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!

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/20...ows-support-b/

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

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.

Rick Santorum officially declared the Iowa winner.

Mitt Romney won New Hampshire.

New Gringrich wins South Carolina.


No wonder this happened:



I would be singing too Mr. President :D

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.")

Hahaha!
 

The Obama Memos
 

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/2...urrentPage=all

-------



Interesting and informative read.

Really??
 

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/2012/0...n_1224095.html

Romney's tax return info- 2011 is "projected"
 

I also posted this in the breaking News thread-


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...te-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.

state of the union
 

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)

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.

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!!

7 reasons voters are souring on Mitt Romney
 

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-vote...094700884.html

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.

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!

Newt Gingrich promises to build a moon colony by 2020; make it a U.S. state
 

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/technolo...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!