," SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement announcing her board's unanimous decision to get behind Romney. "The SBA List is proud to endorse Gov. Romney and plans to spend $10 [million] to $12 million in Senate and presidential battleground states mobilizing pro-life voters to ensure victory."

Dannenfelser went on to cite several of Romney's pledges: to defund Planned Parenthood, restore the ban on federal funding for nonprofit groups that perform or promote abortion, support legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks, appoint conservative judges to the federal bench and select an anti-abortion-rights vice president.

The National Right to Life Committee also endorsed Romney at a press conference Thursday morning, citing the healthcare reform law — which Romney has vowed to repeal — as opening the door to taxpayer funding for abortion and "rationing of life-saving medical care." Democrats dispute both those charges.

"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast," National Right to Life President Carol Tobias said Thursday. "As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda. It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled and the elderly, we must win."

Pro-abortion rights groups argued the endorsements would only help build support for Obama among women in battleground states.

"So much for the idea that Romney will try to move to the middle in the general election," NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said in a statement. "If he thought he had problems with women voters before, today's news only makes it worse."

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/221161-anti-abortion-groups-rally-behind-romney-after-santorums-exit?tmpl=component&page=

[AtLast]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/mitt-romneys-tax-return-


Mitt Romney’s tax return problem

Posted by Chris Cillizza at 03:09 PM ET, 04/16/2012

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney announced late Friday that he had sought an extension to file his 2011 tax returns, the newest piece of evidence of the political problem those documents have and will continue to cause him in his presidential bid.

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney waves after speaking at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, Friday, April 13, 2012. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)“Sometime in the next six months, and prior to the election, Gov. Romney will file and release the 2011 return when there is sufficient information to provide an accurate return,” said spokeswoman Andrea Saul in a statement that arrived in the Fix email inbox at 5:16 pm on Friday night. (Hello, Friday news dump!)
The truth of the matter is that Romney is in a damned if he does/damned if he doesn’t situation when it comes to his tax returns.

For their part, the Romney campaign insists that the postponement of his filing has nothing to do with political timing and everything to do with the fact that some of the companies in which he invested have yet to report their earnings — making it impossible for him to calculate his income.

Looking back at how the tax return issue played out in the Republican presidential primary, it’s clear the political danger that the tax return issue poses for Romney. Romney clearly had zero interest in releasing his tax returns during the heat of the nomination fight but after a loss in South Carolina and considerable pressure from his opponents to disclose his income, Romney bowed to the political inevitable.

While releasing the returns lanced the immediate political boil for Romney, the fact that he had made $42 million without earning any income in 2009 or 2010, had a Swiss bank account and paid a tax rate of just 13.9 percent reinforced the “Romney as other” narrative that his opponents — Republican and Democrat — were pushing.

It also marked perhaps Romney’s low ebb in the race — he righted the ship with a win in Florida on Jan. 31 — and likely reinforced to his campaign that there is no political benefit to releasing his returns any time soon.
Of course, Democrats see the Romney tax return issue as a major opportunity to cast him as insufficiently transparent, begging the question of what exactly Romney is hiding.
Seeking to ramp up the pressure, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden both released their 2011 tax returns on Friday. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer held a conference call today pushing the idea of Romney as anti-transparency. A new ad from Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC supporting President Obama, makes mention of the fact that Romney made $21 million in 2010. And so on and so forth.

Campaign politics being what it is, Democrats will keep up that tax return drumbeat against Romney for the foreseeable future. It’s an issue that fits perfectly into the narrative that President Obama’s reelection campaign wants to tell about the former Massachusetts governor: That he is a member of the wealthiest sliver of American society, and, therefore, hopelessly out of touch with what average people need or want.

The Romney campaign is not dumb. They know that Romney will take incoming from Democrats every single day between now and when he released the returns. (They are trying to push back too — noting that Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is refusing to release her own tax returns.)

But, they also know that the week after he became — for all intents and purposes — the Republican presidential nominee is not the time to release his tax returns and give up the momentum they are trying to build. (Perhaps an early sign of that momentum: the first Gallup general election tracking poll released today has Romney at 47 percent to Obama’s 45 percent.)
The campaign’s vagueness about when they might release the returns is intentional. It gives them considerable wiggle room to pick the right time — aka when no one is around or paying attention to politics — to put the returns out. (Early August, anyone?)

Put simply: The Romney team knows that the candidate’s tax returns are a political loser for them. The best way to deal with losing issues is minimize them to the greatest extent possible. Filing for an extension — whether that was by necessity or born of political calculation — to release his returns allows Romney to handpick that moment.

[UofMfan]

How Gender Identity May Determine the Right to Vote in 2012 (http://www.thenation.com/blog/167402/how-gender-identity-may-determine-right-vote-2012)

[AtLast]

Mitt Romney Chats With Real Americans Who Agree That Raising Taxes May Be 'Necessary' |

ThinkProgress

http://inagist.com/all/192621102697168896/

Watch his face as these middle class Rebublicans, mainly teachers talk to him about the "fat has been cut"- listen to his "yeah."

[Reader]

It seems like many so-called pro-life folks really are only pro-birth. They don't really seem very pro-life after said babies are born (they often support cutting programs for kids, they're pro-death penalty, etc.)

Also, I often wonder if some of the pro-life folks are only pro-life for certain babies...meaning those babies who look like them.

[AtLast]

It seems like many so-called pro-life folks really are only pro-birth. They don't really seem very pro-life after said babies are born (they often support cutting programs for kids, they're pro-death penalty, etc.)

Also, I often wonder if some of the pro-life folks are only pro-life for certain babies...meaning those babies who look like them.

True. I get so tired of these idiots

[Kobi]

Organization of Gay Conservatives and their Straight Allies Will Commit Significant Resources to Electing Mitt Romney

GOProud is the first and only organization representing gay Americans to endorse Governor Romney’s Presidential bid. “The truth is that this election is too important to wait or to sit on the sidelines,” continued LaSalvia. “We plan on spending every day between now and November working to make Obama a one term President.”

“For far too long, the gay left in this country has been allowed to dictate what they believe qualify as ‘gay issues.’ We think that jobs, the economy, healthcare, retirement security and taxes are all ‘gay issues,’ and on every single one of those issues, Mitt Romney is light years better than President Obama,” said LaSalvia.

The GOProud endorsement was not, however, a unanimous one. Two members of the GOProud Board voted against the Romney endorsement.

“We don’t agree with Governor Romney on every single issue – indeed we disagree strongly with him on his support for a federal marriage amendment and we have urged Romney publicly to take bolder and more conservative stances on tax reform, entitlement reform and spending,” said LaSalvia. “Given the vote on our board, obviously not everyone in our organization will agree with this endorsement, and we respect that.”

http://goproud.org/page.aspx?pid=431

-------


I never heard of these people before but their core beliefs and tenets interestingly show how people can support stuff that may not be in their own best interests:


What we believe
The so-called “gay agenda” has been defined narrowly by the gay left. In contrast to the approach of the left, GOProud’s agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.

Our Core Beliefs & Tenets
1 TAX REFORM
We support replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax would treat everyone – gay or straight – equally. Until then, we support death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity; cuts in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 HEALTHCARE REFORM
Repeal of Obamacare; encourage free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts. Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity to leave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.

4 RESPECTING THE PROPER ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY
We believe our Constitution should be respected and that judges appointed to the federal bench should recognize the proper and appropriate role of the judiciary as laid out by our Founding Fathers.

5 HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING
Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unnecessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS
Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities.

7 DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION
Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. Marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.

8 EMPOWERING INDIVIDUALS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES
Protecting 2nd amendment rights. The answer to stopping bias motivated crime is not the Hate Crimes laws, instead we support empowering individuals to lawfully protect themselves.

9 RESPECTING STATES RIGHTS
Supporting a strong 10th Amendment that limits the scope of the federal government and empowers states; repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act and return power to regulate marriage and family law to the states.

10 EDUCATION REFORM
The answer to the serious problem of bullying is not more federal intervention in education. Instead, we support empowering parents and families by supporting school choice initiatives and protecting the right of parents to homeschool their children.

[BrutalDaddy]

I'm just curious Kobi, exactly how is GOProud harming themselves?

Thanks for any clarification you can give. :)

[Kobi]

I'm just curious Kobi, exactly how is GOProud harming themselves?

Thanks for any clarification you can give. :)

This group espouses conservative and libertarian principles which they feel will improve the daily lives or gays and lesbians. Lets look at just a few of their tenets:

2 HEALTHCARE REFORM
Repeal of Obamacare; encourage free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory


People forget that it was Mitt Romney who started mandatory health when he was the governor of Massachusetts. All Obama did was impliment the exact same plan on a federal level.

The rational each used was different however. Romney did it because health care providers were complaining about their loss of income in having to treat so many uninsured people. He created a new source of weath for insurance companies and new sources of income for doctors, hospitals etc.

Obama did it to protect those people who didnt have access to or couldnt afford health insurance.

Big difference.



3 SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts. Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity to leave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.



This is an elitist thing. There are some very wealthy and well to do queer folk but the majority of us are everyday people barely making ends meet. Where will these people get the money to put into a personal savings account?

Inheretance laws are another issue without a federal recongition of gay marriage. How many horror stories have we heard of families of origin stepping in and asserting their rights in inheretances despite wills and trusts and other legal measures queer have used to protect their partners?

Without legal marriages recognized on a federal level, how many queer spouses in states that allow gay marriage are subjected to unfair federal inheretance taxes because their marriage isnt recognized by the federal government - all of them.



6 FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS
Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities


This is great except the republicans, the moral majority, and Mitt can be considered a radical regime as well for their anti gay stances. How do this improve the lives of queer people? The republicans have been waging a very noticable and very organized war on women - how does this help lesbians?


7 DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION
Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. Marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.



Where would this country be today, if we allowed the states to decide on the abolishment of slavery? Or on the right of women to vote? Not having a federal amendment on gay marriage leaves a great deal of our community vulnerable and at the whim of local politicians and voters.

Our right to marry should not be optional based on local preferences. We should have the same right to marry as any straight person, and as a result, we should have the same benefits and rights afforded to straight folks.

To advocate for less than equality for all is illogical.


Those are just a few examples where GOProud, as a gay organization is advocating for things that are detrimental to gays as a whole.

[*Anya*]

I'm just curious Kobi, exactly how is GOProud harming themselves?

Thanks for any clarification you can give. :)

If I may also respond, you might look for this outstanding documentary that is chock-full of apparently self-loathing conservative gay Republicans.

"Outrage," a documentary from filmmaker Kirby Dick, takes issue with the secret lives of closeted gay politicians -- especially conservative Republicans who outwardly oppose gay rights.

According to Magnolia Pictures, "Outrage" is an "indictment of the hypocrisy of closeted politicians with appalling gay rights voting records who actively campaign against the LGBTQ community they covertly belong to."

In the documentary, Dick lambastes the mainstream media for not better investigating the politicians' "hypocrisy" and double lives. He told New York magazine that the film explores "the issues surrounding closeted politicians and their hypocrisy in voting anti-gay -- and how these people have harmed millions of Americans for many years."

Marriage equality is only one example of an issue that conservatives vote against. Why would a gay conservative support a party that felt they had no right to legally marry?

[*Anya*]

Bumping this critically important thread.

[Soon]

Cenk Uygur sums it up pretty succinctly for me:

ib8Zovk26b8

[chefhmboyrd]

I didn't vote last election...

given the choice between two douchebags i chose to abstain...
but this year may be different.

Obama has won me over. I believe he really does care, and is trying to make things better.

...and all hell will break loose if Mitt gets in office. The teabaggers will take as many freedoms and rights as they can, and turn this country over to the 1% once and for all. This isn't just paraniod fears, this is real, and happening before our very eyes.

Also, there are several justices on the Supreme Court who are old an will need to be replaced soon, and I will be damned if we get another scum sucking minion of the robber baron clods appointed to the high court.

lastly, if things don't go well this fall, I may be forced to enter the fray....

message to the Right Wing Immoral Minority:

"Don't make me run for public office mother fuckers..........
you will RUE THE DAY you bunch of greedy wallstreet zombies pissed of this guy!":fastdraq:

[AtLast]

It is critical that Teapublican candidates are not elected and those that are in office, be thrown the hell out. There is much more than the presidential election to get involved with. State and local races matter.

Govenors races are among the most important to take an active role in. Your state and federal Congressional seats matter a whole lot as it is possible (though, pretty damn difficult) for the Dems to take back the House.

And the last thing we need is for the Senate to fall into the hands of a GOP majority.

Here are some links that you can use to get involved. Volunteering a couple of hours per week can and DOES make a difference. Yeah, an old civics teacher calling on the troops to be part of the democratic process- can't help myself.


WOMEN LEAD link- http://www.dccc.org/pages/women_lead
http://democraticgovernors.org/

Here is info about the state (decline) of women Democratic Govenors-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/democratic-women-governors-bev-perdue-christine-gregoire_n_1608808.html


http://www.democrats.org/?nosplash=true


https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/become-a-volunteer?source=Dems_nav

This one has info on all democratic races and ways to volunteer- http://www.dccc.org/

[Miss Scarlett]

The ads!!! OMG make them stop! Especially the ones with sound bites designed to incite and mislead!!! i'm gonna need to replace my remotes because the mute buttons are wearing out!

Oh yeah, thanks to Kate Clinton during the last Presidential election every time i hear something about Romney i giggle because she called him "Mitt, Mitt full of sh#%!" LOL

[Soon]

http://js-kit.com/blob/qRlMmqbPgMtj5rcR1vSm3h.jpg

[AtLast]

http://js-kit.com/blob/qRlMmqbPgMtj5rcR1vSm3h.jpg

This is exactly why I wish we would all take a deeper interest in history. This evangelical take-over in the GOP has been going on a very long time. And the "snap" that fueled the fire & brimstone to the core took place during LBJ's presidency and the Dixicrats turning Republican after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts.

Actually... go back to the Civil War. The slogan "The South will rise again" is something to think about when considering the Teavangelicals of today in the GOP.

[AtLast]

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts

[Soon]

Va78bM53I9k&feature=player_embedded

[UofMfan]

Ud3mMj0AZZk&feature=colike

[Soon]

...based on Romney advisor, Gillespie, who said that Mitt "retroactively retired" from Bain in 1999 despite his involvement (and salary) until 2002.

https://twitter.com/RetroActiveMitt

eg. Retroactive Mitt ‏@RetroActiveMitt
‪#GOP‬ voters want to ‪#retroactively‬ pick a different candidate

Retroactive Mitt ‏@RetroActiveMitt
Just had a cheeseburger for lunch... going to tell my trainer I ‪#retroactively‬ had a salad

[thedivahrrrself]

In other "news"...

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/553700_10151042333447722_1289329578_n.jpg

[DMW]

Which Side Are You On? Natalie Merchant - YouTube

[*Anya*]

http://js-kit.com/blob/qRlMmqbPgMtj5rcR1vSm3h.jpg

Who would have ever thought that Barry Goldwater would sound like a moderate, thoughtful man? (Maybe he always was).

I still remember my parents talking about Barry as so "out there" when I was a kid and they have always been dyed-in-the-wool Republicans!

Of course, now my 88-year-old dad says all the Republicans-including Romney- are "damn fools".

For once, my father and I agree on something.

[mariamma]

Soledad O'Brien schools Sununu on CNN. Wow, this was refreshing, journalist actually working and putting a politician's feet to the fire. Nice job Soledad!

http://www.upworthy.com/cnn-actually-fact-checks-a-politician-hilarity-ensues?c=la1

[Reader]

Rachel Maddow on msnbc is awesome: Romney proposed that the blind and those with mental retardation should pay a fee (to help balance the budget) when he was in Mass.


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/20/blind-mentally-disabled-governor-romney-taxed-you-for-the-privilege/



Republicans love to play semantics. The 1% are not bloated pigs bleeding the country dry, they’re “job creators.” We’re not empire building when we invade sovereign countries, we’re “spreading democracy.” We’re not raising your taxes, we’re only charging you a “fee.”

While he was governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney chose to balance his budget by charging all kinds of “fees” instead of raising taxes. Semantics. But the newsworthy part is who he charged with new “fees” and for what. Business Insider found all sorts of ugly stuff back in January. Why it hasn’t been used is a mystery but there’s still five months to go before election day.


Pay per not view: “It now costs to be blind in Massachusetts. The state’s approximately 35,000 blind and legally blind residents must now pay $10 annually for a certificate of blindness and $15 every four years for a blind identification card. Without the formerly-free documents, blind people cannot take advantage of tax abatements, affordable housing programs, health care services, transportation discounts and other benefits. … The fees originated in February, in Gov. Mitt Romney’s budget proposal for fiscal 2004.” (Shaun Sutner, “Advocates Fight Fees For The Blind,” Telegram & Gazette, 8/5/03)

Sure, it’s only $10 but try charging a rich person $10 extra for a yacht license. “Why are you punishing success?!”

[Soon]

Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XXX (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/mendacity)

[firegal]

Ole Mitt spoke in one of the Carolina's saying " we need to get these unions"

All the woes are the workers fault..... So they say!

I have firefighters for Obama sign in my yard as does all my family and peeps yards!

Mitts VP choice would love for what happened in Wisconsin to be status quo everywhere.......fuck stick!

[firegal]

Oh and I campaigned for the " douchebag" :seeingstars: last time too!

I felt if was a no brainer! His opponent made the choice easy!

[homoe]

Mitt and Paul are no friends to the unions and the work stiffs, that for darn sure!

[AtLast]

And today on the campaign trail, Mittwitt makes a birther remark in Michigan. Said "no one ever asked him for his birth certificate"...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/mitt-romney-birth-certificate_n_1828095.html

[dreadgeek]

And today on the campaign trail, Mittwitt makes a birther remark in Michigan. Said "no one ever asked him for his birth certificate"...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/mitt-romney-birth-certificate_n_1828095.html

I was wondering when Mittens would go full-on Birther. I didn't think it would be until late September but here we go...

Cheers
Aj

[Kobi]

"No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate," Romney said at a rally in Commerce, Mich., as he campaigned alongside his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan. Referring to his wife, Ann, who is also a Michigan native, Romney said, "They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."



First it is Akins and forcible rape.

Then it is Ryan trying to distance himself from Akin and anti-abortion legislation he co-authored.

Now, it is Mitt reminding all Americans that, as a white man, his birthplace would never be questioned.

Geez even I caught the racism there Mitt.

Nice prelude to the RNC. :seeingstars:

[*Anya*]

Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XXX (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/mendacity)

The biggest problem is that the people that will vote for him have zip critical thinking skills.

The operate strictly on emotion and fear whipped up by the tea baggers and conservatives.

[dreadgeek]

"No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate," Romney said at a rally in Commerce, Mich., as he campaigned alongside his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan. Referring to his wife, Ann, who is also a Michigan native, Romney said, "They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."



First it is Akins and forcible rape.

Then it is Ryan trying to distance himself from Akin and anti-abortion legislation he co-authored.

Now, it is Mitt reminding all Americans that, as a white man, his birthplace would never be questioned.

Geez even I caught the racism there Mitt.

Nice prelude to the RNC. :seeingstars:


Well, it was bound to happen sometime, Mittens was going to *have* to bring up race and the birth certificate thing is just plausibly deniable enough that it works for them. The GOP has, for quite some time, made it clear that while they are happy for black people to vote for them, they don't care if we don't. Same thing with Latinos.

This is only the *least* racist thing that will be said on the campaign. The next 74 days are going to be very long for everyone and, I anticipate, excruciatingly painful for black Americans as our very Americanness is put up for public debate symbolized by Barack Obama.

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

Lubbock TX is about 100 miles from where I was born and raised in SE NM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/tom-head-texas-obama_n_1822003.html

Tom Head, Texas Judge: Obama Reelection Could Lead To 'Civil War,' I'm Ready To 'Take Up Arms'

I'm going to refrain from making a snarky comment about this guy's last name

[dreadgeek]

Lubbock TX is about 100 miles from where I was born and raised in SE NM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/tom-head-texas-obama_n_1822003.html

Tom Head, Texas Judge: Obama Reelection Could Lead To 'Civil War,' I'm Ready To 'Take Up Arms'

I'm going to refrain from making a snarky comment about this guy's last name

Okay, I don't often let my inner conspiracy theorist out and I've actually been wrong before, but this election has me seriously worried. The thing is, I think certain very deliberate things are taking place and will continue to take place. I also think that some of what I fear is that part of the tragedy is that we will have stumbled into it. I think Koch et. al. are going to try to suppress the vote in Ohio and any other state where they can. That's the deliberate part. I think they are going to try to make the election close enough to contest and this would be against a *sitting* POTUS, so not like 2000. That much is deliberate. That gives the following scenarios:

1) It appears Obama wins but it is not a landslide. Counting goes into the night. Because some voters were kept from polling because of voter ID laws that are very Constitutionally suspect, there are reasons for the results to be delayed and contested. There's a recount in one or more states. All during that time, FOX News and all the usual suspects start with the breathless fantasies of what Obama is going to do next. Tea Party groups start organizing protests. Someone brings a gun. There are counter-protesters. There is a lot of over-heated rhetoric about socialists and Marxist takeovers and 'taking our country back'. Enough Republicans *genuinely* believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is, in fact, illegitimately occupying the White House. With elected officials saying there could be civil war, some people start 'taking back' their towns. Now, in the larger cities chances are things stay pretty as they are at first but in smaller towns, more likely to be *very* red, they start declaring themselves 'Free America'. Suddenly some states go. What does the Federal government do? If it does what it must, that confirms what the Tea Partiers have been telling each other for four years now--that Barack Obama is a dictator who has come to take over the United States and now he is making his move.

2) It appears that Romney wins but it's not a landslide. There's enough of a suspicious odor around the returns in certain parts of Ohio or Florida or other swing states that people consider the results suspect. Obama challenges the election and a recount for those states is required. It looks like Obama is gaining on Romney and may pull ahead. The SCOTUS, in a strictly party line vote, intervenes and halts the recount. Romney is declared the winner. The cities explode in protests. Marches are called for across the country. There's a long winter and then January 2013 rolls around. Romney is elected and there are massive protests in the coastal cities. Tea Partiers, who see the protests as the unwashed masses who *aren't real Americans* rising up and so they decide they are going to go out and 'defend' their country. People bring guns..

Either way, both sides do what is rational within the frame of their narrative. The problem here is that while the Left has its conspiracy theories *no one* in the Democratic Party of any significance gives them any heed. On the other hand, the Republican Party is wholly in thrall to the John Birch wing and we underestimate how much they *really and truly believe* what they have been telling themselves all these years. If Obama wins they're going to turn out into the streets, they're going to have weapons and shots *are* going to be fired at which point, all bets are off. If Romney wins, the Left is going to turn out into the streets and not a few of those people will be non-white. The Right will interpret this as an uprising, shots will be fired, all bets are off.

What happens after that, I don't know.

Since that is a total and complete bummer, here's a third scenario. It's the one that would be best for the nation, given our current circumstances. It is not the Pollyanna scenario, just the best *possible* given the constraints:

3) Caught between a rock and a hard place, Romney *has* to pivot on the abortion issue. The Religious Right is *enraged* perhaps even more than at Obama. To try to woo them back, he has to engage the full-on Birther, a task he assigns to Ryan. Reverend Right is brought up again. The last three weeks are just blatantly racist with not even a fig leaf of pretense given--at least from the independent groups. Romney can benefit from them while denying any involvement. In other words, what happens is so repugnant that the Republican party realizes, too late, that they've gone too far. Obama wins in a landslide. It will never be Reagan again Mondale in 1988 where Reagan won 49 states but it is lopsidedly in favor of Obama. The Republican party tears itself apart in recrimination. The theocrats, the racists and the acolytes of Ayn Rand are shown the door by the more establishment Republicans who are, in the final analysis, glad to be rid of them. The next four years the GOP starts to rebuild itself. Shed of the need to kowtow before the Family Research Council, the Minuteman Patriots and Grover Norquist, the Republican party begins reaching out to minority groups. In 2016 is still a bad year for the GOP. Locally a third party calling itself the Tea Party Patriots, do well in the South and a few midwestern towns but nothing national. In 2020, the GOP comes back closer to what the party was during the Eisenhower administration. Still a center-right party but a *sane* center-right party.

As a result of the election, having stared into the abyss, the states call for a Constitutional convention. Four amendments come out of it:

1) Corporations are explicitly not people.
2) Federal financing of elections. ALL elections. Broadcasters and newspapers are required to carry campaign advertising during election seasons.
3) Elections are six weeks long from start to finish. Voting is mandatory and moved to Saturday (you can pay an extra tax to not vote but I think we should require voting. Many other republics do).
4) The electoral college is removed. It is a 19th century artifact. The problem it was designed to solve no longer exists.

I would actually like to put in two or three more but I think that pretty much every sane person in this nation would agree that the four above are needed pretty damn badly.

Okay, my inner Cassandra has been let out for a moment.

Cheers
Aj