Search Episodes (Obama at U N Its Not All About Me It s just All About Me)

Added 01/26/12
0 Views

Brewer's exchange with the President...

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:30:00 01/26/12
[ VIDEO ] A lot of people are taking issue with this exchange. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer shouldn't have placed her finger in the President's face, that I will agree on. On the other hand I understand that there are two sides to every story. Besides amongst players in our politcal & governmental systems there will be disagreements as there are between Republican Brewer and the Democrat President. According to the Washington Post this is what it was about: > Obama descended the stairs of Air Force One and was greeted by Brewer, who was waiting for him along with other politicians in a traditional receiving line. Brewer offered Obama a letter, which she later said was an invitation to sit down with her to discuss Arizona’s economic “comeback” and to join her for a tour of the U.S.-Mexican border. The president told Brewer he would be happy to meet with her, a White House aide said, but also informed the governor that he thought she had been inaccurate in describing their earlier session in the Oval Office. Brewer’s book, “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure the Border,’’ details her conservative approach to dealing with the state’s illegal immigration challenges. A review published in the Arizona Republic said that Brewer casts Obama as “condescending” and skewers him repeatedly. Although she originally described their Oval Office meeting as cordial, the newspaper said, “in the book she calls the president ‘patronizing’ and said ‘he lectured me.’ ” “He didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially” in the book, Brewer told reporters Wednesday. “I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt.” In an excerpt available on Amazon, Brewer defends Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 immigration law that she signed into law in 2010, but whose toughest provisions were overturned by a federal judge. Brewer writes that Obama “has repeatedly made fun of those of us who want to see the law enforced, saying we want a ‘moat’ with ‘alligators’ in it around our country. The reason he has resorted to these failed attempts at humor, I think, is that he supports a policy that is fundamentally undemocratic, and he knows it.” She and Obama appeared to be talking over each other on the tarmac, as other Arizona officials looked on. The exchange ended when Obama abruptly walked away, as Brewer appeared to still be speaking. Now that you guys know the other side of the story other than perhaps what was seen on video, who would you point the finger at? Governor Brewer, President Obama, or both? I would point my finger at both. Gov. Brewer shouldn't have pointed a finger at Obama, literally sure. Then again if it's true that Obama just walked off while the Governor was speaking, I'm not so sure that makes the President looks any better himself. Gov. Brewer is a citizen and he should listen to what she has to say and with the present discussion the book should've have even come up, especially if he never read it. BTW, I wanted to find some better video of this exchange but I have been unable to find any. The finger is portrayed in a photograph. And there's no way for me to see if she was still talking when he walked off on her. Check out the vile comments on the YouTube page as well, MAN!

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

Added 01/06/12
0 Views

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:40 01/06/12
For months, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made Barack Obama's supposed "failure of leadership" a centerpiece of his campaign. But like his ill-advised comparison of President Obama to Marie Antoinette , Romney's sound bite could well boomerang. After all, when Multiple Choice Mitt isn't comically reversing his stands, he's too afraid to take any at all . That cowardice starts with his tax returns . While John Kerry and John McCain at least presented a summary of their (and their well-to-do wives') payments to Uncle Sam, the $250 million Mitt has so far refused to do so. Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: > "I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity." Or as he put it to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week (at around the 6:40 mark): > "I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide." That's one interpretation. Another is that Mitt Romney is desperate to avoid the horrible political optics his tax returns would inevitably produce. After all, because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital (a company the Los Angeles Times recently explained "often maximized profits in part by firing workers") are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . Romney's pusillanimity extends to his own tax proposals as well. Unlike virtually all of his GOP rivals , Romney has held back on endorsing either a flat-tax or the complete elimination of the capital gains tax. As he seemed to suggest to the Wall Street Journal , discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to telling voters about the massive windfall the Romneys would reap under the tax policies that dare not speak their name: > What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... > Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election." Mitt Romney's fear of getting hit was also on display during the debt ceiling debate this summer. As the GOP's brinksmanship over defaulting on the U.S. debt reached its climax in late July, Romney turned his tail and fled. As MSNBC reported at the time: > NBC's Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner's legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done). Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now? (Ultimately, Romney used Facebook to announce his support of the Boehner bill, but only after it passed the GOP House .) As it turns out, Ohio was the scene of another of Mitt Romney's moments in cowardice. After visiting a Republican phone bank calling voters about the state's controversial Issue 2 curbing public unions , Romney amazingly refused to take a position: > "I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues." Embarrassed by his obvious lack of backbone, Romney endorsed the measure the next day. Ohio voters, who handily defeated the Republican measure, won't soon forget Romney said goodbye to his spine in Columbus. Romney's vertebra similarly went missing on immigration and abortion , two issues near and dear to the Republican primary voter's heart. As Steve Benen recounted, Mitt's campaign simply would not answer Joe Klein question about what President Romney would do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country: > The evasion wasn't exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, "He would not grant them amnesty." Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? "He would not grant them amnesty," Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? "I just told you, he's not going to grant them amnesty," the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn't actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, "He would not grant them amnesty." The Romney camp built a similar stonewall after their man seemingly came out in support of the soon-to-be defeated "personhood" initiative in Mississippi . But the day after the ballot measure went down to crushing defeat, Team Romney insisted "he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a 'person.'" On matters small and large, duck and cover is Mitt Romney's posture. Afraid to admit that he has obviously been running for President without interruption since his failed campaign four years ago, Romney's wife claimed his 2012 run was all her idea. As Ann Romney told Wolf Blitzer last week (starting around the 2:30 mark in the video above): > BLITZER: Is it true that you had to talk to Mitt into running again? > ANN ROMNEY. ROMNEY: It is true...after the last campaign, it was kind of ironic that I was the one that said I'd never do this again, and now, this time around, I'm saying, you know what, Mitt, you've got to do this again. But in Mitt's telling, his latest White House bid is all due to Barack Obama. As he told the Wall Street Journal just days ago, Mitt was content to hang out in his $12 million, soon-to-be doubled-in-size California beach side home : > The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008--"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's. Given his Boston area townhouse and lakeside mansion with man-made beach in New Hampshire, a third palatial retreat would have seemed excessive for a candidate Romney. After all, Mitt Romney's running for office as a " man of the people "; he can't have mansions, for Pete's sake . "If it seems like this keeps coming up with the former governor," Benen concluded, "it's not your imagination." > Romney refused to take a stand on Paul Ryan's budget. Romney refused to take a stand when asked about voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate. Romney refused to take a stand when Rick Perry dabbled in Birtherism. Romney initially refused to take a stand on Ohio's campaign to undermine collective-bargaining rights, and then sheepishly backpedaled when the right complained. > There's going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, "Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader." And the criticism will sting because it's based in fact. And so it goes for the man George Will rightly described as a "recidivist reviser of his principles." On the issues where he doesn't change his mind, Mitt Romney - the man who would be leader of the Free World - lacks "the courage of his absence of convictions." (This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

Added 01/06/12
3 Views

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:40 01/06/12
For months, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made Barack Obama's supposed "failure of leadership" a centerpiece of his campaign. But like his ill-advised comparison of President Obama to Marie Antoinette , Romney's sound bite could well boomerang. After all, when Multiple Choice Mitt isn't comically reversing his stands, he's too afraid to take any at all . That cowardice starts with his tax returns . While John Kerry and John McCain at least presented a summary of their (and their well-to-do wives') payments to Uncle Sam, the $250 million Mitt has so far refused to do so. Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: > "I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity." Or as he put it to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week (at around the 6:40 mark): > "I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide." That's one interpretation. Another is that Mitt Romney is desperate to avoid the horrible political optics his tax returns would inevitably produce. After all, because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital (a company the Los Angeles Times recently explained "often maximized profits in part by firing workers") are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . Romney's pusillanimity extends to his own tax proposals as well. Unlike virtually all of his GOP rivals , Romney has held back on endorsing either a flat-tax or the complete elimination of the capital gains tax. As he seemed to suggest to the Wall Street Journal , discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to telling voters about the massive windfall the Romneys would reap under the tax policies that dare not speak their name: > What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... > Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election." Mitt Romney's fear of getting hit was also on display during the debt ceiling debate this summer. As the GOP's brinksmanship over defaulting on the U.S. debt reached its climax in late July, Romney turned his tail and fled. As MSNBC reported at the time: > NBC's Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner's legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done). Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now? (Ultimately, Romney used Facebook to announce his support of the Boehner bill, but only after it passed the GOP House .) As it turns out, Ohio was the scene of another of Mitt Romney's moments in cowardice. After visiting a Republican phone bank calling voters about the state's controversial Issue 2 curbing public unions , Romney amazingly refused to take a position: > "I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues." Embarrassed by his obvious lack of backbone, Romney endorsed the measure the next day. Ohio voters, who handily defeated the Republican measure, won't soon forget Romney said goodbye to his spine in Columbus. Romney's vertebra similarly went missing on immigration and abortion , two issues near and dear to the Republican primary voter's heart. As Steve Benen recounted, Mitt's campaign simply would not answer Joe Klein question about what President Romney would do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country: > The evasion wasn't exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, "He would not grant them amnesty." Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? "He would not grant them amnesty," Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? "I just told you, he's not going to grant them amnesty," the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn't actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, "He would not grant them amnesty." The Romney camp built a similar stonewall after their man seemingly came out in support of the soon-to-be defeated "personhood" initiative in Mississippi . But the day after the ballot measure went down to crushing defeat, Team Romney insisted "he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a 'person.'" On matters small and large, duck and cover is Mitt Romney's posture. Afraid to admit that he has obviously been running for President without interruption since his failed campaign four years ago, Romney's wife claimed his 2012 run was all her idea. As Ann Romney told Wolf Blitzer last week (starting around the 2:30 mark in the video above): > BLITZER: Is it true that you had to talk to Mitt into running again? > ANN ROMNEY. ROMNEY: It is true...after the last campaign, it was kind of ironic that I was the one that said I'd never do this again, and now, this time around, I'm saying, you know what, Mitt, you've got to do this again. But in Mitt's telling, his latest White House bid is all due to Barack Obama. As he told the Wall Street Journal just days ago, Mitt was content to hang out in his $12 million, soon-to-be doubled-in-size California beach side home : > The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008--"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's. Given his Boston area townhouse and lakeside mansion with man-made beach in New Hampshire, a third palatial retreat would have seemed excessive for a candidate Romney. After all, Mitt Romney's running for office as a " man of the people "; he can't have mansions, for Pete's sake . "If it seems like this keeps coming up with the former governor," Benen concluded, "it's not your imagination." > Romney refused to take a stand on Paul Ryan's budget. Romney refused to take a stand when asked about voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate. Romney refused to take a stand when Rick Perry dabbled in Birtherism. Romney initially refused to take a stand on Ohio's campaign to undermine collective-bargaining rights, and then sheepishly backpedaled when the right complained. > There's going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, "Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader." And the criticism will sting because it's based in fact. And so it goes for the man George Will rightly described as a "recidivist reviser of his principles." On the issues where he doesn't change his mind, Mitt Romney - the man who would be leader of the Free World - lacks "the courage of his absence of convictions." (This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )

Last-Place Bachmann: 'I Intend To Be America's Iron Lady'

Added 01/03/12
0 Views

Last-Place Bachmann: 'I Intend To Be America's Iron Lady'

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:42 01/03/12
video platform video management video solutions video player Michelle Bachmann's appearance yesterday on This Week with Jake Tapper was one of her more cringe-inducing performances. Not because she isn't someone incapable of delivering lines and staying on message, but because the content of her message is so obviously boilerplate campaignspeak from someone who's so clearly sliding too far down, too fast to win. Instead, she's promising a "miracle:" > TAPPER: My next guest sounds just as confident, but her path forward is a lot more murky. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann joins me from Des Moines. Congresswoman, thanks for joining us, and happy new year. BACHMANN: Happy new year to you. Great to be on with you this morning, Jake. TAPPER: So the last time you and I spoke, you had just won the Iowa straw poll. The Des Moines Register poll had you tied for first place with Mitt Romney with 22 percent of the vote. Now that same poll has you with 7 percent of the vote. What happened to your campaign? BACHMANN: Well, we've had a very good campaign. And I think what's happened is, a lot of candidates have come in, and Iowa voters and national voters have taken a look at all of the other candidates. But we have done I think what no other candidate has done, and that is, after the last debate, we've gone across all of Iowa, all 99 counties, and we've actually done heavy, heavy retail politics where we've gone into cafes and into living rooms of Iowans, and we've made a very strong connection with a lot of people. And if you look at the polls, it's upwards of 40 percent to 50 percent of Iowans haven't made their decision yet. And I think the polls, what they're reflecting will be very different from what we're seeing on Tuesday night, because people make their decision, quite honestly, in the caucus room. Iowa is very different. People gather in living rooms. They gather in elementary schools and churches, and they make their decision on the spot with their neighbors. And we have done, like I said, what no other candidate has done the last two weeks. We've put over -- almost 7,000 miles on our bus, and we've literally gone from town to town to town meeting with people directly. And we saw thousands of people switch their vote just in the last couple of weeks, so we think there's going to be a very profound shift that people see on Tuesday night. TAPPER: Well, one of the -- one of the dilemmas that you've had is that a lot of the voters that you are competing for, conservative voters, Christian evangelicals in some cases, are also being wooed by Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. And Santorum has momentum right now. He is at third place in the Des Moines Register poll. And if you look at the last two days, he's in second place. He has strong social conservative credentials. He's fluent in foreign affairs. He won statewide twice in a key swing state, Pennsylvania. So why should voters go for you and not him? BACHMANN: Well, because I'm the strongest core conservative in this race. There is no comparison with all of the other candidates and my credentials. No other candidate has current national security experience in the race. I sit on the House Intelligence Committee. I am daily involved with the issue of national security. No other candidate is. And as what we -- what we are seeing happening with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, that will be a formidable issue immediately with the next commander-in-chief. I'm ready. No other candidate is currently ready in that issue. Gee, Michelle, I know it makes me feel better that you'll lie about Iran "obtaining" a nuke. It shows you'll say anything at all to win - always a great quality in a president. > Also, I'm the only federal tax litigation attorney in this race. When it comes to dealing with the number-one issue that's on voters' minds, which is out-of-control spending, I have that credential in spades over any other candidate, because no other candidate was leading on this issue in the halls of Congress or in Washington or nationally. I'm the one that called for saying "no" to letting Barack Obama increase the national credit card limit. Psst, Michelle honey? Try not to say things like that around sane people. It doesn't help. > And when it comes to social issues, there's no one who can -- who can compare with my record. I'm a mother of five, a foster mother to 23 children that we've raised, and also I have an unassailable record on life, on marriage, on religious liberty. So when it comes to values and issues, there is no one who comes close to where I am on those issues. But I think even more so, I'm the one that's been proven and tested in the fires of Washington, and that's why I think you saw people vote for me in the Iowa straw poll, but also it's what we have done on the ground. No other candidate has done more retail campaigning on the ground. TAPPER: But... BACHMANN: And I think we'll bear the fruit of that on Tuesday night. TAPPER: But with all due respect, Congresswoman, this is the same pitch you've been making all summer and all fall and -- and up until today, and you're in last place, according to the polls. And -- and somebody that has similar credentials to you and a similar appeal to you, Rick Santorum, is showing huge momentum. Why you over him? BACHMANN: Well, again, I think the polls take a few days to catch up. And -- and we have made that incredible deposit of going in every single county. We've drawn 300 people at a stop, 250 people at a stop, and I think a lot of that isn't yet reflected in the polls. And the main thing will be on Tuesday night. We're looking forward. We're not looking in the rear-view mirror. And what we're seeing going forward, especially with the tremendous outpouring of young people that are coming out to work on our phone banks and to go lit dropping and door-to-door is nothing short of amazing. We're -- we're number-one in the category of enthusiasm. If you look at all of the candidates, which candidate has the most enthusiasm among their supporters, I'm that candidate. I'm number-one with the 18- to 29-year-old voters, which are highly motivated, and they're doing all of the work. So I think that if you look at my past races, and polling data showed me actually losing and 8 points behind in previous races that I've had when I've run for Congress, and yet I -- I win by 8 and 13 points. So polls don't -- are -- sometimes belie the truth on the ground, and that's what we see. This isn't just about polling. This is about what we're seeing in reality, and I think Tuesday night people are going to see a miracle. TAPPER: In the last week, your campaign has gotten involved in a big kerfuffle about one of your top supporters, your chairman in Iowa defecting and going to the Ron Paul campaign. I don't want to get into the weeds on that debate. There was a back-and-forth about whether or not he was paid off. He denied that you accused him of doing that. But this is not the first time you've made a charge like this. You've also said this about other supporters with Newt Gingrich in Georgia, with Rick Santorum. Don't you risk -- making these charges, doesn't that risk voters seeing you as making a final gasp of desperation? BACHMANN: Oh, for Heaven's sake. Of course not. What this shows is the tremendous momentum that we have out of the last debate. From person after person, they said that I won the last debate in Sioux City, Iowa. And the reason why is because, when Ron Paul made his very dangerous statements, which is he was just fine with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, or with Newt Gingrich taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac and he was unable to defend that, I -- I took it to them. And what people saw during the last debate is that I have the ability, of all of the candidates on the stage, I have the best ability to take it to Barack Obama in the debate and hold him accountable. We had tremendous momentum coming out of the last debate, and we saw it in county after county in our 99-county tour, where people were just appalled by Ron Paul's position. They thought it was dangerous. That's why we saw literally thousands of people switching their decision on the spot, and that's what you saw, was this crush of momentum. And so we saw some different actions coming out of the Ron Paul campaign. And I think that people will be very surprised at the results on Tuesday night, because I think people will see a lot of defections away from Ron Paul because they see -- especially with the aggressive nature of the actions on the part of Iran in the Straits of Hormuz, people are seeing how important it is that we have a commander-in-chief who is conversant, prepared, knowledgeable, and has good judgment on foreign affairs. And of all of the candidates in the race, I'm best suited for that -- that portion of being commander-in- chief. TAPPER: Congresswoman, we only have a little bit of time left, so last question. In the interests of candor and being based in reality, positing that you feel that you're going to have a very good night on Tuesday and that all the polls are wrong and you're going to do well, but assuming that the polls are right, isn't that, practically speaking, the end of your campaign if you come in last on Tuesday? BACHMANN: Well, we've bought tickets to head off to South Carolina. And we are looking forward to the debates. January is a very full month. We're here for the -- for the long -- for the long race. This is a 50-state race. And we intend to participate not only in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, but to go all the way, because I intend to be the Republican nominee and defeat Barack Obama in 2012, because America needs a candidate that will be in the legacy of a Ronald Reagan and of a Margaret Thatcher. That's what I intend to do, is to be America's iron lady. TAPPER: All right. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, good luck on Tuesday. And hope you have a wonderful 2012. BACHMANN: Thank you. Same to you and your listeners.

Last-Place Bachmann: 'I Intend To Be America's Iron Lady'

Added 01/03/12
0 Views

Last-Place Bachmann: 'I Intend To Be America's Iron Lady'

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:42 01/03/12
video platform video management video solutions video player Michelle Bachmann's appearance yesterday on This Week with Jake Tapper was one of her more cringe-inducing performances. Not because she isn't someone incapable of delivering lines and staying on message, but because the content of her message is so obviously boilerplate campaignspeak from someone who's so clearly sliding too far down, too fast to win. Instead, she's promising a "miracle:" > TAPPER: My next guest sounds just as confident, but her path forward is a lot more murky. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann joins me from Des Moines. Congresswoman, thanks for joining us, and happy new year. BACHMANN: Happy new year to you. Great to be on with you this morning, Jake. TAPPER: So the last time you and I spoke, you had just won the Iowa straw poll. The Des Moines Register poll had you tied for first place with Mitt Romney with 22 percent of the vote. Now that same poll has you with 7 percent of the vote. What happened to your campaign? BACHMANN: Well, we've had a very good campaign. And I think what's happened is, a lot of candidates have come in, and Iowa voters and national voters have taken a look at all of the other candidates. But we have done I think what no other candidate has done, and that is, after the last debate, we've gone across all of Iowa, all 99 counties, and we've actually done heavy, heavy retail politics where we've gone into cafes and into living rooms of Iowans, and we've made a very strong connection with a lot of people. And if you look at the polls, it's upwards of 40 percent to 50 percent of Iowans haven't made their decision yet. And I think the polls, what they're reflecting will be very different from what we're seeing on Tuesday night, because people make their decision, quite honestly, in the caucus room. Iowa is very different. People gather in living rooms. They gather in elementary schools and churches, and they make their decision on the spot with their neighbors. And we have done, like I said, what no other candidate has done the last two weeks. We've put over -- almost 7,000 miles on our bus, and we've literally gone from town to town to town meeting with people directly. And we saw thousands of people switch their vote just in the last couple of weeks, so we think there's going to be a very profound shift that people see on Tuesday night. TAPPER: Well, one of the -- one of the dilemmas that you've had is that a lot of the voters that you are competing for, conservative voters, Christian evangelicals in some cases, are also being wooed by Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. And Santorum has momentum right now. He is at third place in the Des Moines Register poll. And if you look at the last two days, he's in second place. He has strong social conservative credentials. He's fluent in foreign affairs. He won statewide twice in a key swing state, Pennsylvania. So why should voters go for you and not him? BACHMANN: Well, because I'm the strongest core conservative in this race. There is no comparison with all of the other candidates and my credentials. No other candidate has current national security experience in the race. I sit on the House Intelligence Committee. I am daily involved with the issue of national security. No other candidate is. And as what we -- what we are seeing happening with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, that will be a formidable issue immediately with the next commander-in-chief. I'm ready. No other candidate is currently ready in that issue. Gee, Michelle, I know it makes me feel better that you'll lie about Iran "obtaining" a nuke. It shows you'll say anything at all to win - always a great quality in a president. > Also, I'm the only federal tax litigation attorney in this race. When it comes to dealing with the number-one issue that's on voters' minds, which is out-of-control spending, I have that credential in spades over any other candidate, because no other candidate was leading on this issue in the halls of Congress or in Washington or nationally. I'm the one that called for saying "no" to letting Barack Obama increase the national credit card limit. Psst, Michelle honey? Try not to say things like that around sane people. It doesn't help. > And when it comes to social issues, there's no one who can -- who can compare with my record. I'm a mother of five, a foster mother to 23 children that we've raised, and also I have an unassailable record on life, on marriage, on religious liberty. So when it comes to values and issues, there is no one who comes close to where I am on those issues. But I think even more so, I'm the one that's been proven and tested in the fires of Washington, and that's why I think you saw people vote for me in the Iowa straw poll, but also it's what we have done on the ground. No other candidate has done more retail campaigning on the ground. TAPPER: But... BACHMANN: And I think we'll bear the fruit of that on Tuesday night. TAPPER: But with all due respect, Congresswoman, this is the same pitch you've been making all summer and all fall and -- and up until today, and you're in last place, according to the polls. And -- and somebody that has similar credentials to you and a similar appeal to you, Rick Santorum, is showing huge momentum. Why you over him? BACHMANN: Well, again, I think the polls take a few days to catch up. And -- and we have made that incredible deposit of going in every single county. We've drawn 300 people at a stop, 250 people at a stop, and I think a lot of that isn't yet reflected in the polls. And the main thing will be on Tuesday night. We're looking forward. We're not looking in the rear-view mirror. And what we're seeing going forward, especially with the tremendous outpouring of young people that are coming out to work on our phone banks and to go lit dropping and door-to-door is nothing short of amazing. We're -- we're number-one in the category of enthusiasm. If you look at all of the candidates, which candidate has the most enthusiasm among their supporters, I'm that candidate. I'm number-one with the 18- to 29-year-old voters, which are highly motivated, and they're doing all of the work. So I think that if you look at my past races, and polling data showed me actually losing and 8 points behind in previous races that I've had when I've run for Congress, and yet I -- I win by 8 and 13 points. So polls don't -- are -- sometimes belie the truth on the ground, and that's what we see. This isn't just about polling. This is about what we're seeing in reality, and I think Tuesday night people are going to see a miracle. TAPPER: In the last week, your campaign has gotten involved in a big kerfuffle about one of your top supporters, your chairman in Iowa defecting and going to the Ron Paul campaign. I don't want to get into the weeds on that debate. There was a back-and-forth about whether or not he was paid off. He denied that you accused him of doing that. But this is not the first time you've made a charge like this. You've also said this about other supporters with Newt Gingrich in Georgia, with Rick Santorum. Don't you risk -- making these charges, doesn't that risk voters seeing you as making a final gasp of desperation? BACHMANN: Oh, for Heaven's sake. Of course not. What this shows is the tremendous momentum that we have out of the last debate. From person after person, they said that I won the last debate in Sioux City, Iowa. And the reason why is because, when Ron Paul made his very dangerous statements, which is he was just fine with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, or with Newt Gingrich taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac and he was unable to defend that, I -- I took it to them. And what people saw during the last debate is that I have the ability, of all of the candidates on the stage, I have the best ability to take it to Barack Obama in the debate and hold him accountable. We had tremendous momentum coming out of the last debate, and we saw it in county after county in our 99-county tour, where people were just appalled by Ron Paul's position. They thought it was dangerous. That's why we saw literally thousands of people switching their decision on the spot, and that's what you saw, was this crush of momentum. And so we saw some different actions coming out of the Ron Paul campaign. And I think that people will be very surprised at the results on Tuesday night, because I think people will see a lot of defections away from Ron Paul because they see -- especially with the aggressive nature of the actions on the part of Iran in the Straits of Hormuz, people are seeing how important it is that we have a commander-in-chief who is conversant, prepared, knowledgeable, and has good judgment on foreign affairs. And of all of the candidates in the race, I'm best suited for that -- that portion of being commander-in- chief. TAPPER: Congresswoman, we only have a little bit of time left, so last question. In the interests of candor and being based in reality, positing that you feel that you're going to have a very good night on Tuesday and that all the polls are wrong and you're going to do well, but assuming that the polls are right, isn't that, practically speaking, the end of your campaign if you come in last on Tuesday? BACHMANN: Well, we've bought tickets to head off to South Carolina. And we are looking forward to the debates. January is a very full month. We're here for the -- for the long -- for the long race. This is a 50-state race. And we intend to participate not only in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, but to go all the way, because I intend to be the Republican nominee and defeat Barack Obama in 2012, because America needs a candidate that will be in the legacy of a Ronald Reagan and of a Margaret Thatcher. That's what I intend to do, is to be America's iron lady. TAPPER: All right. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, good luck on Tuesday. And hope you have a wonderful 2012. BACHMANN: Thank you. Same to you and your listeners.

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

Added 12/29/11
5 Views

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:06 12/29/11
Why is Mitt Romney alone among the Republican presidential candidates in refusing to release his tax returns ? And why is the former Massachusetts Governor also the only major GOP contender not calling for the complete elimination of the capital gains tax ? As it turns out, the answer - horrible political optics - is the same to both questions. Because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . And if he called for changing the capital gains rate to zero, Mitt Romney would have to explain to voters why the $250 million man should pay virtually no tax bill at all . Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney last week reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: > "I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity." Truer words were never spoken. In October, Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that the Romneys paid only 14 percent of their income in taxes . (It's no wonder Mitt opposes the " Buffett Rule .") As Time reported: > Just how much Romney pays in taxes is, for the moment, a private matter. But his income is public knowledge. In August, Romney disclosed that in 2010 he and his wife made between $1.1 million and $2.8 million in royalties, salary, speaking fees and interest, most of which was likely taxed at a marginal rate of 35%, after accounting for deductions. The Romneys made an additional $5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains, which is generally taxed at a much lower rate of 15%. Two weeks ago, the New York Times shed light on that "$5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains" that represents most of Romney's income. Though Mitt left Bain Capital in 1999, 13 years later his windfall continues uninterrupted: > In what would be the final deal of his private equity career, he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain's profits ever since, bringing the Romney family millions of dollars in income each year and bolstering the fortune that has helped finance Mr. Romney's political aspirations... > In the process, Bain continued to buy and restructure companies, potentially leaving Mr. Romney exposed to further criticism that he has grown wealthier over the last decade partly as a result of layoffs. Moreover, much of his income from the arrangement has probably qualified for a lower tax rate than ordinary income under a tax provision favorable to hedge fund and private equity managers, which has become a point of contention in the battle over economic inequality. And that creates what Steve Benen aptly called "Romney's 'carried interest' problem." > In case anyone needs a refresher, there's a tax loophole on "carried interest" -- sometimes called "the carry" -- that taxes private equity and venture capital income at a lower, 15% rate, as compared to 35% on ordinary income. Hedge-fund managers and the Wall Street have fought tooth and nail to protect this loophole -- even after the Obama White House tried to eliminate it -- and so far, they've been successful. Which is why Mitt Romney has thus far refused to join his fellow GOP White House hopefuls in proposing the elimination of the 15 percent capital gains tax. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain all called for zeroing out the capital gains levy, which is one reason why their tax plans represent such a huge windfall for the wealthy . (Their support for a flat-tax is another.) The Washington Post explained why for the rich that would be "better than any Christmas gift": > While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent. For his part, Romney has proposed reducing the capital gains tax rate only for the first $200,000 in income. But as ThinkProgress pointed out, Romney's claim that "The people in the middle...I focused my tax cut right there" is preposterous: > Romney may think he focused his tax cut on the middle-class, but according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Tax Policy Center data*, nearly three-fourths of households that make $200,000 or less annually would get literally nothing from Romney's tax cut, due to the simple fact that most of those households have no capital gains income. But while Mitt Romney didn't want to create the appearance of slashing most of his own tax bill, that doesn't mean his proposals wouldn't produce a massive payday for his own and other rich families while piling up yet more debt. Romney's 59-point economic plan calls for extending the Bush tax cuts, ending the estate tax and reducing corporate taxes. The result, as ThinkProgress explained: > Romney's tax plan includes a $6.6 TRILLION giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, Romney's Medicaid cuts are even more draconian than the ones in Paul Ryan plan. Both of their plans end also end Medicare, naturally. Still, in an interview last weekend the reliably Republican Wall Street Journal wondered why Romney had been so "timid" compared to his rivals. In a rare moment of candor, Mitt revealed that his real preferences would make for very bad politics: > What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... > Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election." "The president," Romney complained, "will characterize anyone running for office, and me in particular, as just in there to lower taxes for rich people, and that is not my intent." Perhaps, but that's the inevitable impact. As John McCain learned in 2008 , refusing the release the details of his beer heiress wife Cindy's fortune while calling for tax policies delivering his family lottery-sized winning courtesy of the U.S. Treasury is not going to endear you to working Americans. (In Mitt Romney's case, revealing the 10 percent tithe he dutifully pays to his Mormon church probably won't endear him to the GOP's evangelical primary voters, either.) All of which explains why Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns or call for abolishing the capital gains tax, the love which dares not speak its name. Besides, Mitt Romney wants Americans to believe he's just part of the "80 to 90 percent of us" who are middle class. And, no doubt, Mitt's willing to bet you $10,000 to prove it. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

Added 12/29/11
4 Views

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:06 12/29/11
Why is Mitt Romney alone among the Republican presidential candidates in refusing to release his tax returns ? And why is the former Massachusetts Governor also the only major GOP contender not calling for the complete elimination of the capital gains tax ? As it turns out, the answer - horrible political optics - is the same to both questions. Because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . And if he called for changing the capital gains rate to zero, Mitt Romney would have to explain to voters why the $250 million man should pay virtually no tax bill at all . Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney last week reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: > "I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity." Truer words were never spoken. In October, Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that the Romneys paid only 14 percent of their income in taxes . (It's no wonder Mitt opposes the " Buffett Rule .") As Time reported: > Just how much Romney pays in taxes is, for the moment, a private matter. But his income is public knowledge. In August, Romney disclosed that in 2010 he and his wife made between $1.1 million and $2.8 million in royalties, salary, speaking fees and interest, most of which was likely taxed at a marginal rate of 35%, after accounting for deductions. The Romneys made an additional $5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains, which is generally taxed at a much lower rate of 15%. Two weeks ago, the New York Times shed light on that "$5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains" that represents most of Romney's income. Though Mitt left Bain Capital in 1999, 13 years later his windfall continues uninterrupted: > In what would be the final deal of his private equity career, he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain's profits ever since, bringing the Romney family millions of dollars in income each year and bolstering the fortune that has helped finance Mr. Romney's political aspirations... > In the process, Bain continued to buy and restructure companies, potentially leaving Mr. Romney exposed to further criticism that he has grown wealthier over the last decade partly as a result of layoffs. Moreover, much of his income from the arrangement has probably qualified for a lower tax rate than ordinary income under a tax provision favorable to hedge fund and private equity managers, which has become a point of contention in the battle over economic inequality. And that creates what Steve Benen aptly called "Romney's 'carried interest' problem." > In case anyone needs a refresher, there's a tax loophole on "carried interest" -- sometimes called "the carry" -- that taxes private equity and venture capital income at a lower, 15% rate, as compared to 35% on ordinary income. Hedge-fund managers and the Wall Street have fought tooth and nail to protect this loophole -- even after the Obama White House tried to eliminate it -- and so far, they've been successful. Which is why Mitt Romney has thus far refused to join his fellow GOP White House hopefuls in proposing the elimination of the 15 percent capital gains tax. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain all called for zeroing out the capital gains levy, which is one reason why their tax plans represent such a huge windfall for the wealthy . (Their support for a flat-tax is another.) The Washington Post explained why for the rich that would be "better than any Christmas gift": > While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent. For his part, Romney has proposed reducing the capital gains tax rate only for the first $200,000 in income. But as ThinkProgress pointed out, Romney's claim that "The people in the middle...I focused my tax cut right there" is preposterous: > Romney may think he focused his tax cut on the middle-class, but according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Tax Policy Center data*, nearly three-fourths of households that make $200,000 or less annually would get literally nothing from Romney's tax cut, due to the simple fact that most of those households have no capital gains income. But while Mitt Romney didn't want to create the appearance of slashing most of his own tax bill, that doesn't mean his proposals wouldn't produce a massive payday for his own and other rich families while piling up yet more debt. Romney's 59-point economic plan calls for extending the Bush tax cuts, ending the estate tax and reducing corporate taxes. The result, as ThinkProgress explained: > Romney's tax plan includes a $6.6 TRILLION giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, Romney's Medicaid cuts are even more draconian than the ones in Paul Ryan plan. Both of their plans end also end Medicare, naturally. Still, in an interview last weekend the reliably Republican Wall Street Journal wondered why Romney had been so "timid" compared to his rivals. In a rare moment of candor, Mitt revealed that his real preferences would make for very bad politics: > What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... > Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election." "The president," Romney complained, "will characterize anyone running for office, and me in particular, as just in there to lower taxes for rich people, and that is not my intent." Perhaps, but that's the inevitable impact. As John McCain learned in 2008 , refusing the release the details of his beer heiress wife Cindy's fortune while calling for tax policies delivering his family lottery-sized winning courtesy of the U.S. Treasury is not going to endear you to working Americans. (In Mitt Romney's case, revealing the 10 percent tithe he dutifully pays to his Mormon church probably won't endear him to the GOP's evangelical primary voters, either.) All of which explains why Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns or call for abolishing the capital gains tax, the love which dares not speak its name. Besides, Mitt Romney wants Americans to believe he's just part of the "80 to 90 percent of us" who are middle class. And, no doubt, Mitt's willing to bet you $10,000 to prove it. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)

Mitt Romney's Big Promises - and Bigger Lies

Added 12/29/11
6 Views

Mitt Romney's Big Promises - and Bigger Lies

[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 16:00:56 12/29/11
Click here to view this media In the election of 1928, the Republican Party of Herbert Hoover promised voters "a chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard." (We all know how that turned out.) Now, Mitt Romney is pledging that "If I'm President" every college graduate will be guaranteed a job, Iran will have no nuclear weapons and the United States will dominate the 21st century. And when Romney isn't making fantastic promises about what he'll do when he gets to the White House, he's slandering the current occupant , Barack Obama. "I Won't Let Iran Get Nukes" Governor Romney's guarantees start with Iran and its nuclear program . In a November 10, 2011 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Romney pledged, " I won't let Iran get nukes ." Or as he put it 10 days earlier during a GOP national security debate : > "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon." As to how he'll ensure that outcome, Romney explained that "If you want peace, prepare for war." And despite occasionally acknowledging the complexity of a strike against Iran and even the questionable possibility of success, Romney told the Wall Street Journal this weekend how he would get it done: > So what would he do about it? "I do not have a top secret security clearance at this stage to be able to define precisely what kinds of actions we could take." But he adds that "the range includes something of a blockade nature, to something of a surgical strike nature, to something of a decapitate the regime nature, to eliminate the military threat of Iran altogether." No U.S. Decline in Romney's "American Century" Romney's promise to "eliminate the military threat of Iran altogether" is just part of his larger assurance that the 21st century will be another " American Century ." Pretending that the rise of India, China and Brazil doesn't inevitably entail the relative loss of U.S. power and influence, Romney announced in his October address at The Citadel : > "This century must be an American Century. In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world...As President of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century. And I will never, ever apologize for America." Not content to rest there, Romney accused President Obama of "waving the white flag of surrender": > "An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender. > I will not surrender America's role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. > You have that President today." Two months later, Mitt Romney repackaged his promise and his slander at the December 15 Republican debate in Sioux City, Iowa: > "Our president thinks America is in decline. It is if he's president. It's not if I'm president. This is going to be an American century." As for Romney's charge that President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America," the Washington Post Fact Checker deemed it a Four-Pinocchio lie . A Job for Every College Graduate At an event in New Hampshire last week, Governor Romney's pandering went from the sublime to the ridiculous. There, Mitt pledged President Romney would deliver full-employment for all American college graduates: > "What I can promise you is this -- when you get out of college, if I'm president you'll have a job. If President Obama is reelected, you will not be able to get a job. That's the reason I will hopefully get young people who are in college is to say, You know what, I understand what it takes to get jobs in America." As the record shows , not so much. After all, as the Los Angeles Times recently documented, Romney's "Bain Capital often maximized profits in part by firing workers." That's why FactCheck.org , the Washington Post Fact Checker and Fortune all refused to vouch for Romney's claim that "In those hundreds of businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs net-net were created." Obama "Has Not Created Any New Jobs" If Mitt Romney can't prove his boasts about his own job creation record, neither can he justify his blatant lie about President Obama's : > "25 million people are out of work because of Barack Obama. And so I'll compare my experience in the private sector where, net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs." > "I'll compare that record with his record, where he has not created any new jobs." Sadly for Mitt Romney, the Bush recession began in December 2007. As ThinkProgress rightly noted, "The private sector has added 2.3 million new jobs since March 2010, and it took the Obama economy one year to create more jobs than the economy under President Bush did in eight." As The Economist explained earlier, the recession was not at its deepest just as Barack Obama was entering office, but far worse than official statistics revealed at the time. Romney might also want to check with former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi as well as the non-partisan CBO , who concluded that the Obama stimulus program "added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011." Obama's Debt Exceeds All Previous Presidents Combined Mitt Romney didn't just lie about Barack Obama's jobs record. At the Sioux City debate, he got President Obama's contribution to the federal debt all wrong as well: > "We all understand that the spending crisis is extraordinary, with $15 trillion now in debt, with a president that's racked up as much debt as almost all of the other presidents combined." Of course, we don't all understand that, because it's not true . After Ronald Reagan tripled the gross national debt and George W. Bush doubled it again, Uncle Sam's red ink totaled almost $11 trillion when Barack Obama took the oath of office. Obama is "Taking over 100 Percent" of Health Care In his desperate quest to win over conservative Republican primary voters, Mitt Romney has turned his back on his signature achievement which he once boasted was a health care model for the nation. And to do it, Romney has been lying for months by telling voters "Obamacare is about taking over 100 percent of the people's insurance in this country." In a September 15, 2011 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer , Romney made the same charge: > "The Massachusetts plan was crafted for Massachusetts, for the needs of 8 percent of our population that didn't have insurance, not for the 92 percent that did. Obamacare is a plan that takes over 100 percent of the people in the country and their health care, and that's one of the reasons why people don't want it." Sadly for Mitt Romney, repetition of a lie doesn't make it any more true. The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in the spring of 2010 targets the 17 percent of people (over 50 million people) who are uninsured . As Politifact explained in deeming Romney's fraud another "Pants on Fire" lie: > According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans without health insurance nationally was slightly under 17 percent in 2009, the year Obama began pushing for the bill. According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, the number was about the same in 2010, when the measure was signed into law. Other estimates have pegged the national number at about 15 percent. As Henry Aaron, a senior fellow with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution right noted, comparing 8 percent to 17 percent "would have been apples to apples" when it comes to the impact of the individual mandate at the center of both the Massachusetts and national plans. Sadly, Politifact concluded, Romney was guilty of "a felony case of comparing apples and oranges." Romney "Will Reverse President Obama's Massive Defense Cuts" During that same "American Century" speech in October, Governor Romney pledged: > "I will reverse President Obama's massive defense cuts. Time and again, we have seen that attempts to balance the budget by weakening our military only lead to a far higher price, not only in treasure, but in blood." Sadly for Romney, as Steve Benen pointed out, defense spending has not only gone up every year of the Obama presidency . It is higher than it ever was when George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office. Of course, Romney's confusion over matters of war and peace are hardly new. In an April op-ed for the Manchester Union Leader, Mitt forgot about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as he denounced President Obama for "one of the biggest peacetime spending binges in American history." Obama's "Equal Outcomes" and "Entitlement Society" Last week, the Romney campaign rolled out what may well become the meta-theme and meta-lie for the 2012 general election race. After President Obama declared in his Osawatomie, Kansas address that Republican trickle down economics "never worked," Romney struck back. Just not with the truth: > "Just a couple of weeks ago in Kansas, President Obama lectured us about Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy of government. But he failed to mention the important difference between Teddy Roosevelt and Barack Obama. Roosevelt believed that government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities. President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes. > "In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly enjoy any real rewards are those who do the redistributing -- the government. > "The truth is that everyone may get the same rewards, but virtually everyone will be worse off." By raising the mythical red menace of communism and falsely attributing it to Barack Obama, Romney in the words of Paul Krugman had introduced " The Big Lie " into his " Post-Truth Campaign ." While Andrew Sullivan announced "Mitt Romney is a big, fat liar," Steve Benen lamented that "Romney, allegedly the responsible one in the Republican field, has been reduced to lying uncontrollably." And while Greg Sargent in the past had expressed amazement at "Mitt Romney's casual, effortless falsehoods," New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait explained that Romney's red scare rose to a whole new level of duplicity: > "This isn't just a casual line. In eight sentences, Romney asserts over and over again that Obama wants to create "equal outcomes" and give everybody the "same rewards." This is nuts, Glenn Beck-level insane. Restoring Clinton-era taxes is not a plan to equalize outcomes, or even close. It's not even a plan to stop rising inequality. Obama's America will continue to be the most unequal society in the advanced world -- only slightly less so. The alternative proposals accelerate inequality even further." Of course, as the proliferating profiles from the Wall Street Journal , the New York Times , the Washington Post and others show, Mitt Romney is no stranger to inequality. Legendarily cheap and analytical , as a Harvard Business School student Romney gave a presentation to his classmates that "proved the value of family time based not on emotion but on yield." Two Romney quotes - " I love business " and " I love data " - seem to sum up the man. As for loving the truth, that for Mitt Romney is apparently another matter altogether. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)

On "If I were a poor Black kid"...

Added 12/28/11
0 Views

On "If I were a poor Black kid"...

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 07:41:54 12/28/11
[ VIDEO ] Joe Hicks discusses the controversy over Gene Marks' blog post at Forbes entitled " If I were a poor Black kid ". Basically he asks, "Why can't white people contribute to the national dialogue on race and racism?" It does seem like a cop out to just tell someone that they have nothing to say because they're not a poor Black child so they can't relate in any way. I've had a white geography teacher in high school - GO FALCONS - who said that he could relate because he was poor. Of course the conclusion could be that he thinks all Blacks are poor, but that's only a thought and not necessarily based on reality. All the same Marks bounces off of a recent speech by President Obama in Kansas where he discussed the gap between the rich and the poor: > The President’s speech got me thinking. My kids are no smarter than similar kids their age from the inner city. My kids have it much easier than their counterparts from West Philadelphia . The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world and with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder. This is a fact. In 2011. I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I don’t believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011. Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia. It takes brains. It takes hard work. It takes a little luck. And a little help from others. It takes the ability and the know-how to use the resources that are available. Like technology. As a person who sells and has worked with technology all my life I also know this. If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently. I wouldn’t care if I was a student at the worst public middle school in the worst inner city. Even the worst have their best. And the very best students, even at the worst schools, have more opportunities. Getting good grades is the key to having more options. With good grades you can choose different, better paths. If you do poorly in school, particularly in a lousy school, you’re severely limiting the limited opportunities you have. And I would use the technology available to me as a student. I know a few school teachers and they tell me that many inner city parents usually have or can afford cheap computers and internet service nowadays. That because (and sadly) it’s oftentimes a necessary thing to keep their kids safe at home than on the streets. And libraries and schools have computers available too. Computers can be purchased cheaply at outlets like TigerDirect and Dell’s Outlet . Professional organizations like accountants and architects often offer used computers from their members, sometimes at no cost at all. You will see at the end of this posting links to several rebuts to Marks' comments. I will add my two cents just as Hicks and those other links have. I didn't go to the very best schools in Chicago. I'd say my old elementary school was an average at best school and my old high school - when I attended - was one of the worst. My marks weren't that great in elementary school but for some reason my marks in high school were often in the honor roll range. With that in mind though I consider that a fluke today. My time in high school wasn't a time to seek out options. I never thought of my grades as a ticket mainly because they were had too easy. It was never a challenge academically and who knows how that would've been weathered. The serious challenge was in college where I struggled to keep up. If only I had the tools back then that the young people have today to help me study and understand the various subjects. I wouldn't just be ahead of my peers but it would be light years ahead of them. But when I was in public school most of those tools did not yet exist. In spite of the nay sayers - and I will get to one in a moment - Marks isn't wrong. Make the best grades you can where you are take advantage of all the tools you can. Don't have a PC at home go somewhere to use one, especially the library. At that there are people at your school who if you establish a relationship with them will help you move forward. This nay sayer, well is making more of this than he realizes: > No believer in Bell Curv-ish nonsense about black intellectual inferiority, Marks makes clear that the children about whom he speaks are no less capable than his own kids. Of course, one wonders just how much of a compliment Marks really intends for this to be, given his strange habit of dissing his offspring, on more than one occasion, as rather unintelligent, unmotivated, promiscuous and even inclined to petty criminality. Not sure what kind of asshole says things like this about his children in print, but I suppose we can leave that discussion for another day. No doubt Marks would say that he was simply encouraging poor African American kids to take personal responsibility for their success. He might even say that by acknowledging unfair and unjust structural inequity (and even, indirectly, white privilege), he was doing so in a politically ecumenical way. Certainly Marks would perceive his words and intentions as quite different from those of right-wingers whose hectoring of the poor so often involves blaming those at the bottom of the nation’s economic hierarchy for their station in life. To Marks, poor black kids are not to blame for the position in which they find themselves, but they nonetheless hold the keys to their own liberation, and if they would simply follow his sage counsel they could surely make it, like anyone else: even the cerebrally challenged and oversexed spawn who slumber each night just down the hall from he and his wife. There is much one could say about Marks’s advice — rather typical bootstrapping fare about studying hard, coupled with a more modern emphasis on becoming a techie like him, and thereby, presumably, an irresistible college or job applicant — and most of it has been said already. Like, for instance, this piece , or this one , or this one , or maybe this one , all of which eloquently critique the privileged and naive mindset displayed by Marks, and explain how even when poor kids of color do everything right, the structures of society are too often set up to help them fail anyway. ... And it’s this last point that we might do well to explore further. Fact is, Gene Marks knows his readership at Forbes . He knows that it includes virtually none of the people to whom he is ostensibly offering advice, which means that he isn’t really giving them advice at all; rather, he is inviting his mostly white, mostly affluent audience to engage in a perverse moralistic voyeurism at the expense of impoverished African American youth, almost none of whom that readership will ever meet, and whom they will, in fact, go out of their way to avoid. He is offering a kind of secret white-male handshake to others in the club, assuring them that the problems of urban poverty are not theirs to fix, that they are off the hook as it were, and isn’t that a relief? That Marks may not be as vile in his desire to blame the poor for their status as some, hardly acquits him of the charge that by pandering to the biases of his readership, he has, with some 700-odd simple (and simplistic) words, managed to reinscribe all the worst of their prejudices, many of which one can see on grand display in the readers’ comments section of the original article. Make no mistake, Gene Marks’s column is contempt cloaked as compassion and bigotry dressed up as benevolence. And it can do nothing but contribute to the indifference and even antipathy towards the poor that those who rely on Forbes for insights already possess in ample supply. Starting with that last paragraph it's true, Forbes may not have a significant audience in poor inner city communities. Without having to purchase a subscription you can always go to a library to access past issues of magazines. Also with internet access you can access magazines as well and blog posts such as this one which surely don't require a subscription. As for Mr. Tim Wise who wrote the above excerpts, how is he going to call that man out for what he refers to his kids. Yeah it may be wrong to say your kids are very bright, but somewhere out there some parent is doing it. I also recognize that Marks is merely a commentator who is definitely using his platform to say what he wants to say. The main point surely Marks is making is that his children are not much different than poor inner city children. Just that they have different opportunities living in a different part of the Philadelphia area than the inner city children. Perhaps even different expectations from parents, perhaps different staff and different schools. He didn't write the "poor black kid" piece to denigrate his children. I think what he wrote was real. It shouldn't be impeached merely for that reason. That alone is weak! Although to Mr. Wise's credit he is at least has some suggestions for Marks to put his money where his mouth is. Marks could always help get the information out aside from using his platform at Forbes.

Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence F...

Added 12/11/11
7 Views

Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change

[LESS INFO] 7 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 12/11/11
video platform video management video solutions video player Personally, I think progressive groups missed a real opportunity by not reaching out to Jon Huntsman months ago to support his moderate views. We know that the toxic extremism of the Republican primary process is a big part of why our country's in the intractable mess we're in, and until we fix that, simply electing Democrats won't be enough. Wouldn't it be smart to support some Republicans who actually want to make reasonable decisions for the good of the country? Unions could have pushed his candidacy to their Republican members in the primaries, maybe even encouraged members to switch registrations to show support. Yeah, it's unorthodox - but what else is working? As I wrote several months ago, a study indicates as many as one-third of registered Republicans don't vote. because they don't like extreme candidates. Someone like Huntsman could have motivated those people to get back to the polls, especially if it looked like he had a chance. Instead, he's been left to drift, just more chum for the right-wing sharks. He's trying to stay alive by spouting a weird mix of common sense and right wing dogma, but at least on This Week with Christiane Amanpour today he walks back his recent statement and admits that yes, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made climate change: > AMANPOUR: Six candidates faced off in Des Moines last night, but Jon Huntsman wasn't one of them. The former Utah governor, who entered this campaign with enormous fanfare, has failed to qualify for a spot on the debate stage. Iowa isn't part of the Huntsman strategy, though. He has put all of his firepower into New Hampshire. And he joins us this morning from Manchester. Governor, thank you for joining us. Let me quickly ask you, I'm sure you do not want to get into who won, who lost, but who do you think won on the stage last night? HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, thank you for having me, first and foremost. I think with respect to last night, all I can say, with all due respect to your terrific network, was I was delighted to be here in New Hampshire having a town hall meeting. We have four town hall meetings today. We have a debate with Newt Gingrich on Monday. And this is a state that is incredibly important for us. And on the debate stage last night, I believe that the most important issue of all confronting the American people wasn't even touched upon, and that is the deficit of trust that we have in the United States. In fact, it may have -- it played right into the trust deficit. That is, nobody trusts Congress anymore. We need term limits in Congress. We need to close the revolving door that allows members of Congress to move right on into the lobbying profession. No one has trust anymore toward the executive branch. No one trusts Wall Street, with banks that are too big to fail. So the -- I would argue that the issues that are most salient in our political dialogue today weren't even touched upon last night. AMANPOUR: So then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Newt Gingrich? You say people don't have trust, and yet he does seem to be speaking, at least to Republican voters, in a way that you aren't, for instance. HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, there have been so many ups and downs in this race, I'm getting whiplashed, quite frankly. We've had six front-runners in the span of about six months. And all I can tell you, having spent a whole lot of time here in New Hampshire -- we have had 116 public events in this state -- is that the voters will begin to coalesce around a candidate about a week to 10 days out. The marketplace is still open. People are shopping. They are listening very, very carefully. And all I can say, Christiane, is the two messages that we're delivering to the people here on the ground, the economic deficit which is the cancer metastasizing in this country and one that is a national security problem, I would say, and the trust deficit are the two biggest issues we face today. And we're getting people showing up to our town hall meetings in numbers I never would have imagined. They're signing up afterwards, they're taking lawn signs home. I feel very good about their trajectory here in this great state. And this is always the state that upends conventional wisdom. So let's not fall back onto conventional wisdom. That never holds true in the end. AMANPOUR: All right, but people are trying to figure out how you're going to really break out, because you are at the moment at the bottom of the pack, despite the fact that some independents, for instance in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running. Our George Will has said that you deserve a searching second look from conservatives. Ross Douthat of the New York Times calls you the most electable conservative remaining in the race. And yet as I say, what you are offering doesn't seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich, sort of bombast and brash, in your face against Obama is what's resonating. HUNTSMAN: Christiane, we're doing better in New Hampshire than half the people on that stage last night when you look at the recent polls. We're going nowhere but up. We started as a margin of error candidate. I'm no longer a margin of error candidate because our messages are working. People want to know if they're going to have a president who's going to call for term limits for Congress. They want to know they're going to have a president who will take on banks that are too big to fail. And it doesn't matter if we fix taxes or create a more streamlined regulatory environment or move toward energy independence. If we're stuck with banks that are too big to fail, with this implied guarantee by the taxpayers, we're setting ourselves up for disaster. So we've moved from zero to now double digits, and in the weeks ahead, I do believe we're going to move right up toward the top of the pack, understanding full well that people simply don't make decisions until days out, from in this case, January 10th. I like our position. They want an honest, honorable, trustworthy person in this race. They want someone whose core they can trust going forward. We're putting ourselves forward as that person. And I like our position. AMANPOUR: I just want to put up a graphic, because, again, talking about New Hampshire, you are back in fourth place there. So given how important New Hampshire is to you staying in the race, tell me honestly where you have to come in order to stay in the race? HUNTSMAN: We have to beat market expectations, Christiane. And I have every expectation that we're going to beat market expectations. AMANPOUR: Where is that, second, third? Where do you think you'd be? HUNTSMAN: I'm not going to play the numbers game. I am not going to play the numbers game, but we're going to be right up toward the top. We have done nothing but climb in every poll since we entered this market, and our message is connecting with people. I can feel it on the ground. I have a very good visceral sense of where this campaign is going. And we're going to surprise and upend conventional wisdom, I can tell you that right now. AMANPOUR: All right, let me ask you about where this campaign is going. I read to you a few comments from people before, including one who called you the sanest one still running. But it appears that you're reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions, for instance on climate change. You in August tweeted that "to be clear, I believe in evolution, and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." You have been tweeting about this sort of rightward swing, you've been jabbing at the base. And yet last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said there isn't enough science. I mean, what are you doing? HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, I'm not changing at all. I have said all along that I put my faith and trust in science. When you have 99 out 100 climate scientists, you have members of the National Academy of Sciences who have weighed in on a body of research on the subject matter, I say that's where I put my trust. Yes, there might be one percent of scientists who still are questioning some of those assumptions, and that debate and discussion will continue. But as for me, let me make it crystal clear. I'm on the side of science in this debate. I don't know a whole lot of people on Capitol Hill who are physicists or climate scientists. I think this is a discussion that needs to be taken out of the political lane and kept in the science lane. AMANPOUR: One more question, you have said that you will endorse and support whoever's the nominee. If it is Newt Gingrich, will he get your endorsement? HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I don't have to worry about that, because we're moving up in this great state of New Hampshire. We're going to be the nominee, and I don't have to worry about anything beyond that. AMANPOUR: Jon Huntsman, thank you very much indeed for joining us. HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Christiane.

Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence F...

Added 12/11/11
1 Views

Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change

[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 12/11/11
video platform video management video solutions video player Personally, I think progressive groups missed a real opportunity by not reaching out to Jon Huntsman months ago to support his moderate views. We know that the toxic extremism of the Republican primary process is a big part of why our country's in the intractable mess we're in, and until we fix that, simply electing Democrats won't be enough. Wouldn't it be smart to support some Republicans who actually want to make reasonable decisions for the good of the country? Unions could have pushed his candidacy to their Republican members in the primaries, maybe even encouraged members to switch registrations to show support. Yeah, it's unorthodox - but what else is working? As I wrote several months ago, a study indicates as many as one-third of registered Republicans don't vote. because they don't like extreme candidates. Someone like Huntsman could have motivated those people to get back to the polls, especially if it looked like he had a chance. Instead, he's been left to drift, just more chum for the right-wing sharks. He's trying to stay alive by spouting a weird mix of common sense and right wing dogma, but at least on This Week with Christiane Amanpour today he walks back his recent statement and admits that yes, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made climate change: > AMANPOUR: Six candidates faced off in Des Moines last night, but Jon Huntsman wasn't one of them. The former Utah governor, who entered this campaign with enormous fanfare, has failed to qualify for a spot on the debate stage. Iowa isn't part of the Huntsman strategy, though. He has put all of his firepower into New Hampshire. And he joins us this morning from Manchester. Governor, thank you for joining us. Let me quickly ask you, I'm sure you do not want to get into who won, who lost, but who do you think won on the stage last night? HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, thank you for having me, first and foremost. I think with respect to last night, all I can say, with all due respect to your terrific network, was I was delighted to be here in New Hampshire having a town hall meeting. We have four town hall meetings today. We have a debate with Newt Gingrich on Monday. And this is a state that is incredibly important for us. And on the debate stage last night, I believe that the most important issue of all confronting the American people wasn't even touched upon, and that is the deficit of trust that we have in the United States. In fact, it may have -- it played right into the trust deficit. That is, nobody trusts Congress anymore. We need term limits in Congress. We need to close the revolving door that allows members of Congress to move right on into the lobbying profession. No one has trust anymore toward the executive branch. No one trusts Wall Street, with banks that are too big to fail. So the -- I would argue that the issues that are most salient in our political dialogue today weren't even touched upon last night. AMANPOUR: So then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Newt Gingrich? You say people don't have trust, and yet he does seem to be speaking, at least to Republican voters, in a way that you aren't, for instance. HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, there have been so many ups and downs in this race, I'm getting whiplashed, quite frankly. We've had six front-runners in the span of about six months. And all I can tell you, having spent a whole lot of time here in New Hampshire -- we have had 116 public events in this state -- is that the voters will begin to coalesce around a candidate about a week to 10 days out. The marketplace is still open. People are shopping. They are listening very, very carefully. And all I can say, Christiane, is the two messages that we're delivering to the people here on the ground, the economic deficit which is the cancer metastasizing in this country and one that is a national security problem, I would say, and the trust deficit are the two biggest issues we face today. And we're getting people showing up to our town hall meetings in numbers I never would have imagined. They're signing up afterwards, they're taking lawn signs home. I feel very good about their trajectory here in this great state. And this is always the state that upends conventional wisdom. So let's not fall back onto conventional wisdom. That never holds true in the end. AMANPOUR: All right, but people are trying to figure out how you're going to really break out, because you are at the moment at the bottom of the pack, despite the fact that some independents, for instance in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running. Our George Will has said that you deserve a searching second look from conservatives. Ross Douthat of the New York Times calls you the most electable conservative remaining in the race. And yet as I say, what you are offering doesn't seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich, sort of bombast and brash, in your face against Obama is what's resonating. HUNTSMAN: Christiane, we're doing better in New Hampshire than half the people on that stage last night when you look at the recent polls. We're going nowhere but up. We started as a margin of error candidate. I'm no longer a margin of error candidate because our messages are working. People want to know if they're going to have a president who's going to call for term limits for Congress. They want to know they're going to have a president who will take on banks that are too big to fail. And it doesn't matter if we fix taxes or create a more streamlined regulatory environment or move toward energy independence. If we're stuck with banks that are too big to fail, with this implied guarantee by the taxpayers, we're setting ourselves up for disaster. So we've moved from zero to now double digits, and in the weeks ahead, I do believe we're going to move right up toward the top of the pack, understanding full well that people simply don't make decisions until days out, from in this case, January 10th. I like our position. They want an honest, honorable, trustworthy person in this race. They want someone whose core they can trust going forward. We're putting ourselves forward as that person. And I like our position. AMANPOUR: I just want to put up a graphic, because, again, talking about New Hampshire, you are back in fourth place there. So given how important New Hampshire is to you staying in the race, tell me honestly where you have to come in order to stay in the race? HUNTSMAN: We have to beat market expectations, Christiane. And I have every expectation that we're going to beat market expectations. AMANPOUR: Where is that, second, third? Where do you think you'd be? HUNTSMAN: I'm not going to play the numbers game. I am not going to play the numbers game, but we're going to be right up toward the top. We have done nothing but climb in every poll since we entered this market, and our message is connecting with people. I can feel it on the ground. I have a very good visceral sense of where this campaign is going. And we're going to surprise and upend conventional wisdom, I can tell you that right now. AMANPOUR: All right, let me ask you about where this campaign is going. I read to you a few comments from people before, including one who called you the sanest one still running. But it appears that you're reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions, for instance on climate change. You in August tweeted that "to be clear, I believe in evolution, and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." You have been tweeting about this sort of rightward swing, you've been jabbing at the base. And yet last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said there isn't enough science. I mean, what are you doing? HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, I'm not changing at all. I have said all along that I put my faith and trust in science. When you have 99 out 100 climate scientists, you have members of the National Academy of Sciences who have weighed in on a body of research on the subject matter, I say that's where I put my trust. Yes, there might be one percent of scientists who still are questioning some of those assumptions, and that debate and discussion will continue. But as for me, let me make it crystal clear. I'm on the side of science in this debate. I don't know a whole lot of people on Capitol Hill who are physicists or climate scientists. I think this is a discussion that needs to be taken out of the political lane and kept in the science lane. AMANPOUR: One more question, you have said that you will endorse and support whoever's the nominee. If it is Newt Gingrich, will he get your endorsement? HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I don't have to worry about that, because we're moving up in this great state of New Hampshire. We're going to be the nominee, and I don't have to worry about anything beyond that. AMANPOUR: Jon Huntsman, thank you very much indeed for joining us. HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Christiane.

Crazy Things Conservatives Say

Added 11/19/11
7 Views

Crazy Things Conservatives Say

[LESS INFO] 7 VIEWS | ADDED 01:00:32 11/19/11
Today's daily dose of wingnuttery was so rich I hardly know where to begin, so I'll just dive in. We begin with Pat Robertson, who is very, very worried about President Obama's visit to Indonesia. Via Right Wing Watch : > Robertson: You know Lee the thing that somehow concerns me, they say he’s going back to the place that he spent his childhood, he spent four years in Indonesia, I don’t know if he was trained in a madrassa, one of those Muslim schools, but nevertheless that is his inclination. His father was a Kenyan socialist and he talks about the roots of his father. So he’s got an African and an Indonesian background. I don’t know what his mother was doing; she just sort of flitted around. But nevertheless, this may give him a warped perspective of what needs to be done to make America the greatest nation on earth. Yes, of course. The President is going back to the country where he spent a few childhood years. Funny how Robertson never thinks about whether those childhood years were as great as he thinks they were, because you know, every 9-year old looks back with fondness on local children pelting him with rocks for being a black guy, after all. Pat Robertson, king of the smarmy insinuation, pandering to the Christian loyalists waiting to lap it all up. Then we have Rick Perry sounding the dog whistle for the faithful with this, via TalkingPointsMemo : > Rick Perry says President Obama, the son of a teen mother who frequently was absent from his life and often was stretched financially, grew up the easy way. It’s the latest in a series of winks at conspiracy-minded conservatives deeply suspicious about the president’s background. Perry’s comments came as he discussed his new ad attacking Obama for saying US policymakers have grown “lazy” about honing America’s competitive edge, a comment that Republicans have inaccurately suggested was aimed at American workers. Asked by FOX News host Sean Hannity about the spot, Perry launched into a highly personal attack on Obama. “It reveals to me that he grew up in a privileged way,” he said. “He never had to really work for anything.” He added that “we need a president who has been through their ups and downs in life, and understands what it’s like to have to deal with the issues in our economy that we have today in America.” Why that dirty, lowdown, food-stamp sucking President! Rick Perry's going to set the record straight about him, because you know, those poor folks just don't ever work for anything. They just wait for the government to hand it to them, right? Finally, we have Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood editor-in-chief, John Nolte spewing a series of tweets hoping for violence against OWS protesters. Via LGF : > When I’m king, for every hippie scalp we’ll give you an ice cream cone. […] Not going to wait 2B King. Send me your hippie scalps today & I’ll send you a gift certificate 4 a pint of Ben & Jerry’s Hippie Blood Mocha. […] When the dog bites. When the bee stings. When I’m feeling sad. I simply remember bloodied #OWS hippies … And then I don’t feel sooo bad. […] Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes. Dirty, filthy hippies arrested with bruises and gashes… […] Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens. Batons hitting hippies as they fall into their own shittins’… […] When the dog barks. When the bee stings. When a hippie skull cracks… […] *sniff* *sniff* There’s just something about a police baton swung towards the skull of #OWS that *sniff* chokes a man up. #ItsSoBeautiful […] Hard to watch #OWS #OccupyWallStreet hippies get what they deserve while tender tears of joy cloud the eyes. […] Dirty, filthy #OWS hippies getting what they deserve from cops = MY PORN […] POP THE POPCORN! Dirty, filthy #Occupy hippes getting what they deserve from police — LIVE! All part of the desensitization, reprogramming process, folks. Keep repeating the same lies until they're fact. Make ordinary people who disagree with you into dirty hippie demons who threaten your very existence. Turn everything up a few notches, suggest that the poor are as dirty and scummy as those hippies, and hey, pretty soon people end up with that impression even if they don't truly believe it.

Crazy Things Conservatives Say

Added 11/19/11
4 Views

Crazy Things Conservatives Say

[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 01:00:32 11/19/11
Today's daily dose of wingnuttery was so rich I hardly know where to begin, so I'll just dive in. We begin with Pat Robertson, who is very, very worried about President Obama's visit to Indonesia. Via Right Wing Watch : > Robertson: You know Lee the thing that somehow concerns me, they say he’s going back to the place that he spent his childhood, he spent four years in Indonesia, I don’t know if he was trained in a madrassa, one of those Muslim schools, but nevertheless that is his inclination. His father was a Kenyan socialist and he talks about the roots of his father. So he’s got an African and an Indonesian background. I don’t know what his mother was doing; she just sort of flitted around. But nevertheless, this may give him a warped perspective of what needs to be done to make America the greatest nation on earth. Yes, of course. The President is going back to the country where he spent a few childhood years. Funny how Robertson never thinks about whether those childhood years were as great as he thinks they were, because you know, every 9-year old looks back with fondness on local children pelting him with rocks for being a black guy, after all. Pat Robertson, king of the smarmy insinuation, pandering to the Christian loyalists waiting to lap it all up. Then we have Rick Perry sounding the dog whistle for the faithful with this, via TalkingPointsMemo : > Rick Perry says President Obama, the son of a teen mother who frequently was absent from his life and often was stretched financially, grew up the easy way. It’s the latest in a series of winks at conspiracy-minded conservatives deeply suspicious about the president’s background. Perry’s comments came as he discussed his new ad attacking Obama for saying US policymakers have grown “lazy” about honing America’s competitive edge, a comment that Republicans have inaccurately suggested was aimed at American workers. Asked by FOX News host Sean Hannity about the spot, Perry launched into a highly personal attack on Obama. “It reveals to me that he grew up in a privileged way,” he said. “He never had to really work for anything.” He added that “we need a president who has been through their ups and downs in life, and understands what it’s like to have to deal with the issues in our economy that we have today in America.” Why that dirty, lowdown, food-stamp sucking President! Rick Perry's going to set the record straight about him, because you know, those poor folks just don't ever work for anything. They just wait for the government to hand it to them, right? Finally, we have Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood editor-in-chief, John Nolte spewing a series of tweets hoping for violence against OWS protesters. Via LGF : > When I’m king, for every hippie scalp we’ll give you an ice cream cone. […] Not going to wait 2B King. Send me your hippie scalps today & I’ll send you a gift certificate 4 a pint of Ben & Jerry’s Hippie Blood Mocha. […] When the dog bites. When the bee stings. When I’m feeling sad. I simply remember bloodied #OWS hippies … And then I don’t feel sooo bad. […] Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes. Dirty, filthy hippies arrested with bruises and gashes… […] Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens. Batons hitting hippies as they fall into their own shittins’… […] When the dog barks. When the bee stings. When a hippie skull cracks… […] *sniff* *sniff* There’s just something about a police baton swung towards the skull of #OWS that *sniff* chokes a man up. #ItsSoBeautiful […] Hard to watch #OWS #OccupyWallStreet hippies get what they deserve while tender tears of joy cloud the eyes. […] Dirty, filthy #OWS hippies getting what they deserve from cops = MY PORN […] POP THE POPCORN! Dirty, filthy #Occupy hippes getting what they deserve from police — LIVE! All part of the desensitization, reprogramming process, folks. Keep repeating the same lies until they're fact. Make ordinary people who disagree with you into dirty hippie demons who threaten your very existence. Turn everything up a few notches, suggest that the poor are as dirty and scummy as those hippies, and hey, pretty soon people end up with that impression even if they don't truly believe it.

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Ira...

Added 11/06/11
5 Views

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 23:45:47 11/06/11
video platform video management video solutions video player Watch and see how it's done on today's edition of This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour feeds Condoleezza Rice some softballs that reflect the wise foreign policy agenda of the Beltway bobbleheads, and Condi hits them out of the park by 1) damning Obama's centrist foreign policy decisions with faint praise and 2) pushing the latest neocon agenda of the reasonableness of going to war with Iran. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar: > AMANPOUR: A deadly morning in Baghdad today, as three bombs exploded in a sprawling market. The attack came as shoppers were preparing for the Muslim festival of Eid. And it comes just hours after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told his security forces to prepare for stepped-up violence. The backdrop, of course, is the U.S. decision to pull out of Iraq by the end of the year. It's a decision that now has some concerned that Al Qaida will re-establish a foothold in the country, all questions for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She has a new memoir, "No Higher Honor." And I spoke with her earlier. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. RICE: It's a pleasure to be with you, Christiane. AMANPOUR: So you write in your book, obviously, a lot about the Bush administration, the Bush years. You also talk about when you first met the current president, Barack Obama, during a hearing, and you say his questions were sharp, not rude, he actually seemed interested in my answers. And you say you were really impressed. And lot of people questioned whether he had what it took to be commander-in-chief of the lone superpower. Did he prove them wrong? RICE: Obviously, I think Barack Obama has done a number of things right, particularly in the war on terror. And I think that President Obama has, indeed, carried the war on terror forward in a very effective way. AMANPOUR: So let me ask you, then, about the most controversial of events of your tenure, and that was the Iraq war. For better or for worse, the United States is in it. President Obama has now decided to call an end and to bring all the troops out, portraying it actually as a triumph. Others are saying it was a defeat. Do you think it was right not to push and keep for -- I mean, at the very least, 10,000 U.S. troops to guarantee some kind of security, to train, and to be there for counterterrorism? RICE: Frankly, I think it would help the regional balance to have a residual American presence there. We need to find a way to help the Iraqis sustain themselves through this period and to -- to deal with their somewhat meddlesome neighbor in Iran. AMANPOUR: Of course, the administration says it's because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to immunity. But the real issue is that this administration insisted on it ceding to State Department and Pentagon lawyers' demand that they get this immunity ratified by the Iraqi parliament. You did not do that. You got the agreement without forcing it through the parliament. Why did they have to do that? Was it a mistake for President Obama to do that? RICE: Well, Christiane, I'm really rather reluctant to criticize negotiations that I didn't participate in. But it would have clearly been better to have a residual force, from my point of view, and perhaps there was a way out of the immunity clause that wasn't taken. AMANPOUR: So is there a risk now of everything that America paid unraveling? RICE: Yes. What is at risk here is not just the sacrifice of the United States, which is considerable, but also a pillar of a new kind of democratic stability in the Middle East. AMANPOUR: And perhaps equally important, if not more, is Afghanistan. The Obama administration sources are telling me are likely to change their role, even before 2014, from a combat to a much lesser role, maybe advisory. Is that safe at this time? Is the Taliban anywhere near being defeated? RICE: Well, I'm not inside, but I don't see that the Taliban is anywhere near being defeated. And, in fact, if you're looking for some kind of political arrangement, then ultimately there will have to be a political arrangement in Afghanistan, that brings former warring elements in. But if you're looking for that arrangement, you should be in the strongest position, not the weakest. And I don't think that right now the Afghan government and the NATO mission is in a position to make that kind of political deal. So, yes, I think there's a considerable risk in speeding up a timetable for Afghanistan. AMANPOUR: In your book, you also write about Iran. The IAEA, the nuclear agency of the U.N., this week is about to reveal, apparently, more details showing, apparently, that Iran is trying to weaponize. Do you think the United States, the Obama administration, has to ratchet up the confrontation? You talked this week about confronting Iran. Does that involve military confrontation by the U.S.? RICE: Well, the United States should certainly make clear that the president of the United States will consider military action, if necessary, because you never want to take that card off the table. I think there are other ways to confront Iran. You can confront Iran through even tougher sanctions. And I also think, Christiane, this is one of the downsides of having our forces out of -- out of Iraq, because we can confront the Iranians in Iraq. So, yes, I think it's time to confront the Iranian regime, because it's the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism. It's trying to get a nuclear weapon. It's repressed its own people. The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left. We should be doing everything we can to bring it down and never take military force off the table. John Amato: > I had to weigh in here quickly because Condi was so incompetent as President Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term. Condi Rice is famous for saying this about the bogus claims the Bush administration made about those aluminum tubes that Saddam was supposedly trying to acquire so he could nuke the heck out of Cleveland. > > In 2002, Rice had said that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," adding that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." She absurdly had this to say also to the WaPo: > But, as reported by The Washington Post more than a year ago, the internal debate among intelligence analysts was intense, with the experts at the Department of Energy who specialize in uranium enrichment adamant that the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear program. They argued that the tubes were intended for Iraqi rockets. Administration officials at the time did not acknowledge that debate, though Rice acknowledged yesterday she was aware of it. "I knew that there was a dispute," she said. "I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute." Here's Condi on Meet The Press (05/20/06) changing the story that was originally given to America for attacking Iraq in the first place since the truth didn't work out too well: > RICE: I understand that Americans see on their screens violence. They continue to see Americans killed, and we mourn every death. These are very hard things to do. But I would ask that people remember why we are there. We are there because we are trying to--having overthrown a brutal dictator who was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, we're trying to help the Iraqis create a stable foundation for democracy and a stable foundation for peace." I seem to recall a different rationale for why we're there: > "Citing Bush administration officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that Iraq tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes. The tubes, Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." [CNN, 9/8/2002] Bob Somerby aptly asked if Condi ever knew anything, anything at all : > "Does Condi Rice ever know anything back in 2004? According to the White House, she didn't know about objections to the uranium-from-Africa story because she hadn't read the whole National Intelligence Estimate! And in May 2002, she said she hadn't known that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles—even though intelligence agencies has issued such warnings for years. Now, she says she didn't know something else—she didn't know the state of aa critical, year-long discussion about those aluminum tubes. I didn't know, Rice told [Wolf] Blitzer. And she was singing a sweet old refrain.

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Ira...

Added 11/06/11
3 Views

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 23:45:47 11/06/11
video platform video management video solutions video player Watch and see how it's done on today's edition of This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour feeds Condoleezza Rice some softballs that reflect the wise foreign policy agenda of the Beltway bobbleheads, and Condi hits them out of the park by 1) damning Obama's centrist foreign policy decisions with faint praise and 2) pushing the latest neocon agenda of the reasonableness of going to war with Iran. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar: > AMANPOUR: A deadly morning in Baghdad today, as three bombs exploded in a sprawling market. The attack came as shoppers were preparing for the Muslim festival of Eid. And it comes just hours after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told his security forces to prepare for stepped-up violence. The backdrop, of course, is the U.S. decision to pull out of Iraq by the end of the year. It's a decision that now has some concerned that Al Qaida will re-establish a foothold in the country, all questions for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She has a new memoir, "No Higher Honor." And I spoke with her earlier. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. RICE: It's a pleasure to be with you, Christiane. AMANPOUR: So you write in your book, obviously, a lot about the Bush administration, the Bush years. You also talk about when you first met the current president, Barack Obama, during a hearing, and you say his questions were sharp, not rude, he actually seemed interested in my answers. And you say you were really impressed. And lot of people questioned whether he had what it took to be commander-in-chief of the lone superpower. Did he prove them wrong? RICE: Obviously, I think Barack Obama has done a number of things right, particularly in the war on terror. And I think that President Obama has, indeed, carried the war on terror forward in a very effective way. AMANPOUR: So let me ask you, then, about the most controversial of events of your tenure, and that was the Iraq war. For better or for worse, the United States is in it. President Obama has now decided to call an end and to bring all the troops out, portraying it actually as a triumph. Others are saying it was a defeat. Do you think it was right not to push and keep for -- I mean, at the very least, 10,000 U.S. troops to guarantee some kind of security, to train, and to be there for counterterrorism? RICE: Frankly, I think it would help the regional balance to have a residual American presence there. We need to find a way to help the Iraqis sustain themselves through this period and to -- to deal with their somewhat meddlesome neighbor in Iran. AMANPOUR: Of course, the administration says it's because the Iraqis wouldn't agree to immunity. But the real issue is that this administration insisted on it ceding to State Department and Pentagon lawyers' demand that they get this immunity ratified by the Iraqi parliament. You did not do that. You got the agreement without forcing it through the parliament. Why did they have to do that? Was it a mistake for President Obama to do that? RICE: Well, Christiane, I'm really rather reluctant to criticize negotiations that I didn't participate in. But it would have clearly been better to have a residual force, from my point of view, and perhaps there was a way out of the immunity clause that wasn't taken. AMANPOUR: So is there a risk now of everything that America paid unraveling? RICE: Yes. What is at risk here is not just the sacrifice of the United States, which is considerable, but also a pillar of a new kind of democratic stability in the Middle East. AMANPOUR: And perhaps equally important, if not more, is Afghanistan. The Obama administration sources are telling me are likely to change their role, even before 2014, from a combat to a much lesser role, maybe advisory. Is that safe at this time? Is the Taliban anywhere near being defeated? RICE: Well, I'm not inside, but I don't see that the Taliban is anywhere near being defeated. And, in fact, if you're looking for some kind of political arrangement, then ultimately there will have to be a political arrangement in Afghanistan, that brings former warring elements in. But if you're looking for that arrangement, you should be in the strongest position, not the weakest. And I don't think that right now the Afghan government and the NATO mission is in a position to make that kind of political deal. So, yes, I think there's a considerable risk in speeding up a timetable for Afghanistan. AMANPOUR: In your book, you also write about Iran. The IAEA, the nuclear agency of the U.N., this week is about to reveal, apparently, more details showing, apparently, that Iran is trying to weaponize. Do you think the United States, the Obama administration, has to ratchet up the confrontation? You talked this week about confronting Iran. Does that involve military confrontation by the U.S.? RICE: Well, the United States should certainly make clear that the president of the United States will consider military action, if necessary, because you never want to take that card off the table. I think there are other ways to confront Iran. You can confront Iran through even tougher sanctions. And I also think, Christiane, this is one of the downsides of having our forces out of -- out of Iraq, because we can confront the Iranians in Iraq. So, yes, I think it's time to confront the Iranian regime, because it's the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism. It's trying to get a nuclear weapon. It's repressed its own people. The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left. We should be doing everything we can to bring it down and never take military force off the table. John Amato: > I had to weigh in here quickly because Condi was so incompetent as President Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term. Condi Rice is famous for saying this about the bogus claims the Bush administration made about those aluminum tubes that Saddam was supposedly trying to acquire so he could nuke the heck out of Cleveland. > > In 2002, Rice had said that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," adding that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." She absurdly had this to say also to the WaPo: > But, as reported by The Washington Post more than a year ago, the internal debate among intelligence analysts was intense, with the experts at the Department of Energy who specialize in uranium enrichment adamant that the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear program. They argued that the tubes were intended for Iraqi rockets. Administration officials at the time did not acknowledge that debate, though Rice acknowledged yesterday she was aware of it. "I knew that there was a dispute," she said. "I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute." Here's Condi on Meet The Press (05/20/06) changing the story that was originally given to America for attacking Iraq in the first place since the truth didn't work out too well: > RICE: I understand that Americans see on their screens violence. They continue to see Americans killed, and we mourn every death. These are very hard things to do. But I would ask that people remember why we are there. We are there because we are trying to--having overthrown a brutal dictator who was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, we're trying to help the Iraqis create a stable foundation for democracy and a stable foundation for peace." I seem to recall a different rationale for why we're there: > "Citing Bush administration officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that Iraq tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes. The tubes, Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." [CNN, 9/8/2002] Bob Somerby aptly asked if Condi ever knew anything, anything at all : > "Does Condi Rice ever know anything back in 2004? According to the White House, she didn't know about objections to the uranium-from-Africa story because she hadn't read the whole National Intelligence Estimate! And in May 2002, she said she hadn't known that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles—even though intelligence agencies has issued such warnings for years. Now, she says she didn't know something else—she didn't know the state of aa critical, year-long discussion about those aluminum tubes. I didn't know, Rice told [Wolf] Blitzer. And she was singing a sweet old refrain.

Obama New Slang, Tea Partiers Chant and Leo Dicaprio - NTN #083

Added 10/12/11
21 Views

Obama New Slang, Tea Partiers Chant and Leo Dicaprio - NTN #083

[LESS INFO] 21 VIEWS | ADDED 11:44:00 10/12/11
Nearly The News #083 TEA PARTIERS TO FICTIONAL VICTIM: DROP DEAD At a recent Tea Party sponsored debate on CNN, people in the crowd started chanting “na na na na, hey, hey, hey, goodbye” when candidate Ron Paul was asked if a fictional uninsured man with a serious illness should be left to die. Responding to criticism after the event, a spokesperson told NTN that this is still America where people can chant for the demise of the non-existent victim of an illness all they want, and this is just an attempt by the main stream media to not focus on finding Obama’s real birth certificate. OBAMA TO REPUBLICANS: OH IT’S LIKE THAT, IS IT? A new tough talking President Obama warns that Republicans better “check themselves, before they wreck themselves.” Obama is pushing a new set of spending and tax initiatives, and says he won’t be meeting anyone halfway. “You must be stone cold trippin’” said the President when asked about any potential compromise with the GOP. Obama says he’s often sounded too nice in the past and is trying out some new talking points. When asked for comment, speaker Boehnner said he had “no idea what the President was saying… seriously.” And finally… NO PANTIES FOR LEO Leonardo DiCaprio says the lack of cross-dressing in his new film J Edgar is an acting, not marketing choice. J Edgar Hoover, the former head of the FBI, was know as a closeted gay man who sometimes dressed like a woman. But DiCaprio says leaving that out was not designed to boost the box office. “Who wouldn’t want to see me in a lace corset and panties,’ said the actor. “I just felt that when you portray an historic figure, sometimes you have to leave out the best stuff… or something.” This episode written by Collin Friesen.

Sign in to Channels.com!

Search Results

Brewer's exchange with the President...

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice

Last-Place Bachmann: 'I Intend To Be America's Iron Lady'

Last-Place Bachmann: 'I Intend To Be America's Iron Lady'

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan

Mitt Romney's Big Promises - and Bigger Lies

On "If I were a poor Black kid"...

Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change

Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change

Crazy Things Conservatives Say

Crazy Things Conservatives Say

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

Condi Rice's Warmongering Continues: 'Time To Confront The Iranian Regime'

Obama New Slang, Tea Partiers Chant and Leo Dicaprio - NTN #083