How the G.O.P. Are Using Their Anti-Democrat Playbook to Destroy Each Other
 

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/polit...h-other/47977/

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.

'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..._/?page=entire

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!

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>

I read Aljazeera daily

http://chrome.aljazeera.com/#!/news/...13017598357206

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>

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.

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...ingual-ballots

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 ...

‘Everyone step on his toes!’ Gingrich security harasses Ron Paul supporter

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."

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/2012/0...n_1246557.html

Talk about giving the opposition soundbites from here until the election!

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 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 !

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?

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:

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...so_they_leave/

Trump endorses Romney
 

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.......

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.

Political satire at it's best....
 

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/2012/0...=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.

Maureen Dowd on Callista Gingrich
 

/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/op...wife.html?_r=2

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.p...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

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!!

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.

This ranks as one of the best!

What is interesting to me about her hair is that it covers so much of her face.

Washington Footing the Cell Phone Bill for Millions of Low Income Americans
 

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-foo...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.

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.....

Obama shift seeks to defuse birth-control fight
 

(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.

7 Ways the U.S. Government Wastes Money
 

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.

$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.

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"

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

Going for Broke in Montana Campaign Finance Case

Fact? We Don't Need No Stinking Facts: The Montana Supreme Court, SCOTUS, and Citizens United.

Interesting perspective
 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...ter_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.

Obama Campaign Launches 'Truth Teams'
 

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-blog...-abc-news.html