Warren, Warren, Warren all the time.
Fine with me!
Friday, January 27, 2012
President Obama discusses College Affordability in Ann Arbor, Michigan (VIDEO)
I'll resist making any commentary...
...but I expect multiple visits to Columbus, OH in compensation.
UPDATE: 2:59pm, Pacific: Ugh. Denard Robinson was in the House? Well, Coach Meyer will be waitin' for him come the 2012 Season. GO BUCKEYES!!!
...but I expect multiple visits to Columbus, OH in compensation.
UPDATE: 2:59pm, Pacific: Ugh. Denard Robinson was in the House? Well, Coach Meyer will be waitin' for him come the 2012 Season. GO BUCKEYES!!!
Capping off a busy week in GOP racism: Ron Paul. Willing AND Stupid?
Here we go...again. First Jenny Sanford, then Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Jan Brewer, and certainly not forgetting Newt "Food Stamps" Gingrich...
Thus, I give you...today's Washington Post:
And...
And...
No, I suppose you wouldn't.
Andrew Sullivan, in serious slinging bullshit mode:
Ta-Neishi Coates (written before Sullivan):
Let me provide answer Mr. Sullivan's "question":
Now, Mr. Coates, can write his own response, but the answer is yes, provided Mr. Coates, me and rest of the black community were convinced RFK had not changed, that he was, deep down, hostile to African-Americans (or in the parlance of the time: Negroes). When RFK emerged from McCarthy's shadow, blacks were wary of him, but he eventually came out from under that cloud through good works, and more to the point, good deeds. He came out of that cloud enough so that Mother to the day she died, would almost burst into tears just thinking about 1968.
Ron Paul, through his own actions, and the actions and statements of his son Rand, remains racially hostile (at the very least racially suspect) to African-Americans, with their combined statements against the Civil Rights Act, and Lunch-Counters being a matter of "defending property", and not as a matter of Human Rights, etc.
Simply put, yes, Ron Paul is saying some stuff in front of GOP Debate Audiences, and that seems to be the limit of what he's willing to do. He's said some equally onerous things about race in recent memory that make us believe that the Ron Paul from the 1990s has not changed one damn bit.
Thus, I give you...today's Washington Post:
Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.
The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.
But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
And...
In the past, Paul has taken responsibility for the passages because they were published under his name. But last month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.’’ Paul said.
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.
“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
It is unclear precisely how much money Paul made from his newsletters, but during the years he was publishing them, he reduced his debts and substantially increased his net worth, according to his congressional and presidential disclosure reports. In 1984, he reported debt of up to $765,000, most of which was gone by 1995, when he reported a net worth of up to $3.3 million. Last year, he reported a net worth up to $5.2 million.
The newsletters bore his name in large print and featured articles on topics ranging from investment advice to political commentary. Frequently written in first person, they contained personalized notes, such as holiday greetings from Paul and his wife, Carol.
And...
Hathway, the former Ron Paul & Associates secretary, said: “We had tons of subscribers, from all over the world. . . . I never had one complaint’’ about the content.
No, I suppose you wouldn't.
Andrew Sullivan, in serious slinging bullshit mode:
I cannot and will not defend the newsletters. And Paul's apparent lies about his involvement make the matter worse. And I don't think Paul is the "best vehicle" for advancing the ideas TNC cites. He's a very flawed vehicle, like most politicians and human beings. And I corrected immediately the record on the MLK holiday.
But when Paul has said what he has said in these debates, when he has walked into the lion's den of a GOP primary and attacked the criminal justice system for racial bias, lacerated the war on drugs, and cut to the core of the delusions behind American global aggression, he deserves to be judged on his recent history as well as his increasingly distant past. His message that more liberty makes diversity more possible is a vital one.
Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?
I acknowledge this newsletter incident is ugly, indefensible and, above all, cynical. I don't think it is all that matters in the remarkable late career of congressman Paul. And that hunting for heretics rather than celebrating converts is a losing political strategy.
Ta-Neishi Coates (written before Sullivan):
If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.
What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul "legislated" for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul's heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of evidence, be made to look ridiculous.
Let me provide answer Mr. Sullivan's "question":
Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?
Now, Mr. Coates, can write his own response, but the answer is yes, provided Mr. Coates, me and rest of the black community were convinced RFK had not changed, that he was, deep down, hostile to African-Americans (or in the parlance of the time: Negroes). When RFK emerged from McCarthy's shadow, blacks were wary of him, but he eventually came out from under that cloud through good works, and more to the point, good deeds. He came out of that cloud enough so that Mother to the day she died, would almost burst into tears just thinking about 1968.
Ron Paul, through his own actions, and the actions and statements of his son Rand, remains racially hostile (at the very least racially suspect) to African-Americans, with their combined statements against the Civil Rights Act, and Lunch-Counters being a matter of "defending property", and not as a matter of Human Rights, etc.
Simply put, yes, Ron Paul is saying some stuff in front of GOP Debate Audiences, and that seems to be the limit of what he's willing to do. He's said some equally onerous things about race in recent memory that make us believe that the Ron Paul from the 1990s has not changed one damn bit.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Chris Christie seems to be a willing racist (VIDEO)
I'll listen to Christie the moment he explains how my Father (who would've been alive at the time of this bull@#$% idea) would have been allowed to vote in said referendum.
Oh, that's right. The white people of the South would've had to grant him his rights, voluntarily.
Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver of New Jersey crushed the Governor better than I could:
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Homophobe...and willing to be a racist piece of @#$%.
Oh, that's right. The white people of the South would've had to grant him his rights, voluntarily.
Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver of New Jersey crushed the Governor better than I could:
In a comment related to his call for a voter referendum on the proposal to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie said Wednesday, “People would have been happy to have referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.”
The governor, who on Tuesday called for a referendum on the Nov. 6 ballot that would ask voters to decide if the state should legalize same-sex marriage, also said he will veto the Democratic legislation to allow it when the proposal reaches his desk.
The comment that the civil rights movement of the 1960s could have been settled through a national or southern states voter referendum stunned Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver (D-Essex), who became the first African-American woman to head the lower house in 2010.
“Gov. Christie better sit down with some of New Jersey’s great teachers for a history lesson, because his puzzling comment shows a complete misunderstanding about the civil rights movement,” Oliver said. “It’s impossible to ever conceive that a referendum on civil rights in the South would have been successful and brought justice to minorities. It’s unfathomable to even suggest a referendum would have been the better course.
“Governor – people were fighting and dying in the streets of the South for a reason,” the Assemblywoman said. “They were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It look legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans.
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Homophobe...and willing to be a racist piece of @#$%.
Jan Brewer would fall into the Stupid category... (VIDEO)
Rememeber, your choices are Blind, Willing or Stupid. And we're going with stupid...
From KHPO:
Well...maybe not.
Seriously, the GOP has a major race problem on its hands. Racism is a very good way to win primaries, but also a good way to lose elections.
From KHPO:
Brewer said their heated exchange Wednesday started on the tarmac with a handwritten letter she gave the president inviting him to come back to Arizona to have lunch with her and make a visit with her to the border.
She said that's when he started criticizing her on how she portrayed him in her recent book.
"I felt a little bit threatened, if you will, in the attitude that he had, because I was there to welcome him," she said.
The governor describes the final part of their exchange Wednesday as disrespectful towards her.
"I believe that when we were in the conversation, I was in the middle of a sentence and he walked away," Brewer said.
Well...maybe not.
Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa, Ariz., declined to say exactly what he heard Obama and Brewer talk about during their now-infamous tiff next to Air Force One.
But the mayor said he was standing right next to the governor when the exchange took place and Obama didn’t seem to be in any kind of hurry to leave.
“There was no sense that he was running to or from anything,” Smith told TPM. In fact, he said, the president stayed and had a pleasant conversation with Smith, who’s a Republican, and Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat.
It was “just the four of us,” Smith said. “Mayor Stanton and I had a decent talk with him.”
The portrayal of a calm, friendly president seems to at least partly contradict what Brewer has said about the encounter in numerous interviews since Wednesday afternoon.
Seriously, the GOP has a major race problem on its hands. Racism is a very good way to win primaries, but also a good way to lose elections.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Daily Show's complete extended interview with Elizabeth Warren (VIDEO)
"The Pats are gonna spank the Giants. I'm sorry, it's just reality..."
Right there, Warren avoided any comparisons to Martha Coaxley. And thank goodness for that...
Part 1:
Part 2:
Right there, Warren avoided any comparisons to Martha Coaxley. And thank goodness for that...
Part 1:
Part 2:
"I will recover and return..."(VIDEO)
Even Boehner was gracious. (Even teared up a little from what I can tell, toward the end).
"Score another one for U.S. Special Operations..." (VIDEO)
Once again, Navy SEALS...absolutely BADASS!
You're welcome, Denmark!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
You're welcome, Denmark!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Rick Santorum: Blind, Stupid and Willing... (VIDEO)
Here we go again.
If you want to know what I think about this, allow me to modify [somewhat] my blog post where I attacked Jenny Sanford for doing this exact same thing.
When you provide cover for the racism of others, as [Rick Santorum] does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. [Rick Santorum] isnotstupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country, [but Santorum may be an exception.]
So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?
Sunday, January 22, 2012
I respect the heck out of @chucktodd, he needs to understand why we trust The Daily Show more than Cable News... (VIDEO)
Is it just possible that after the Bush years, after watching the media be willing accomplices in the march to war, after watching Editorial decisions being made with the stockholders more in mind than the audience, after watching how a Reporters access matters more to them than the story they're trying to tell me, is it any wonder why we trust the Daily Show more than we do most reporters?
I wish Chuck Todd got it, because this is some weak-ass sauce:
Chuck, it's simple. It's a matter of trust, and a lot of your colleagues (especially your colleagues at Fox News) have made it very hard to trust Journalism. We see too much manipulation of journalists, and journalist who are too-willing-to-be manipulated.
I am learning more from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report than I am from the Nightly News. I am getting more actual NEWS CONTENT from them. They're not wasting my time. They're not just giving me a giggle. They are educating me, and they're doing a better job than Free Broadcast TV News, and they're doing a HELL of a lot better than Cable News.
I wish Chuck Todd got it, because this is some weak-ass sauce:
Chuck, it's simple. It's a matter of trust, and a lot of your colleagues (especially your colleagues at Fox News) have made it very hard to trust Journalism. We see too much manipulation of journalists, and journalist who are too-willing-to-be manipulated.
I am learning more from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report than I am from the Nightly News. I am getting more actual NEWS CONTENT from them. They're not wasting my time. They're not just giving me a giggle. They are educating me, and they're doing a better job than Free Broadcast TV News, and they're doing a HELL of a lot better than Cable News.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Gingrich and Santorum are not the only racists in the GOP (Jenny Sanford anyone?) (VIDEO)
I watched this interview with Jenny Sanford, curious about what she had to say about Newt Gingrich. Now I’m never going to be curious about anything she has to say ever again.
There’s no other way to put this, but Jenny Sanford is a racist. I wish she wasn’t, but there it is. She’s a Southern Belle, who herself is the privileged daughter of other Southern Belles, who apparently thinks African-Americans like me been making all this Racism stuff up these last three hundred and fifty years.
To have Chris Matthews show her the video tape of Newt Gingrich actually being thanked for "putting Juan Williams in his place", and to have her say there was nothing wrong with that, that all this dog-whistle talk is a media fabrication, speaks volumes for her lack of character.
Actually, no it doesn’t. It tells me, plainly and simply, she’s a racist.
The big problem that exists in America today is that too many (mostly White) Americans think that one only meets the definition of racism if you're buring a cross on someone's lawn, and doing it when you're wearing a sheet over your head.
Not so. I see evidence of racism in small ways in everyday life, committed by people who if asked, even quiet rooms where such things are discussed, will insist that they're not racist.
But clutch your bag a little tighter in the elevator when a black man walks in? Follow around young black men in the store? Assume because of my Skin Color that I can't qualify for credit or a loan? These are judgments and actions being taken on the basis of my skin color.
And when you provide cover for the racism of others, as Jenny Sanford does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. Jenny Sanford is not stupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country.
So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?
Now, if you are a White Republican, and have a problem with what I'm saying. What can I say, but @#$^ off. I'm African-American. I know what racism is, you don't. I know what the dog-whistles sound like, you don't.
I get to judge what offends me, you don't.
You want another Dog Whistle? James Fallows of Atlantic Monthly (rightly) took Newt to task for his racial coding. Here's what an angry reader sent to him:
See that? Same mentality as Jenny Sanford.
And yes, that was racist, too.
Fallows promptly ripped the reader to shreds:
And what am I supposed to think of people who deny that what Newt is doing is being done on purpose?
Now the good news is that people get it. People (mostly notably, a lot of White people, like Fallows) are calling this stuff for what it is. Nothing makes me happier.
But clearly, Newt Gingrich, Rick "Blah People" Santorum, Jenny Sanford and this douchebag who wrote in to Fallows are not the only racists in the Republican Party or Conservative set. My problem is that within the party of Lincoln, the cancer is growing.
(By the way, you did notice we haven't even touched on the racist crap Ron Paul's done, right?)
I have known and continue to know a lot of Republicans in my life. The Republicans I know are primarily Eisenhower-style, Small Government, Fiscally Conservative, yet Socially Liberal types. Yes, they are out there...
...but they’re also out there providing cover for the racists that are out there, and now it is their silence that is starting to speak volumes to me.
You want more examples? How about this?
Or this from December of 2011?
Okay, so maybe that last one wasn't code so much.
Don't joke with us. We know the codes. Stop using them, or get called out for what you really are.
There’s no other way to put this, but Jenny Sanford is a racist. I wish she wasn’t, but there it is. She’s a Southern Belle, who herself is the privileged daughter of other Southern Belles, who apparently thinks African-Americans like me been making all this Racism stuff up these last three hundred and fifty years.
To have Chris Matthews show her the video tape of Newt Gingrich actually being thanked for "putting Juan Williams in his place", and to have her say there was nothing wrong with that, that all this dog-whistle talk is a media fabrication, speaks volumes for her lack of character.
Actually, no it doesn’t. It tells me, plainly and simply, she’s a racist.
The big problem that exists in America today is that too many (mostly White) Americans think that one only meets the definition of racism if you're buring a cross on someone's lawn, and doing it when you're wearing a sheet over your head.
Not so. I see evidence of racism in small ways in everyday life, committed by people who if asked, even quiet rooms where such things are discussed, will insist that they're not racist.
But clutch your bag a little tighter in the elevator when a black man walks in? Follow around young black men in the store? Assume because of my Skin Color that I can't qualify for credit or a loan? These are judgments and actions being taken on the basis of my skin color.
And when you provide cover for the racism of others, as Jenny Sanford does in that video? Well, you're either blind, stupid or willing. Jenny Sanford is not stupid. I think its too late in the day for anyone to be that blind as to racial disparity in this country.
So that only leaves willing...someone willingly blind. And if you're willingly blind, if you're not willing to make and effort to see what's going on, what else am I to think of you?
Now, if you are a White Republican, and have a problem with what I'm saying. What can I say, but @#$^ off. I'm African-American. I know what racism is, you don't. I know what the dog-whistles sound like, you don't.
I get to judge what offends me, you don't.
You want another Dog Whistle? James Fallows of Atlantic Monthly (rightly) took Newt to task for his racial coding. Here's what an angry reader sent to him:
Many times you present your perspective fairly, but in today's footnote comments about the South Carolina debate in your Final on Huntsman blog posting, one of two things is apparent. Neither alternative reflects well upon you.
You cited as a "dog whistle" Newt Gingrich's comment that Obama is "the food stamp President". By calling that a dog whistle you are dog whistling to your own constituencies about how terrible and racist those evil Republicans are.
You should certainly be aware that Newt Gingrich and other Republican candidates have many times in recent months made the argument that President Obama's administration has resulted in record numbers of Americans receiving food stamps, while record numbers of Americans are unable to find jobs. They then promise policies that will result in more jobs and fewer people needing food stamps as employment improves. They may make the point as well that it is more personally uplifting to feed one's family as a result of holding employment, than it is to be dependent on food stamp assistance.
Alternative one is that James Fallows is ignorant of this argument or fails to see that it might resonate with people of all races who hope to support themselves in the job market. That would imply an obtuseness that other evidence does not support.
Alternative two is that James Fallows understands this formulation but pretends not to for the specific purpose of unfairly accusing its proponents of racism. Given that the distribution of food stamp assistance is broadly represented among whites, Latinos, and blacks in America, even if the argument were "nobody should be receiving food stamps", which it clearly isn't, where is the racial viciousness supposed to come from? The ugly smearing appears to be coming from this hypothetical James Fallows alternative two.
Look, there are plenty of cultural, aesthetic, and policy issues you may have with the Republican South Carolina campaign. It might be wise to confine your arguments to those real differences rather than smearing people for slurs they do not make.
See that? Same mentality as Jenny Sanford.
And yes, that was racist, too.
Fallows promptly ripped the reader to shreds:
Here is a third alternative, the one I believe: that Newt Gingrich knows exactly what he is doing when he calls Obama the "food stamp" president, just as Ronald Reagan knew exactly what he was doing when talking about "welfare Cadillacs." There are lots of other ways to make the point about economic hard times -- entirely apart from which person and which policies are to blame for today's mammoth joblessness, and apart from the fact that Congress sets food stamp policies. You could call him the "pink slip president," the "foreclosure president," the "Walmart president," the "Wall Street president," the "Citibank president," the "bailout president," or any of a dozen other images that convey distress. You decide to go with "the food stamp president," and you're doing it on purpose.
And what am I supposed to think of people who deny that what Newt is doing is being done on purpose?
Now the good news is that people get it. People (mostly notably, a lot of White people, like Fallows) are calling this stuff for what it is. Nothing makes me happier.
But clearly, Newt Gingrich, Rick "Blah People" Santorum, Jenny Sanford and this douchebag who wrote in to Fallows are not the only racists in the Republican Party or Conservative set. My problem is that within the party of Lincoln, the cancer is growing.
(By the way, you did notice we haven't even touched on the racist crap Ron Paul's done, right?)
I have known and continue to know a lot of Republicans in my life. The Republicans I know are primarily Eisenhower-style, Small Government, Fiscally Conservative, yet Socially Liberal types. Yes, they are out there...
...but they’re also out there providing cover for the racists that are out there, and now it is their silence that is starting to speak volumes to me.
You want more examples? How about this?
Or this from December of 2011?
Okay, so maybe that last one wasn't code so much.
Don't joke with us. We know the codes. Stop using them, or get called out for what you really are.
The Compleat Stephen Colbert appearance on Morning Joe (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
"I-I-I-I-I'm...so in love with you..." (VIDEO)
Is it just me, or does the President seem...really, really, REALLY chill this election season?
As a side-question to the non-African-Americans out there: we all understood the Sandman reference, right?
UPDATE 9:11am, Pacific: Okay, now Josh Marshall, proprietor of Talking Points Memo, is getting all kinds of video of the President singing. Can an Album drop be too far behind?
Aretha Franklin:
Dionne Warwick:
As a side-question to the non-African-Americans out there: we all understood the Sandman reference, right?
UPDATE 9:11am, Pacific: Okay, now Josh Marshall, proprietor of Talking Points Memo, is getting all kinds of video of the President singing. Can an Album drop be too far behind?
Aretha Franklin:
Dionne Warwick:
Thursday, January 19, 2012
You deserve to read the President's whole answer on Simpson-Bowles...
This is from the Fareed Zakaria's interview with President Obama (his questions are in red). And I highlight it because noted deficit-scold Andrew Sullivan, posted just a little teeny-tiny bit of the Simpson Bowles answer toward the end of the interview (the part in blue).
Personally, I'd like you to read the whole thing:
Personally, I'd like you to read the whole thing:
You talked a lot about how foreign policy ultimately has to derive from American strength, and so when I talk to businessmen, a lot of them are dismayed that you have not signaled to the world and to markets that the U.S. will get its fiscal house in order by embracing your deficit commission, the Simpson-Bowles. And that walking away from that,which is a phrase I’ve heard a lot, has been a very bad signal to the world. Why won’t you embrace Simpson-Bowles?
I’ve got to say, most of the people who say that, if you asked them what’s in Simpson-Bowles, they couldn’t tell you. So first of all, I did embrace Simpson-Bowles. I’m the one who created the commission. If I hadn’t pushed it, it wouldn’t have happened, because congressional sponsors, including a whole bunch of Republicans, walked away from it.
The basic premise of Simpson-Bowles was, we have to take a balanced approach in which we have spending cuts and we have revenues, increased revenues, in order to close our deficits and deal with our debt. And although I did not agree with every particular that was proposed in Simpson-Bowles — which, by the way, if you asked most of the folks who were on Simpson-Bowles, did they agree with every provision in there?, they’d say no as well.
What I did do is to take that framework and present a balanced plan of entitlement changes, discretionary cuts, defense cuts, health care cuts as well as revenues and said, We’re ready to make a deal. And I presented that three times to Congress. So the core of Simpson-Bowles, the idea of a balanced deficit-reduction plan, I have consistently argued for, presented to the American people, presented to Congress.
There wasn’t any magic in Simpson-Bowles. They didn’t have some special sauce or formula that avoided us making these tough choices. They’re the same choices that I’ve said I’m prepared to make. And the only reason it hasn’t happened is the Republicans were unwilling to do anything on revenue. Zero. Zip. Nada.
The revenues that we were seeking were far less than what was in Simpson-Bowles. We’ve done more discretionary cuts than was called for in Simpson-Bowles. The things that supposedly would be harder for my side to embrace we’ve said we’d be willing to do. The whole half of Simpson-Bowles that was hard ideologically for the Republicans to embrace they’ve said they’re not going to do any of them.
So this notion that the reason that it hasn’t happened is we didn’t embrace Simpson-Bowles is just nonsense. And by the way, if you talk to some of these same business leaders who say, Well, he shouldn’t have walked away from Simpson-Bowles, and you said, Well, are you prepared to kick capital gains and dividends taxation up to ordinary income —
— which is what Simpson-Bowles —
— which is what Simpson-Bowles called for, they would gag. There’s not one of those business leaders who would accept a bet. They’d say, Well, we embrace Simpson-Bowles except for that part that would cause us to pay a lot more.
And in terms of the defense cuts that were called for in Simpson-Bowles, they were far deeper than even what would have been required if the sequester goes through, and so would have not been a responsible pathway for us to reduce our deficit spending. Now, that’s not the fault of Simpson-Bowles. What they were trying to do was provide us a basic framework, and we took that framework, and we have pushed it forward.
And so there should be clarity here. There’s no equivalence between Democratic and Republican positions when it comes to deficit reduction. We’ve shown ourselves to be serious. We’ve made a trillion dollars worth of cuts already. We’ve got another $1.5 trillion worth of cuts on the chopping blocks. But what we’ve also said is, in order for us to seriously reduce the deficit, there’s got to be increased revenue. There’s no way of getting around it. It’s basic math. And if we can get any Republicans to show any serious commitment — not vague commitments, not “We’ll get revenues because of tax reform somewhere in the future, but we don’t know exactly what that looks like and we can’t identify a single tax that we would allow to go up” — but if we can get any of them who are still in office, as opposed to retired, to commit to that, we’ll be able to reduce our deficit.
Now, to your larger point, you’re absolutely right. Our whole foreign policy has to be anchored in economic strength here at home. And if we are not strong, stable, growing, making stuff, training our workforce so that it’s the most skilled in the world, maintaining our lead in innovation, in basic research, in basic science, in the quality of our universities, in the transparency of our financial sector, if we don’t maintain the upward mobility and equality of opportunity that underwrites our political stability and makes us a beacon for the world, then our foreign policy leadership will diminish as well.
Can we do that in a world with so much competition from so many countries? One of the things you do hear people say is, You know, we have all this regulation. You’re trying to make America more competitive, but you’ve got Dodd-Frank, you’ve got health care. There’s all this new regulation. And in that context, are we going to be able to be competitive, to attract investment, to create jobs?
Absolutely. Look, first of all, with respect to regulation, this whole notion that somehow there’s been this huge tidal wave of regulation is not true, and we can provide you the facts. Our regulations have a lower cost than the comparable regulations under the Bush Administration; they have far higher benefits.
We have engaged in a unprecedented regulatory look-back, where we’re weeding out and clearing up a whole bunch of regulations that were outdated and outmoded, and we’re saving businesses billions of dollars and tons of paperwork and man-hours that they’re required to fill out a bunch of forms that aren’t needed. So our regulatory track record actually is very solid.
I just had a conference last week where we had a group of manufacturing companies — some service companies as well — that are engaging in insourcing. They’re bringing work back to the United States and plants back to the United States, because as the wages in China and other countries begin to increase, and U.S. worker productivity has gone way up, the cost differential for labor has significantly closed.
And what these companies say is, as long as the United States is still investing in the best infrastructure in the world, the best education system in the world, is training enough skilled workers and engineers and is creating a stable platform for businesses to succeed and providing us with certainty, there’s no reason why America can’t be the most competitive advanced economy in the world.
But that requires us to continue to up our game and do things better and do things smart. We’ve started that process over the last three years. We’ve still got a lot more work to do, because we’re reversing decade-long trends where our education system didn’t keep pace with the improvements that were taking place in other countries; where other countries started to invest more in research and development, and we didn’t up our game; where our infrastructure began to deteriorate at a time when other countries were investing in their infrastructure; and, frankly, where we have gotten bogged down politically in ways that don’t allow us to take strong, decisive action on issues in ways that we’ve been able to do in the past.
And so my whole goal in the last three years and my goal over the next five years is going to be to continue to chip away at these things that are holding us back. And I’m absolutely confident there’s no problem that America is facing right now that we can’t solve, as long we’re working together. That’s our job.
The first Obama Campaign Ad, in case you missed it (VIDEO)
Running now in six swing states. Take THAT Turd Blossom!
American Prospect: Who knew the State Department was so hip? (VIDEO)
Great stories from both the American Prospect and Foreign Policy.
Can't say we didn't try.
Oh, yeah...the Russians did just that:
Can't say we didn't try.
Oh, yeah...the Russians did just that:
Apparently, this is Moscow's idea of rolling out the "red carpet": Russian state television today launched an all-out assault on new U.S. Ambassador Mike McFaul.
"The fact is that McFaul is not an expert on Russia. He is a specialist in a particular pure democracy promotion," read a report published on Russia 1, the channel that is run by the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK).
The Russian government was evidently displeased that McFaul met with human rights activists in his first official function at the Moscow embassy, where he was joined by visiting Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns. The Russian media's public smear campaign against McFaul accused him of working on behalf of the "so-called democratic movement" in the country during the early 1990s, when he visited there on behalf of the National Democratic Institute -- an organization "known for its proximity to the U.S. intelligence services," according to the TV report.
The report then quotes from several of McFaul's writings and from The Cable's post on McFaul to accuse him of having an agenda of supporting Russian opposition groups in an attempt to destabilize the Russian government.
The hostile welcome represents a sharp rebuke to McFaul's message of openness and cooperation that he brought with him upon arriving in Moscow last week.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Once you had a deal with Bain Capital, Romney would always lowball you...
Figures.
From a piece in the Washington Post called "When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond":
From a piece in the Washington Post called "When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond":
[To the filmmakers and bankrollers of "When Mitt Romney Came To Town"] the Bain way is nothing less than “turning the misfortunes of others into . . . enormous financial gains.” The film spends most of its time interviewing people who lost their jobs and much of their savings after working at various companies that Bain bought, milked and sold to generate those huge profits.
Yet, there is another version of the Bain way that I experienced personally during my 17 years as a deal-adviser on Wall Street: Seemingly alone among private-equity firms, Romney’s Bain Capital was a master at bait-and-switching Wall Street bankers to get its hands on the companies that provided the raw material for its financial alchemy. Other private-equity firms I worked with extensively over the years — Forstmann Little, KKR, TPG and the Carlyle Group, among them — never dared attempt the audacious strategy that Bain partners employed with great alacrity and little shame. Call it the real Bain way.
Here’s how it worked. Private-equity firms are always eager to find companies to buy, allowing them to invest chunks of the billions of dollars entrusted to them and from which they earn hundreds of millions in fees. One ready source of these businesses is Wall Street bankers hired to sell companies through private auctions. The good news is that when a banker puts together a detailed selling memorandum about a company, chances are very high that company will be sold; the bad news is that these private auctions tend to be very competitive, and the winning bidder, by definition, is most often the one willing to pay the most. By paying the highest price, you win the company, but you also may reduce the returns you can generate for your investors.
I never negotiated directly with Romney; he was too high-level for any interaction with me. Rather, I dealt often with other Bain senior partners, who were very much in his mold. In my experience, Bain Capital did all that it could to game the system by consistently offering the highest prices during the early rounds of bidding — only to try to low-ball the price after it had weeded out competitors.
By bidding high early, Bain would win a coveted spot in the later rounds of the auction, when greater information about the company for sale is shared and the number of competitors is reduced. (A banker and his client generally allow only the potential buyers with the highest bids into the later rounds; after all, you can’t have an endless procession of Savile Row-suited businessmen traipsing through a manufacturing plant if you want to keep a possible sale under wraps.)
For buyers, the goal in these auctions is to be one of the few selected to inspect the company’s facilities and books on-site, in order to make a final and supposedly binding bid. Generally, the prospective buyer with the highest bid after the on-site due-diligence visit is selected by the client — in consultation with his or her banker — to negotiate a final agreement to buy the company.
This is the moment when Bain Capital would become especially crafty. In my experience — which I heard echoed often by my colleagues around Wall Street — Bain would seek to be the highest bidder at the end of the formal process in order to be the firm selected to negotiate alone with the seller, putting itself in the exclusive, competition-free zone. Then, when all other competitors had been essentially vanquished and the purchase contract was under negotiation, Bain would suddenly begin finding all sorts of warts, bruises and faults with the company being sold. Soon enough, that near-final Bain bid — the one that got the firm into its exclusive negotiating position — would begin to fall, often significantly.
Of course, some haggling over price is typical in any sale, and not everything represented by sellers and their bankers is found to be accurate under close examination. But Bain Capital took the art of negotiation over price into the scientific realm. Once the competitive dynamics had shifted definitively in its favor, the firm’s genuine views about what it was willing to pay — often far lower than first indicated — would be revealed.
At such a late date, of course, the seller is more than a little pregnant with the buyer. Attempting to pivot and find a new buyer — which knew it had not been selected in the first place, but was now being called back — would be devastating to the carefully constructed process designed to generate the highest price. Once Bain’s real thoughts about the price were revealed, the seller either had to suck it up and accept the lower price, or negotiate with a new buyer, but with far less leverage.
Needless to say, this does not make for a very happy client (or a happy banker). By the end of my days on Wall Street in 2004, I found the real Bain way so counterproductive that I no longer included Bain Capital on my buyer’s lists of private-equity firms for a company I was selling.
Bill Clinton: "I think Barack Obama will be the next president..."
Bubba layin' it down in the latest issue of Esquire. But it's always nice to hear him say it again:
ESQUIRE: Who do you think the next president will be?
CLINTON: I think Barack Obama will be the next president. I think he will win. Because I think that whatever feelings the American people have about their own conditions and however much they may wish he had moved more quickly, I think that they will conclude that it takes a long time to get out of the kind of economic distress we were in and that his direction and policies are more likely to move us out of that than if they give the White House and the Congress to a party that will give them more of what they just had.
I think that the rapid decrease in popularity of the Republican governors in places like Florida and Ohio and Wisconsin will help him.
It shows you how inexact the voting process is, and how people vote for candidates based on some fleeting rhetorical impression or their sense of the connection between that election and their own circumstances, rather than listening to what candidates actually say they intend to do. Because every one of those governors is just doing what they said they were gonna do.
But I think that the president will win. He'll be able to talk about the difference in the auto industry between when he took office and the way it is now. I think he'll be able to talk about much more progress in certain sectors of the economy, and he's going to have a very strong national-security record to run on, so he won't be vulnerable there. In fact, the Republican may be more vulnerable than he is there. So even though the conditions of the country are difficult, I expect him to win. And I also think, based on what happened in 2008, that once he gets an opponent in the general election, I think except for Fox and the conservative outlets, the media will tilt back toward him. The coverage won't be as anodyne and evenhanded as it has been.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Something the Professional Left, #OWS and other "disappointed" Liberals need to remember..
From Andrew Sullivan's cover story on Newsweek/Daily Beast:
But the right isn’t alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels. From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.
They miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements. Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus. Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law. Politifact recently noted that of 508 specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician.
What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don’t-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen. This took time—as did his painstaking change in the rule barring HIV-positive immigrants and tourists—but the slow and deliberate and unprovocative manner in which it was accomplished made the changes more durable. Not for the first time, I realized that to understand Obama, you have to take the long view. Because he does.
Or take the issue of the banks. Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street, of being railroaded by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner into a too-passive response to the recklessness of the major U.S. banks. But it’s worth recalling that at the start of 2009, any responsible president’s priority would have been stabilization of the financial system, not the exacting of revenge. Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush.
And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.
P.R. in Action! Jodi Kantor gives the exact same interview on two different shows! (VIDEO)
Watch, gentle reader, with amazement as Jodi Kantor goes onto two different shows, with two different tempraments, and two different hosts...only to give the exact same interview:
First Lawrence O'Donnell:
And then Jon Stewart:
Remember, in the end, both shows are right. Ms. Kantor never called the First Lady and Angry Black woman in her book. That is important to clear up. Of course, that the first stories to leak out from the book were about arguments did not help.
But my main problem with the book, isn't the reporting, but the fact that Kantor in some parts of the book she used a third person, novelistic, inner monologue to have the First Lady describe her actions and thoughts, when she (ahem) hadn't interviewed the First Lady. That, in my book, is more than a little bullshitty. If Kantor had stuck to straight reporting, and just told what she learn from Aides and people close to Michelle, I would have zero problems with this book.
Then again, there would be zero controversy for her P.R. people to market, and thus zero reason to go on with Lawrence and Stew-Beef!
First Lawrence O'Donnell:
And then Jon Stewart:
Remember, in the end, both shows are right. Ms. Kantor never called the First Lady and Angry Black woman in her book. That is important to clear up. Of course, that the first stories to leak out from the book were about arguments did not help.
But my main problem with the book, isn't the reporting, but the fact that Kantor in some parts of the book she used a third person, novelistic, inner monologue to have the First Lady describe her actions and thoughts, when she (ahem) hadn't interviewed the First Lady. That, in my book, is more than a little bullshitty. If Kantor had stuck to straight reporting, and just told what she learn from Aides and people close to Michelle, I would have zero problems with this book.
Then again, there would be zero controversy for her P.R. people to market, and thus zero reason to go on with Lawrence and Stew-Beef!
Friday, January 13, 2012
So what's it going to be Republicans, your wet dream of destroying a Government Agency or denying the President a victory? (VIDEO)
Here's how the President just tattooed the Republicans (in case you missed it), as explained by Greg Sargent.
[What the President did today] could help enable Democrats to recapture the dynamic that played in the favor of Democrats during the payroll tax cut fight. Obama is co-opting a supposedly traditional Republican argument — government should be made leaner — and forcing Republicans to choose between placing themselves at odds with a core position and allowing an Obama victory on their own turf. During the payroll fight, Republicans struggled to explain their opposition to cutting taxes, relying on shifting justifications that ultimately proved politically untenable.
The GOP pushback is that Obama’s move suggests he is conceding that the Republicans argument has been right along. “After presiding over one of the largest expansions of government in history, and a year after raising the issue in his last State of the Union, it’s interesting to see the President finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control,” Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mitch McConnell, says. But will Republicans support it?
Second, the move could maneuver Republicans into having an argument about process, even as the White House touts specific proposals for getting things done. During the payroll tax cut fight, Republicans ended up arguing that the tax cut shouldn’t be extended for two months because a year-long extension would represent sounder government — even as Dems emerged as the primary advocates for immediate action to cut taxes on 160 million working Americans. Similarly, Repulicans may find themselves opposing this proposal on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough, while Obama insists on immediate action.
During his speech today, Obama bashed wasteful government; proposed to consolidate six commerce-related agencies into one; and said the proposal was driven by “one mission: helping American businesses to succeed.” He added: “With or without Congress, I’m going to keep at it.”
In other words, this dovetails with Obama’s political strategy of bashing Congress as dysfunctional while continuing to project unilateral action on the economy, in this case, helping small businesses by simplifying government — which, again, is supposedly traditional GOP turf.
The Compleat Stephen Colbert/Jon Stewart evisceration of Citizens United (VIDEO)
Drop 'em, Jimmy!
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Thursday, January 12, 2012
He may not win, but Newt will certainly wind up defining Mittens for us (VIDEO)
Once again, question about Mitt's...veracity.
If the Kennel was as airtight as he says...how did anything leak out of it?
Unleash hell...
Worried, like I was about the Bain Attacks coming too early? Well?
Some pundits have thrown out the idea that because the Bain story is coming up sooner than expected, it will be that tougher for Democrats to go on the offensive later as per their original plan.
“[If] Romney wins the nomination, this early fuss might have inoculated him against the Scrooge gambit,” TIME columnist Joe Klein wrote.”The public may feel Bain is same old, same old by October.”
Don’t buy it, Democrats say. Even while they acknowledge that they planned to roll out the Bain angle later for a reason, they find it pretty hard to contain their grins overall.
“I would have preferred to wait, yes, to keep the bottle of whup-ass fresher,” one Obama campaign strategist told TPM. “At the same time — and this is important to note — having the Republicans eat their own actually makes the Bain story more potent than we ever could because it instantly validates it as a line of attack and falls on independent ears as a matter of legitimate debate, not as a partisan line of attack.”
Overall turnout for NH Primary was up, but actual GOP Participation fell by 16 percent. (VIDEO)
So let's remember what Rachel said. The New Hampshire Secretary of State predicted Record turnout for the GOP Primary, and pretty much nailed the number. You can't stick a landing any better than that. What was not clear what how much of that record turnout was powered by Independents (or even mischievous Democrats), since New Hampshire has an Open Primary. And we won't know the damage until the SOS comes out with the full tableaux of figures later on.
Well, the uber Conservative Washington Examiner has got itself a projection...and its a damn good reason to panic, if you're a Republican:
Though overall turnout in the primary is projected to set a record, eclipsing the 2008 tally, turnout among Republican voters is on track to be down by roughly 16 percent.
The reason for the discrepancy is that because there was no competitive Democratic primary this time around (as well as several GOP candidates aggressively chasing their votes), there was a huge spike in the number of independents and Democrats who were voting in the Republican race, something Granite Staters can do in the open primary system.
When you eliminate independents and Democrats from the 2008 equation, actual registered Republicans made up 61 percent of the roughly 239,000 votes cast in the GOP primary, putting the turnout among Republicans at around 145,790. But last night, actual Republicans only comprised 49 percent of the electorate, according to exits. Even if we round up the final 2012 turnout number to 250,000, which would be slightly higher than current projections, that would only leave actual Republican turnout at 122,500, which would represent a 16 percent drop.
Remember, the Examiner's figures are projections based on Exit Polls, but the math is pretty compelling, and accurate, when verified by Professor Dad.
Finally, after a painful stink of a Season, Rex Grossman comes through for worker's rights....
Yeah, I can't believe it either:
From Main Street, a project of Working America.
Jay Cutler and Rex Grossman have no love for each other when they face off as quarterbacks of the Chicago Bears and Washington Redskins. But when it comes to protecting the rights of workers in their shared home state of Indiana, they both take the same position.
Cutler and Grossman joined fellow Hoosiers Courtney Roby of the New Orleans Saints, Trai Essex of the Pittsburgh Steelers, Mark Clayton of the St. Louis Rams, and Kris Dielman of the San Diego Chargers in sending letters to Indiana legislators opposing the anti-worker bill that is moving swiftly to through the House.
Cutler, from Santa Claus in Southern Indiana, called the so-called right to work bill “a political ploy against workers.”
All the players belong to the NFL Players Association, which formally opposed “right to work” in a statement last week. Unfortunately, anti-worker legislators aren’t listening; they voted the bill, which will weaken bargaining rights and depress wages across the state, out of committee after only six minutes of consideration.
In a few weeks, Indianapolis will be in full spotlight as they host Super Bowl XLVI. With players making their opposition to the pending legislation vocal, workers may be on a very public collision course with anti-worker legislators as February 5th approaches. Protesters have already filled the statehouse and forced the retraction of an ordinance which would keep them out. Watch as Governor Mitch Daniels and his secret corporate backers seek to force a vote as soon as possible – before they have to explain footage of angry protesters to a rapt worldwide audience.
From Main Street, a project of Working America.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
"Governor, good luck...you're gonna need it..." (VIDEO)
First caught by Andrew Sullivan. As he said: "You see a man meet a machine"
Study this well, fellow Democrats. This is why Romney is going to lose the 2012 Election.
It's not even this particular position. It's his total inability to listen, to engage in a...well, human way with this man, or anyone.
All he had to say was: "Listen, my own moral/religious convictions preclude me from supporting the idea of anything but a man and a woman getting married, but...you're right, the spouses of Gay Soldiers deserve all the familial and visitation and health care rights provided to straight couples, and I think Federal Law can fix that."
It would still be bullshit, because if Mittens hasn't noticed, the rest of the country has moved on. The guy still might not vote for him in the fall, but at least Mitt would keep the guy in the undecided column.
That's one thing Mitt is ultimately good at...you can't stay "undecided" around him for long, particularly when you look him in the eye.
Study this well, fellow Democrats. This is why Romney is going to lose the 2012 Election.
It's not even this particular position. It's his total inability to listen, to engage in a...well, human way with this man, or anyone.
All he had to say was: "Listen, my own moral/religious convictions preclude me from supporting the idea of anything but a man and a woman getting married, but...you're right, the spouses of Gay Soldiers deserve all the familial and visitation and health care rights provided to straight couples, and I think Federal Law can fix that."
It would still be bullshit, because if Mittens hasn't noticed, the rest of the country has moved on. The guy still might not vote for him in the fall, but at least Mitt would keep the guy in the undecided column.
That's one thing Mitt is ultimately good at...you can't stay "undecided" around him for long, particularly when you look him in the eye.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
After his Daily Show fiasco, Joe Kaufman explains himself... (VIDEO)
Remember Nezar Hamze, the Muslim Republican, who wanted to gain the admission into the Broward County (FL) GOP?
Well, Mr. Kaufman released this statement to...ahem...explain himself.
Yeah.
McClatchy News had this to say in the same article:
As Randi always says, there's a reason Florida is shaped like it is.
Well, Mr. Kaufman released this statement to...ahem...explain himself.
Friends,
With the intention of exposing and helping to bring national attention to the infiltration of Islamist groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood, I agreed to do an interview with Comedy Central’s Daily Show, which was to take place on October 25th. The piece aired January 5th.
For over two hours, I was asked questions about my run for Congress against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and my thoughts regarding the Broward Republican Party’s refusal to grant membership to local CAIR leader Nezar Hamze.
I had been outspoken against Hamze gaining a position in the party, due to the extremist nature of the organization he represents and due to his own radical past. I had distributed information to party members detailing these facts (See attachment of flyer).
According to Hamze, he had been "encouraged" to join the Republican Party by Javier Manjarres, a campaign staffer for one of my opponents in the upcoming Republican Primary, Karen Harrington. It is the opinion of many that Manjarres, who has a criminal background, attempted to destroy the local GOP by bringing Hamze in. It backfired, as Hamze was voted down 158 to 11.
Upset, Manjarres - defending Hamze - complained to the Miami Heraldthat the vote was a “set up.” He said the Republican Party was practicing “bigotry.”
Prior to the vote, I had the chance to formally ask Hamze, in front of the party, if he would support either Allen West or myself for Congress and if he was a supporter of terrorism. He declined to answer the questions.* Indeed, Hamze has in the recent past been fervently outspoken against Congressman West and other prominent Republicans, including Adam Hasner. *[reporter's note: It's a suspect claim to say Hamze refused to say he was against terrorism]
Following the vote, I praised local party leaders and members for how they conducted themselves during the voting process. I stated that groups connected to terrorism should have no role in the Republican Party and should not exist within the United States.
Although the Daily Show segment skewed the serious nature of the subject of CAIR and radical Islamic outfits and edited out so much of what I had to say, we can now hope this small shred of national exposure can begin the serious dialogue on the truth regarding these groups.
Make note, the only reason why I did this show was to have another opportunity to speak out against the hate and terror of CAIR and the like. For the past ten years, I have devoted my life to exposing these groups, and I am extremely proud of the work I have done to help protect the nation I grew up in and love.
I have never been afraid of the terror-related groups I write and speak about, even after receiving numerous threats. I most certainly will never be afraid of doing a comedy show.
Joe Kaufman
Yeah.
McClatchy News had this to say in the same article:
But, for now, this is a win for Kaufman. Getting mocked on liberal-leaning Daily Show isn't bad for a Republican (more here). And being an Islam basher isn't a killer in heavily Jewish South Florida. But it's a pretty disastrous prospect to be defined as an object of mockery, even if Kaufman was caught off guard. If Kaufman makes it out of the primary, he'll likely go up against Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who's not just beloved in her heavily liberal district. She can define words like "against."
As Randi always says, there's a reason Florida is shaped like it is.
Allow me to paraphrase @NancyPelosi to GOP House. "GET YOUR [something] BACK TO WORK!!" (VIDEO)
And yes, Pelosi says it's okay to run against Congress.
Sounds like Mittens has a damn good reason to hide his Tax Returns... (VIDEO)
It's not how much he withheld...but where:
I think Mittens is under the impression he's been vetted. He hasn't. He's never EVER been the nominee before. And should he get it, his life is going to be combed through like he can never imagine.
I think Mittens is under the impression he's been vetted. He hasn't. He's never EVER been the nominee before. And should he get it, his life is going to be combed through like he can never imagine.
Friday, January 6, 2012
More of the Richard Cordray rollout (featuring guest star Barack Obama) (VIDEO)
And on Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell:
Jonathan Chait: The Economy Might Save Obama After All
A wholehearted recommend. If you're an Obama fan, nothing will make you feel better than reading this.
Well, almost nothing.
Also, Andrew Sullivan highlighted this bit of the piece first:
Well, almost nothing.
Also, Andrew Sullivan highlighted this bit of the piece first:
Defeating an incumbent president, historically, seems to require either a major scandal, a failed war, or a terrible economy. We have a terrible economy. But the direction seems to matter more than the level — Ronald Reagan famously cruised to reelection with a high unemployment rate because the economy bounced back from the deep but quick 1982 recession. Mitt Romney has made the state of the economy his central theme against Obama. The entire premise of his campaign is that the economy is bad because Obama's economic program has failed.
If voters think the economy is improving, Romney has no ammunition left. That is still the smart play for Romney, because if the economy feels strong, he probably can't win anyway, so he needs to plan for the scenario that gives him a chance to win. A few months ago, that scenario was looking almost certain. Now it's looking far less likely.
Best...headline...ever. (Suck on this, Iran Edition)
Thanks to @symmetry11 on Twitter for catching this first.
Oh, and by the way, you're welcome Iran!:
Oh, and by the way, you're welcome Iran!:
U.S. Navy rescues Iranian hostages held by pirates
A member of the same U.S. aircraft carrier group that Iran has warned not to return to the Strait of Hormuz has rescued 13 Iranians held hostage by pirates in the Arabian Sea, the Pentagon said on Friday.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
POTUS is going to make Romney spend money...in Arizona (VIDEO).
Released just before New Years...
You see what the interesting thing is about those maps?
Only one of them contains Ohio.
Now, that's not to say that the President isn't interested in carrying Ohio (he is), or that he's not going to win Ohio (what, you think Romney's going to win Ohio. Child, please), but it's interesting so see that there are still paths victory without Ohio.
And more to the point, I think in the end, no matter who the nominee is, you're going to see the President win on a combination of these paths, just like Jim says in the video.
And on top of all that, the President is going to make Romney spend money...in Arizona.
Ooohh, it lookin' good...
Oh, and by the way, make sure you give money to the campaign. The more we have on hand, the better.
You see what the interesting thing is about those maps?
Only one of them contains Ohio.
Now, that's not to say that the President isn't interested in carrying Ohio (he is), or that he's not going to win Ohio (what, you think Romney's going to win Ohio. Child, please), but it's interesting so see that there are still paths victory without Ohio.
And more to the point, I think in the end, no matter who the nominee is, you're going to see the President win on a combination of these paths, just like Jim says in the video.
And on top of all that, the President is going to make Romney spend money...in Arizona.
Ooohh, it lookin' good...
Oh, and by the way, make sure you give money to the campaign. The more we have on hand, the better.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
If you want to know why Mitt Romney would be a horrible President, look no further than Seamus...his Dog.
Great catch by Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere:
Problem solving...or problem creation.
Let us not forget that this little "crisis" was entirely of Mitt's own making.
Let us also not forget that this crisis of Mitt's making was because his belief in the superiority of his planning turned out to be bullshit. (Pun only partially intended).
And also let us not forget that after cleaning up the mess of his own creation, he went right back to doing what he'd done in the first place.
I think this story is highly illustrative of what kind of President he would be. Out of touch, non-responsively, not pliant, and tone deaf.
Fortunately, these very same qualities are going to sink him as a Candidate.
A Vanity Fair excerpt from "The Real Romney", a forthcoming book by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, contains an intriguing story about likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. It happened during a family road trip 28 and 1/2 years ago, when Romney was 36.
"The destination of this journey, in the summer of 1983, was [Romney's] parents' cottage, on the Canadian shores of Lake Huron. The white Chevy station wagon with the wood paneling was overstuffed with suitcases, supplies, and sons when Mitt climbed behind the wheel to begin the 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario.
"As with most ventures in his life, he had left little to chance, mapping out the route and planning each stop. Before beginning the drive, Mitt put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. He had improvised a windshield for the carrier to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.
"Then Mitt put his sons on notice: there would be pre-determined stops for gas, and that was it. Tagg was commandeering the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, when he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. 'Dad!' he yelled. 'Gross!' A brown liquid was dripping down the rear window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
"As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Mitt coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the road with the dog still on the roof.
"It was a preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management. But the story would trail him years later on the national political stage, where the name Seamus would become shorthand for Romney's coldly clinical approach to problem solving."
Problem solving...or problem creation.
Let us not forget that this little "crisis" was entirely of Mitt's own making.
Let us also not forget that this crisis of Mitt's making was because his belief in the superiority of his planning turned out to be bullshit. (Pun only partially intended).
And also let us not forget that after cleaning up the mess of his own creation, he went right back to doing what he'd done in the first place.
I think this story is highly illustrative of what kind of President he would be. Out of touch, non-responsively, not pliant, and tone deaf.
Fortunately, these very same qualities are going to sink him as a Candidate.
The President's somewhat confrontational speech in Cleveland, OH (and we LIKE the confrontation!) (VIDEO)
Oh, and while I remember, there's this, too:
It isn’t just Richard Cordray. Obama is also set to use recess appointments to install his picks to the National Labor Relations Board, according to White House officials and others familiar with ongoing discussions.
The move, which is arguably as important as the Cordray appointment, will ratchet up opposition from Republicans and make this an even bigger fight, since they have been attacking the NLRB regularly for its moves to streamline union elections and inform workers of their rights.
Obama is set to appoint Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin to the board — something unions have made a big priority for them in the new year. Senate Republicans have opposed the recess appointments to the NLRB on constitutional grounds, but unions charge that Republicans are only interested in rendering the agency inoperative.
Obama’s move, which will help energize unions in advance of the 2012 election, is yet another sign that he is determined to circumvent GOP opposition and make government functional again by any means necessary. It’s another sign that the White House and Dems have abandoned the illusion that anything can be done to secure bipartisan compromise with Republicans on the major items on Obama’s agenda.
And why is this important Talking Point Memo's Brian Beutler??
Republicans were threatening to block Obama’s NLRB nominees in a bid to extinguish the board’s power. So just as with Obama’s decision to recess appoint Richard Cordray to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this move does more than fill vacancies. It actually restores the power the agency was given under the law — power Republicans were hoping to strip without passing new legislation.
Who's going around the Constitution again.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
"So I hear you think you know something about Iowa..." (VIDEO)
Made me laugh my ass off it was so good.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
I like Ron Wyden, I respect Ron Wyden, but he needs to get his ass kicked for this...
But the President and Democrats should kick his ass for this. No Privatization of Medicare, ever.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who has been castigated by Democrats and hailed by Republicans for his plan to privatize Medicare, will on Thursday unveil a new approach that would preserve the 46-year-old federal health program.
Working with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the Wisconsin Republican is developing a framework that would keep government-run Medicare as an option for new retirees starting in 2022, along with a variety of private plans.
Seniors would still receive a set amount of money from the government to buy insurance, as they would under the Medicare proposal Ryan included in the budget blueprint that passed the House last year. But the new approach would let that subsidy, known as premium support, rise or fall along with the actual cost of the policies — creating more protection for seniors and saving potentially far less in the budget.
The unusual alliance between Ryan and Wyden could complicate election-year politics for both parties on an explosive issue. In recent days, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has embraced the Ryan privatization plan, and GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich has offered qualified support. Democrats, meanwhile, have been gearing up to challenge the GOP across the board on the issue, accusing Republicans of pushing to “end the Medicare guarantee.”
Ryan and Wyden said in an interview Tuesday that they joined forces in hopes of lifting the Medicare debate above the divisive political rhetoric and forging a genuine compromise that could save the program along with the government’s solvency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)