Bain Cap and taxpayer pension bail outs!
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nment-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/arti...#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!!

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

30 minute Ad here..

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:

Classy.

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...c-groups-chart

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.

Glad I already finished my orange juice.:rofl:

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.

Huntsman out?
 

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

Rick Perry Is Done Running for President
 

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/polit...esident/47601/

ABC To Air Interview with Newt Gingrich's Ex-Wife
 

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/polit...ex-wife/47591/

Newt Gingrich: Doing Monogamish All 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?

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:

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.

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/wat..._99_percenter/

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.