Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
0 Views
19:00:09 02/05/12
GOP Debates Exposing Conservative Dislike of Romney, Not So For '08 Dem Field
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:09 02/05/12
So Romney and his PACmen spent over fifteen million dollars worth of smear ads against Newt Gingrich in Florida to seal the deal of beating him in the third primary. Romney was upbeat afterward, but many movement conservatives were not.
Jonah Goldberg: What is Wrong With This Guy? >
Congratulations to Mitt Romney for his big win last night. It was a win that, Romney supporters hoped, would help bury concerns about his ability to seal the deal to do what it takes. But I’m not so sure. If you’re a straight-laced grown-up with money to burn, burying Newt Gingrich shouldn’t be that hard. Romney talked about the economy, Newt about lunar statehood (which I favor!). Romney drowned Gingrich in negative ads and Gingrich supplied endless fodder for the accurate ones and plausibility for the inaccurate ones. Was that really the test of his political chops everyone is saying?As a bunch of us have been writing around here for a while, the under-emphasized dynamic in this race isn’t that Romney isn’t conservative enough (though that’s obviously a real concern out there) it’s that he’s simply not a good enough politician.
Jonah and many other conservatives are really pissed that Mitt on the next day said that he's ' not very concerned about the poor.' >
“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” Romney told CNN. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.
Oh, dear. That wasn't too bright. Bill O'Reilly was trying to downplay this flub on The Factor by saying the Democrats will seize on any single word by Mitt that they can take out of context to smear him. Nice try, Bill. It was a bonehead move. >
But great politicians on the morning after a big win, don’t force their supporters to go around defending the candidate from the charge that he doesn’t care about the poor. They just don’t.
You would think after all the rigorous training Mormons are known to subject their children to when it comes to speaking to large groups of people at a young age and then sending them out on two year conversion missions to hone their craft of convincing people to like them, Mitt is one big flop in that category. Unlike his father, who was legendary for his two years in European mission work, Romney just has a problem with connecting and he's making his base nervous.
A recent Pew Poll shows Mitt's unfavorable rating is up to 47% . I believe the GOP thought that having so many debates would give them a chance to constantly bash President Obama without supplying much substance other than lunar bases, hating the gay, electrocutions and building electric fences against Latinos, but what has happened is America is watching and the GOP is being hurt by the added attention. Many republicans really dislike Romney, but view him as the only one to able challenge Obama. I still am surprised by this poll since the country is suffering from the 2008 global financial meltdown. And before Florida's results were in the GOP elites were freaking out over Gingrich's rise and then his attacks of their anointed one.
I know many progressives are feeling very antsy right now with these GOP circus debates and primary days dominating the news cycles so I did a little research into how our base felt about our candidates to contrast the GOP contest at about the same time. Democratic voters were very pleased with the field of candidates that were running for election.
via Gallup Politics on 02/03/08 >
The new poll indicates that whatever the outcome, Democrats nationwide will be equally satisfied with their nominee. They show equal levels of enthusiasm for the prospects of Clinton and Obama each being on the ballot in November. In addition, they are no more likely to believe one of the candidates is more electable in the fall than the other.
Specifically:
Fifty-five percent of Democrats (including independents who lean to the Democratic Party) say they would vote for Obama "enthusiastically" in November were he the Democratic nominee; 53% say the same of Clinton.
Forty-five percent of Democrats think Clinton has the better chance of beating the Republican candidate for president in November; 43% choose Obama.
By contrast, Gallup finds more lopsided attitudes among Republicans -- working strongly in McCain's favor. Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting for each of the leading potential nominees than the Democrats are about theirs; however, McCain is the clear leader on this score over Romney. McCain also beats Romney handily in perceptions of which of the two has the better chance of winning in November.
In the Florida returns there is another troubling number that was revealed about Mitt and the rest of the current field. >
Another warning sign for Romney: Nearly 4 in 10 GOPers want someone else to run: And this also has to worry Romney and his team a bit, too: 38% of Florida Republican primary voters said they’d like to see someone else run for the GOP nomination, versus 58% who said they’re satisfied with the field. It’s a striking number, because these are Republicans who TURNED OUT and voted.
38% are hoping for a brokered convention I guess. Wow. Things are tough in this country and many on our side have been very disappointed, but if we elect a phony conservative like Romney at this point in time, the middle class may never, ever recover. GOP unrest is a good thing.
0 Views
04:41:45 02/01/12
President Obama Speaks Before a Cabinet Meeting
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 04:41:45 02/01/12
President Obama Speaks Before a Cabinet Meeting Transcript: Hello, everybody. This is our first Cabinet meeting after my State of the Union address, and it gives me an opportunity to share my ideas and initiatives with my Cabinet, but also to get some feedback from them. One of the top priorities that I mentioned during the State of the Union was the need for us to promote small business. And I’m very pleased that we’ve got Karen Mills here, who has participated in our meetings before, but is now an official member of the Cabinet. It is a symbol of how important it is for us to spur entrepreneurship, to help startups, to move aggressively so that we can assure more companies that create the most jobs in our economy are getting a leg up from the various programs that we have in our government. I mentioned at the State of the Union that there have been discussions, bipartisan discussions between Republicans and Democrats, about a whole set of measures that can accelerate financing to startup companies; can provide tax breaks to startups and small businesses that are interested in either hiring more workers or increasing their wages; that looks at innovative ways for them to raise capital. And my expectation and hope is, is that they will get a bill together quickly, that they will pass it and get it on my desk. I will sign it right away, and I would like to see that bill signed this year. In addition, we’ve got all the Cabinet agencies, who are here represented. They are putting forward their own initiatives to enhance the ability of entrepreneurs to get up and running. So, for example, the Department of Homeland Security, my understanding is we’re going to be talking about how we can improve the visa process for those who are interested in investing in the United States and starting businesses here in the United States. I know that the Department of Commerce, Energy, and Education, as well as the SBA, are all launching complementary initiatives to support entrepreneurship as well. And so what we want to do is to make sure that every single agency, even as they’re tending to their energy initiatives or providing homeland security or transportation or defense, that we’re also thinking about how are we advancing the cause of giving small businesses and entrepreneurs opportunities to start creating the next Google or the next Apple or the next innovative company that’s going to create jobs and improve our economy. It’s that kind of all-hands-on-deck approach that is really going to make a difference. And we’re looking forward to hearing additional ideas from our business council and from those who are involved in startups that can help to promote this agenda. So thank you all for participating. I’m looking forward to hearing your ideas, and I will see you guys later. Q Will we get details on your housing plan tomorrow? THE PRESIDENT: -- I will talk to you then about it. I wouldn’t want to use up all my good stuff now. (Laughter.) Q Thank you, sir.
0 Views
21:00:11 01/29/12
Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character' Problem
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:11 01/29/12
video platform video management video solutions video player
Now, I'm going to assume that you didn't come in during the third act of Newt's career, and therefore you can appreciate just how funny it is when, on This Week , he's whining to Jake Tapper about how hard it is to pin someone down who will just lie about anything ! >
TAPPER: In many ways, you are where you are because of your debate performances. Last week, you had a couple that were not your strongest, to say the least.
GINGRICH: Yep.
TAPPER: Why do you think that was? What happened?
GINGRICH: I was amazed. I mean, I'm standing next to a guy who is the most blatantly dishonest answers I can remember in any presidential race in -- in my lifetime. And I've seen, I think, every presidential debate -- presidential campaign debate or virtually every one. And, you know, he would say things that were just plain not true.
Look, it's a little bit like yesterday's L.A. Times report. I mean, now it found 23 foreign accounts he never reported until he released his taxes. He would say -- he would say thing after thing after thing that just plain wasn't true.
And I had -- I don't know how you debate a person with civility if they're prepared to say things that are just plain factually false. And that's going to become a key part of this. I think the Republican establishment believes it's OK to say and do virtually anything to stop a genuine insurgency from winning because they are very afraid of losing control of the old order.
We tried a moderate in 1996 for president. He lost. We tried a moderate in 2008 for president. He lost. It's very hard to take Romneycare and Obamacare and have a debate and have the Republican win that debate. You need to have a conservative who is a very big distance away from Obama, because you've got to have the space so that, in fact, you can communicate with the American people.
TAPPER: I want to follow up on some of these comments you're making about Mitt Romney. The race has taken something of a nasty turn. Here's an ad that you are currently running in Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election? This man would, Mitt Romney. If we can't trust what Mitt Romney says about his own record, how can we trust him on anything?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: It sounds as if you're saying in that ad, and here this morning, that Mitt Romney is unfit and does not have the character to be president.
GINGRICH: I am saying that he would not be where he is today, the debates this week wouldn't have been where they were, if he had told the truth. And I think that's a very serious problem for somebody. I think that you look at -- again, he's supposedly a great manager, yet he can't explain 23 different foreign accounts that weren't reported. He's a great manager. He can't explain being on the board of directors of the company which got the largest Medicare fine in history for fraud?
Somehow, every time it's bad, he didn't know about it or he wasn't aware about it. He didn't really understand the Planned Parenthood by law, the largest abortion provider in the United States, is in Romneycare? Romneycare literally defines Planned Parenthood in a key -- in a part of the bill. He didn't seem to quite know it.
Every time you turn around, this great manager consistently doesn't understand whatever it is that would have hurt him. And you just have to look back and say, why can't you be candid with the American people? You cannot be president of the United States if you cannot be honest and candid with the American people. And that's compounded, frankly, by a number of the ads he runs, which are just plain false.
TAPPER: So you're saying that he does not have the character to be president of the United States, because he's, in your view, not honest.
GINGRICH: I'm saying it is a very -- it's a -- it is a very serious problem when you have somebody who on item after item after item -- I mean, the clip you had just now, he knows what he said in that clip is not true. I did not resign in disgrace. I did not pay a fine. And, in fact, CNN ran an entire piece recently in which they pointed out that on every single substantive count in the ethics investigation, every single one, that I was vindicated, including vindication by a federal judge, vindication by the Internal Revenue Service, vindication by the Federal Elections Commission . Now, Romney knows that.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Well, the clip -- the clip...
GINGRICH: So he's run a campaign of vilification.
TAPPER: The clip I just played was actually one of your ads, but let's get to that Romney ad that you're talking about...
GINGRICH: No, no, but I'm talking about the earlier -- I'm talking about -- I'm talking about the clip you showed of him campaigning yesterday.
TAPPER: Oh, OK.
GINGRICH: What he said yesterday, this wasn't true.
TAPPER: There...
GINGRICH: And so at some point, I don't quite -- I don't quite -- to be honest, Jake, I don't quite know how you deal with an opponent, because you want to deal with them with civility, you want to deal with them in a positive way. I want to talk about big issues.
I talked about space this week, which I think is important for the country's future. I talked about housing. I talked about creating jobs. I talked about the record I had working with Ronald Reagan to create jobs and the record I had working with Bill Clinton to create jobs. We talked about welfare reform as the first great entitlement reform.
There are all sorts of positive things. We have a proposal on Social Security which would allow every young American the option of having a personal Social Security account on the model of Galveston, Texas, and the country of Chile. So there are a lot of positive things.
And if you'll notice, when you get outside the zone where Romney carpet-bombs with Wall Street money, and you look at what's happening in the rest of the country, I'm ahead in all three national polls that were released this week. I'm ahead by a big margin, because when you come to positive ideas, I represent real change in Washington, I represent unleashing the spirit of the American people to get us back as a country, rebuilding the country we love. And when we get to a positive idea campaign, I consistently win.
It's only when he can mass money to focus on carpet-bombing with negative ads that he gains any traction at all.
0 Views
21:00:11 01/29/12
Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character' Problem
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:11 01/29/12
video platform video management video solutions video player
Now, I'm going to assume that you didn't come in during the third act of Newt's career, and therefore you can appreciate just how funny it is when, on This Week , he's whining to Jake Tapper about how hard it is to pin someone down who will just lie about anything ! >
TAPPER: In many ways, you are where you are because of your debate performances. Last week, you had a couple that were not your strongest, to say the least.
GINGRICH: Yep.
TAPPER: Why do you think that was? What happened?
GINGRICH: I was amazed. I mean, I'm standing next to a guy who is the most blatantly dishonest answers I can remember in any presidential race in -- in my lifetime. And I've seen, I think, every presidential debate -- presidential campaign debate or virtually every one. And, you know, he would say things that were just plain not true.
Look, it's a little bit like yesterday's L.A. Times report. I mean, now it found 23 foreign accounts he never reported until he released his taxes. He would say -- he would say thing after thing after thing that just plain wasn't true.
And I had -- I don't know how you debate a person with civility if they're prepared to say things that are just plain factually false. And that's going to become a key part of this. I think the Republican establishment believes it's OK to say and do virtually anything to stop a genuine insurgency from winning because they are very afraid of losing control of the old order.
We tried a moderate in 1996 for president. He lost. We tried a moderate in 2008 for president. He lost. It's very hard to take Romneycare and Obamacare and have a debate and have the Republican win that debate. You need to have a conservative who is a very big distance away from Obama, because you've got to have the space so that, in fact, you can communicate with the American people.
TAPPER: I want to follow up on some of these comments you're making about Mitt Romney. The race has taken something of a nasty turn. Here's an ad that you are currently running in Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election? This man would, Mitt Romney. If we can't trust what Mitt Romney says about his own record, how can we trust him on anything?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: It sounds as if you're saying in that ad, and here this morning, that Mitt Romney is unfit and does not have the character to be president.
GINGRICH: I am saying that he would not be where he is today, the debates this week wouldn't have been where they were, if he had told the truth. And I think that's a very serious problem for somebody. I think that you look at -- again, he's supposedly a great manager, yet he can't explain 23 different foreign accounts that weren't reported. He's a great manager. He can't explain being on the board of directors of the company which got the largest Medicare fine in history for fraud?
Somehow, every time it's bad, he didn't know about it or he wasn't aware about it. He didn't really understand the Planned Parenthood by law, the largest abortion provider in the United States, is in Romneycare? Romneycare literally defines Planned Parenthood in a key -- in a part of the bill. He didn't seem to quite know it.
Every time you turn around, this great manager consistently doesn't understand whatever it is that would have hurt him. And you just have to look back and say, why can't you be candid with the American people? You cannot be president of the United States if you cannot be honest and candid with the American people. And that's compounded, frankly, by a number of the ads he runs, which are just plain false.
TAPPER: So you're saying that he does not have the character to be president of the United States, because he's, in your view, not honest.
GINGRICH: I'm saying it is a very -- it's a -- it is a very serious problem when you have somebody who on item after item after item -- I mean, the clip you had just now, he knows what he said in that clip is not true. I did not resign in disgrace. I did not pay a fine. And, in fact, CNN ran an entire piece recently in which they pointed out that on every single substantive count in the ethics investigation, every single one, that I was vindicated, including vindication by a federal judge, vindication by the Internal Revenue Service, vindication by the Federal Elections Commission . Now, Romney knows that.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Well, the clip -- the clip...
GINGRICH: So he's run a campaign of vilification.
TAPPER: The clip I just played was actually one of your ads, but let's get to that Romney ad that you're talking about...
GINGRICH: No, no, but I'm talking about the earlier -- I'm talking about -- I'm talking about the clip you showed of him campaigning yesterday.
TAPPER: Oh, OK.
GINGRICH: What he said yesterday, this wasn't true.
TAPPER: There...
GINGRICH: And so at some point, I don't quite -- I don't quite -- to be honest, Jake, I don't quite know how you deal with an opponent, because you want to deal with them with civility, you want to deal with them in a positive way. I want to talk about big issues.
I talked about space this week, which I think is important for the country's future. I talked about housing. I talked about creating jobs. I talked about the record I had working with Ronald Reagan to create jobs and the record I had working with Bill Clinton to create jobs. We talked about welfare reform as the first great entitlement reform.
There are all sorts of positive things. We have a proposal on Social Security which would allow every young American the option of having a personal Social Security account on the model of Galveston, Texas, and the country of Chile. So there are a lot of positive things.
And if you'll notice, when you get outside the zone where Romney carpet-bombs with Wall Street money, and you look at what's happening in the rest of the country, I'm ahead in all three national polls that were released this week. I'm ahead by a big margin, because when you come to positive ideas, I represent real change in Washington, I represent unleashing the spirit of the American people to get us back as a country, rebuilding the country we love. And when we get to a positive idea campaign, I consistently win.
It's only when he can mass money to focus on carpet-bombing with negative ads that he gains any traction at all.
3 Views
05:17:25 01/21/12
Blueprint for an America Built to Last: President Obama's State of the Union Preview
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 05:17:25 01/21/12
Blueprint for an America Built to Last: President Obama's State of the Union Preview
Missed the Osawatomie speech? Watch an overview here: my.barackobama.com Share this on Facebook: my.barackobama.com Be the first to tweet this: my.barackobama.com Watch it live here: my.barackobama.com Attend an event: my.barackobama.com Hi, everybody. We're just a few days out from my third State of the Union address. And I'm actually not done writing it yet, so there might be a few late nights between now and then. But I wanted to share with you some of what I'm planning to talk about on Tuesday night. In a lot of ways, my address on Tuesday will be a bookend to what I said in Kansas last month about the central mission we have as a country, and my central focus as President. And that's rebuilding an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded -- and an America where everybody gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules. I talked in Osawatomie about - this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and folks trying to work their way into the middle class. Because we can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few. On Tuesday night, I'm going to talk about how we'll get there. I'm going to lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last. American Manufacturing -- with more good jobs and more products stamped with Made in America. American Energy ... From: BarackObamadotcom Views: 103255 1362 ratings Time: 02:20 More in News & Politics
10 Views
20:00:57 01/10/12
Reparations: Limbaugh's Limp Rhetoric Ramps Up
[LESS INFO] 10 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:57 01/10/12
Rush Limbaugh is a racist. This isn't news, we all know he lives on the fringes of hate for anyone who isn't pasty-white like he is. But lately, he's been ramping up the hateful rhetoric to levels I've not seen even from him, and Monday's rant is no exception.
While I support the right for Limbaugh to say whatever he wants under the First Amendment, I wonder what the consequences will ultimately be. Republicans whine about President Obama starting class wars while Rush Limbaugh stirs the fires of discontent and race under the surface. It's a volatile game he's playing.
Via Media Matters : >
Today on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh trotted out a new theory on the guiding prerogative of the Obamas. Limbaugh claimed part of what motivates President Obama and the Democratic Party is "the pursuit of money without having to work for it." He then said that the Obamas view their time in the White House as "an opportunity to live high on the hog without having it cost them a dime." Not content to leave it at that, Limbaugh elaborated, adding that the Obamas justify this by thinking "we deserve this, or we're owed this because of what's been done to us and our ancestors." Limbaugh concluded that if Democrats and the Obamas "don't know how to earn a lot of money working for it, they'll go someplace where they can legally steal it."
Here's a bit from the transcript (in the Media Matters post) that summarizes Limbaugh's strategy: Convince people that scary black guy wants to take something away from them and give it to their friends. >
Now, people who've never had 2 or 3 million dollars think, "My gosh, what would I spend it on?" You'd be surprised once you have it. It's not that hard. And the concept of, "Well, gosh, don't you have enough?" That's a myth. That's something the liberals use to try to guilt other people out of pursuing achievement and so forth. But believe me, no matter what they have, it's never enough. And I think there's a lot of reasons why the Obamas, the Democrats are doing what they're doing. In addition to the ideology, in addition to whatever grievances they have about this country and its past and however they think it needs to be cut down to size, and however they think the people who have gotten rich need to be gotten even with. Also in the mix is their chance to get their share without having to work for it and set themselves up, and their friends up, for life in the process. I don't doubt that that's a factor here.
One of the reasons I loathe the Republican party is because their central reason for existence is money. Morals, compassion, kindness, art and beauty have no place in their ideology. It's all about the money, honey, and no one lives that out in public like Rush Limbaugh.
When life becomes nothing more than the pursuit of more and more and more material wealth and the Rush Limbaughs of the world tell the pursuers they're in danger of having to lose that wealth to a hated group of people, it's not hard to see where the de facto leader of the Republican Party is leading the pack.
I wonder when it rises to the level of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded room. Before or after violence erupts?
22 Views
20:00:57 01/10/12
Reparations: Limbaugh's Limp Rhetoric Ramps Up
[LESS INFO] 22 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:57 01/10/12
Rush Limbaugh is a racist. This isn't news, we all know he lives on the fringes of hate for anyone who isn't pasty-white like he is. But lately, he's been ramping up the hateful rhetoric to levels I've not seen even from him, and Monday's rant is no exception.
While I support the right for Limbaugh to say whatever he wants under the First Amendment, I wonder what the consequences will ultimately be. Republicans whine about President Obama starting class wars while Rush Limbaugh stirs the fires of discontent and race under the surface. It's a volatile game he's playing.
Via Media Matters : >
Today on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh trotted out a new theory on the guiding prerogative of the Obamas. Limbaugh claimed part of what motivates President Obama and the Democratic Party is "the pursuit of money without having to work for it." He then said that the Obamas view their time in the White House as "an opportunity to live high on the hog without having it cost them a dime." Not content to leave it at that, Limbaugh elaborated, adding that the Obamas justify this by thinking "we deserve this, or we're owed this because of what's been done to us and our ancestors." Limbaugh concluded that if Democrats and the Obamas "don't know how to earn a lot of money working for it, they'll go someplace where they can legally steal it."
Here's a bit from the transcript (in the Media Matters post) that summarizes Limbaugh's strategy: Convince people that scary black guy wants to take something away from them and give it to their friends. >
Now, people who've never had 2 or 3 million dollars think, "My gosh, what would I spend it on?" You'd be surprised once you have it. It's not that hard. And the concept of, "Well, gosh, don't you have enough?" That's a myth. That's something the liberals use to try to guilt other people out of pursuing achievement and so forth. But believe me, no matter what they have, it's never enough. And I think there's a lot of reasons why the Obamas, the Democrats are doing what they're doing. In addition to the ideology, in addition to whatever grievances they have about this country and its past and however they think it needs to be cut down to size, and however they think the people who have gotten rich need to be gotten even with. Also in the mix is their chance to get their share without having to work for it and set themselves up, and their friends up, for life in the process. I don't doubt that that's a factor here.
One of the reasons I loathe the Republican party is because their central reason for existence is money. Morals, compassion, kindness, art and beauty have no place in their ideology. It's all about the money, honey, and no one lives that out in public like Rush Limbaugh.
When life becomes nothing more than the pursuit of more and more and more material wealth and the Rush Limbaughs of the world tell the pursuers they're in danger of having to lose that wealth to a hated group of people, it's not hard to see where the de facto leader of the Republican Party is leading the pack.
I wonder when it rises to the level of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded room. Before or after violence erupts?
12 Views
21:02:47 01/08/12
Ledit RenArt - Fair Welcome
[LESS INFO] 12 VIEWS | ADDED 21:02:47 01/08/12
This is a Virtual Political Performance Act questioning several US intern political issues. 1 ) We saw this years "navy back home" done by two woman. Now, this is the tip of the iceberg and we are soon to see some other social changes to come in this century. Far fetched is human cloning. Can one pretend it is not actually being tested in the shadows ? Far fetched ; fair enough. But far from science fiction today is artificial insemination, woman being paid to carry out those babies for 9 month and delivering them, anonymous sperm donning and in vitro conception of human life. Wan't it or not, this is now and the family paradigm will change with it. A divorce was considered a sin 50 years ago : how will we make room for these new realities ? Will it get to a point where some will say : "well, I'm fully biological and your not, buddy" ? If ever you'd cannot have children because of some reason and, as any one of us could, wan't children of your own, you'd decide to consider such a technique in order to have children, how would like those new human beings, these children, to be treated ? 2 ) Regarding guns : there is no doubt about the dangers about buying guns freely. In other words, everybody should question this culture of violence and a few aspects of the American Constitution : I'm sorry to announce that we are in the 21th century now, not in the 17th and the revolution has been done with guns back then, so what's with the guns today ? Why guns ? What's with the militias ? Against what threat ? May all americans ask... 3 ) Regarding the occupations, do you consider that the youth could have been helped through this experience, especially into getting started in life with an interesting job for those who were hosting the crowds, acting, playing music, doing theater, requesting their right through peaceful matter ? Should the youth throw the towel before the elder do ? 4 ) Why all of this ? Why not ? What for ? What really is today, entertainment, politics... ? Should you not question what's been written here, for your own sake, at least ? This is not reality ; only an essay on what tomorrow could be, good or bad. Fair Welcome and thank you very much. Thank you very much. Oh yeah, and one last question : do you think publicity and technology are a good mix with politics ? Don't be afraid to cast your vote ; don't be afraid of democracy.
0 Views
00:00:42 01/03/12
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.
4 Views
21:00:06 12/29/11
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 .)
5 Views
21:00:06 12/29/11
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 .)
6 Views
16:00:56 12/29/11
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 .)
0 Views
07:41:54 12/28/11
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.
5 Views
20:00:00 12/19/11
Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:00 12/19/11
Former President Havel addresses a European cultural congress on the economics of culture
On a warm evening in 1991, a colleague and I found an out-of-the-way café in the old part of Prague. Two men with blank expressions stood outside. The interior was dim and close, with room for only eight or nine tables. The place was almost empty. Just a sleepy waitress, a bartender polishing glasses, and a single patron who sat alone drinking wine and chain-smoking cigarettes.
The President of Czechoslovakia wasn't reviewing official papers. He was reading a book, a startlingly un-Presidential act to our American eyes. My companion, a neoconservative State Department official, already admired him for defying and defeating a Communist state. He'd impressed me by bringing a writer's sensibility and an affinity for true underground culture to his role as head of state.
Václav Havel even tried to appoint Frank Zappa as his Minister of Culture. "We're not rock musicians," Zappa told a reporter back in the sixties. "We're electronic social workers." The State Department wouldn't let Zappa assume the post, but Havel had made his point to the Czech public by offering this apparatchik's position to the composer of songs like "What's the Ugliest Part of Your Body?" ("Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind .")
We never spoke to Havel that night. It didn't seem polite to offer anything more than the curt nod of acknowledgement any café patron gives another at that hour. But Havel spoke to us, to all of us. And on the occasion of his death, the real lessons of his life's work are in danger of being lost.
Today we're told that the Occupy movement is too idealistic, too naïve. Naïve? Try Havel's words if you want naïve: "May truth and love triumph over lies and hatred."
Think of that as the Velvet Revolution's "one demand."
Portrait of the President as a Young Freak
As millions of people know, the underground playwright Havel first made his political mark in Charter 77. That group was formed to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, a banned and imprisoned rock band working in the Zappa mold of musical dissonance and cultural dissidence.
The Occupy movement is not on the cultural fringe, despite what its detractors say. But Havel's movement began as a Yippie-like creature of the underworld. Charter 77 rarely had more than a thousand members. It was a strange blend of political idealism and the hippie subculture where people proudly labeled themselves "freaks" to the conventional world. Despite its later alignment with economically conservative forces, it was more Allen Ginsburg than Alan Greenspan.
And it was created to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, whose grating music makes Occupy's drum circles seem like a children's choir serenading the bored residents of a home for aging veterans.
Words
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - what wonderful words! And how terrifying their meaning can be! Freedom in the shirt unbuttoned before execution. Equality in the constant speed of the guillotine's fall on different necks. Fraternity in some dubious paradise ...
Havel addressed the liberal democratic West on words in the 1970s, noting that the suppression of speech can give language enormous power: >
I ... live in a country where a writers' congress speech is capable of shaking the system ... a manifesto served as one of the pretexts for the invasion of our country one night by five foreign armies ... a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.
When a system has become inflexible and is in danger of collapsing, what it fears most is words. Think about that the next time you see a phalanx of cops tear down a tent city on television.
Havel had been burned by language, too: >
The same word can at one moment radiate great hope, at another it can emit lethal rays ... true at one moment and false the next, at one moment illuminating, at another, deceptive. On one occasion it can open up glorious horizons, on another, it can lay down the tracks to an entire archipelago of concentration camps.
And as we approach an election year that will be filled with the rhetoric of freedom, this observation still resonates: >
The same word can at one time be the cornerstone of peace, while at another time machine-gun fire resounds in its every syllable.
Control
In 1975 Havel had the presumption to write directly to Czechoslovakian head of state Gustáv Husák with a few suggestions. There's more than a passing resemblance between the fear-driven Communist society Havel condemned in that letter and the financial anxiety many Americans endure today: >
The technique of existential pressure is ... universal. There is no one in our country who is not, in a broad sense, existentially vulnerable. Everyone has something to lose and so everyone has reason to be afraid. The range of things one can lose is broad, extending from the manifold privileges of the ruling caste... down to the mere possibility of living in that limited degree of legal certainty available to other citizens.
Today, one out of two Americans lives in financial insecurity. Even many upper-middle-class citizens live from month to month, just one layoff notice away from medical bankruptcy or home foreclosure.
"Everyone has something to lose," observed Havel.
Havel's description of his 20th Century Communist society echoes our own: >
The more completely one abandons any hope of general reform, any interest in suprapersonal goals and values, or any chance of exercising influence in an 'outward' direction, the more one's energy is diverted in the direction of least resistance, that is, 'inwards.'"
People today are preoccupied far more with themselves ... They fill their homes with all kinds of appliances and pretty things, they try to improve their accommodations, they try to make life pleasant for themselves, building cottages, looking after their cars, taking more interest in food and clothing and domestic comfort ...They turn their main attention to the material aspects of their private lives.
Havel concluded that "Despair leads to apathy, apathy to conformity, and conformity to routine (political) performance - which is then quoted as evidence of 'mass political involvement.'"
Ambition
Havel understood the psychology of greed and power, too. From his letter to Husák: >
If it is fear which lies behind people's defensive attempts to preserve what they have, it becomes increasingly apparent that the chief impulses for their aggressive efforts to win what they do not yet possess are selfishness and careerism.
It is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied more than ever before by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans, and men of dubious record.
From Prague to Washington, from Moscow to lower Manhattan, the opportunities change. But human nature never does: >
Seldom in recent times has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support anything as long as it brings them some advantage; to unprincipled and spineless men, prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbors' and their own honor for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power.
Technocracy
It's a historical irony that those who claim they'll govern with the most efficiency usually wind up governing with the least effectiveness. Today corporate-funded politicians from both parties argue that the country should be led by "technocrats' who'll govern without messy "ideologies."
That's a false premise Havel knew well. He called it the "process by which power becomes anonymous and depersonalized, reduced to a mere technology of rule and manipulation."
Washington's technocratic "bipartisans" dream of a world where, in Havel's words, the "professional ruler is (seen as) the 'innocent' tool of an 'innocent' anonymous power ... legitimized by science, cybernetics, ideology, law, abstraction, and objectivity - that is, by everything except personal responsibility to human beings as persons and neighbors." Havel's Prague is our Beltway: >
States grow ever more machinelike; people are transformed into statistical choruses of voters, producers, consumers, patients, tourists, or soldiers, (where) in politics good and evil, categories of the natural world and therefore obsolete remnants of the past, lose all absolute meaning (and where) the sole method of politics is quantifiable success.
Havel condemned a system of state-orchestrated political theater, and the self-perpetuating failures of imagination which mistook the indifferent and pro forma participation of its citizens for genuine democracy. And he saw its universal nature: >
(It) has a thousand masks, variants, and expressions. Essentially, though, it is the same universal trend ... the essential trait of all modern civilization, growing directly from its spiritual structure, rooted in it by a thousand tangled tendrils and inseparable even in thought from its technological nature, its mass characteristics, and its consumer orientation.
"The contemporary concept of 'normal' behavior is," Havel wrote, "deeply pessimistic."
Responsibility
"I favor 'antipolitical politics,'" said Havel, "politics not as the technology of power and manipulation, of cybernetic rule over humans or as the art of the utilitarian, but politics as one of the ways of seeking and achieving meaningful lives, of protecting them and serving them." >
I favor politics as practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans.
None of us--as an individual--can save the world as a whole, but . . . each of us must behave as though it were in his power to do so.
Decades later he said this to the leaders of Western countries: >
Today, more than ever before in the history of mankind, everything is interrelated ... Because of this, the future of the United States or the European Union is being decided in suffering Sarajevo or Mostar, in the plundered Brazilian rain forests, in the wretched poverty of Bangladesh or Somalia.
Havel had glaring faults. American neocons offered him small favors during his final rise to power. He reciprocated, consciously or unconsciously, by aiding their destructive military ventures and adopting their foolish economic policies. He succumbed to the politics of personality, both his own and those of the leaders who courted him. But it would be a shame if that's all the world remembered.
Havel seemed unhappy in the role of leader. It's possible than he lost sight of his deepest insights, his truest gifts. It was the outsider Havel, the dreamer of the impossible, the surrealist and absurdist, we should remember. That's the Havel who can and should inspire dissidents everywhere.
"Is the human word truly powerful enough to change the world and influence history?" he once asked. With his life and his words, Václav Havel gave us his answer. He showed us the power in each individual and the responsibility that accompanies that power.
At his best, and above all else, Havel was a dissident outsider who realized his power and used it. Now it's our turn.
4 Views
22:00:02 12/18/11
Rep. Barney Frank Makes A Compelling Case For The Liberal Vision Of Big Government
[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:02 12/18/11
video platform video management video solutions video player
I'd love to see Barney Frank get his own TV show (are you listening, Al Gore?) because he has such a knack for powerful, straightforward arguments in favor of liberalism. Today he took part in what This Week with Christiane Amanpour headlines as "The Great American Debate: There's Too Much Government In My Life," along with Robert Reich and Republican intellectual "heavyweights" (of course, I use the term ironically) George Will and Rep. Paul Ryan. This is from Barney's intro: >
AMANPOUR: Congressman Ryan, thank you very much. And Congressman Barney Frank, your opening minute and a half.
FRANK: Yes, we have too much government, and yes, we have too little government. There is this mistaken view that says, you know, we have a fight between the people's money and the government's money. It's all the people's money. The question is, as people, intelligently, we have two sets of needs. We have needs that we best pursue individually, with money for ourselves and our families. And we can make personal choices. But then there are things that we have to do together.
I understand the appeal of tax cuts, but in all my years of government, I have never seen a tax cut put out a fire. I have never seen a tax cut build a bridge or clean up toxic atmosphere.
The point is that there are some things where we are inevitably together. We are interlocked in the economy. We're all subject to the same environment, we all have the same public safety needs. And there, I think, we have sometimes had too little government.
On the other hand, and my conservative friends who claim that they are for small government are the ones
who tell us that an adult shouldn't be able to gamble on the Internet. We have the leading judicial conservative, Antonin Scalia, absolutely in a snit because you can't be sent to jail if you have personal sexual relations of which he does not approve. We have a series of interventions by the conservatives in those choices that should be left to individuals.
So my conservative friends have it absolutely backwards. I do want there to be regulation so that you don't have the kind of manipulation in the financial area that leads to crises. And I do want to be able to clean up the environment. No matter how rich you are, you can't get your own air to breathe.
On the other hand, as I said, there are overreaches by the conservatives. And by the way, they include militarily. I think we have a wonderful military, full of able young people, very well equipped, and they can stop bad things from happening. But they're not really good at making good things happen in foreign societies. And it's on the whole my conservative friends who want us to be rebuilding other societies where we're not very good at it. So the answer is yes, we should have more government where we need in an interactive way to protect ourselves against abuses, but there should be more personal choice. And so that's the -- that's the current situation.
And so my answer is yes, I want more government involved in economic regulation and environmental cleanup and for reasons of public safety. I want less government telling me what personal choices to make as an individual .
5 Views
15:00:05 12/14/11
The Sandusky Court Appearance: Attorney's 800-Quip Backfires...Badly
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 15:00:05 12/14/11
This is a video of a press conference Jerry Sandusky's attorney Joseph Amendola held after an abbreviated court appearance Tuesday where Sandusky waived his right to a preliminary hearing. Waving the preliminary hearing was a media savvy move on the part of Sandusky and his lawyer, because it means the prosecution's case will not be heard ahead of the actual trial, nor will witnesses have to testify ahead of trial.
However, Amendola went one step too far in his press conference afterwards. When questioned about Mike McQueary's testimony and how they planned to attack his credibility, Amendola went through about a two minute description of what one would have to believe in order to believe McQueary. Right at the end, he says this: >
If anyone is naive enough to think for one minute that Tim Curley, Joe Paterno, Gary Schultz and for that matter Graham Spanier, University President, were told by Mike McQueary, that he observed Jerry Sandusky having anal sex with a 10-year old looking kid in a shower room at Penn State or Penn State property and their response was simply to tell Jerry Sandusky that "don't go in the shower any more with kids," I suggest you dial 1-800-REALITY .
Well, someone at Deadspin.com did just that, and discovered that it's a real 800 number for a gay phone sex line. Deadspin has the audio of the intro to prove it. Yes, for 99 cents per minute, you too can "join the fun."
You seriously cannot make this stuff up. I'm sure Amendola thought he was being snarky, but next time he might want to leave off the 800 number reference.
Amendola made it clear during his press conference after the abbreviated court appearance that Sandusky will go after the credibility of each and every victim along with McQueary. They fully intend to challenge the veracity of Mike McQueary's testimony, which the Grand Jury said they found very credible, as well as the eight victims' credibility. I'm sure this is why the attorney for Victim #1 spoke out after the hearing and said he hoped for an acceptable plea bargain. Even with eight victims whose stories touch one another's in different ways, there will be a concerted effort in public and behind closed doors to intimidate, challenge and otherwise discourage each of them from testifying.
As I was searching for this brief clip from today's press conference, I combed through CNN and ESPN transcripts and videos from earlier today. Poor corporate media. They were simply bristling with anticipation, and so disappointed afterward. I particularly enjoyed this bit of angst by reporters who clearly ought to know better: >
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: You're going to see most of the victims tell their story. They'll be subjected to cross- examination. It's a limited cross. They can't be attacked about, for instance, their credibility whether they have criminal convictions and things like that. But they will be questioned about their story and whether the story is true or not. so I think we'll get a good picture of what is actually involved in this case today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Or not, because Jerry Sandusky, we are just learning, waived his right in court to a preliminary hearing.
VELSHI: Which means that this hearing that will take place will not happen. He will go straight to trial. We don't know what "straight to trial" means, because this could take --
COSTELLO: Which many analysts say it is a smart move, because you don't want to lay out your case in court. And is it necessary to hear from these six to eight victims to testify in open court with reporters all over the world. Probably, maybe, Paul Callan would know better than I.
VELSHI: According to the people that are there, the judge did ask Sandusky in doing so, does he understand that he's waiving certain rights. In Pennsylvania, ask you a right to this preliminary hearing. And as we discussed earlier, some chance, remote it might be, that the judge determined there wasn't enough to go to trial with.
COSTELLO: With six to eight witnesses.
ROMANS: With all of the prehearing analysis of what to expect today, what to expect today, I didn't hear anybody say you waive this right to this preliminary hearing, which may be another crazy like a fox move from his attorney to kind of --
COSTELLO: Or just a crazy move because a lot of people have accused his attorney.
I'm not sure whether these folks were around during the OJ trial, but anyone who paid even a little bit of attention to it knows there was almost no way Sandusky would have actually gone through with a preliminary hearing. Look at what releasing the Grand Jury presentment did to the case. It's one thing to claim a presumption of innocence and entirely another to expect human beings with human flaws to presume it, particularly when the media is blasting details from the hearing all over the airwaves. There was absolutely no way it was going to happen.
But I do love seeing their disappointed and shocked faces at the realization their sensational sex story might not be flogged every single day.
