Here’s a clear difference between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama: Mr. Romney said he won’t be filling out an NCAA college basketball tournament bracket this year.
“I’m not plugged in well enough this year to do that,” Mr. Romney told reporters traveling with him on Tuesday in Missouri, the Associated Press reported.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is making his choices public again this year. The First Fan even brought British Prime Minister David Cameron to a “First Four” game in Dayton, Ohio, on Tuesday between Mississippi Valley State and Western Kentucky. ESPN disclosed the president’s Final Four picks — Kentucky, Ohio State, Missouri and North Carolina – and will release his entire bracket on Wednesday.
Was it just me, or was the tone of the piece just a little bit snide?
A reader on the Daily Dish pointed something about this video that pretty much parallels what I thought all day:
When I saw that video making the rounds yesterday, I didn't watch it. Do you know why? I'd already SEEN it. It was part of a PBS Frontline documentary that came out in 2008. It's available for instant streaming on Netflix. Dud, indeed.
Here now is the Frontline Segment that I too saw, and downloaded, YEARS ago:
Hmm. Took ten times the grief from the Liberals on the Law Review than the Conservatives. Now where have I heard that before?
Okay, so 1) The Bishops decide to dictate to Non-Catholics whether or not they get access to Birth Control, under the guise of "protecting Religious Freedom". That was sooo last week...
2) Then, Rev. Marcel Guanizo decided to deny Barbara Johnson (no relation) communion at her Mother's Funeral Mass, because Ms. Johnson is a Lesbian.
Rev. Guanizo also got up and left as she gave her Eulogy...again, at her Mother's Funeral Mass. He also refused to attend or say prayer for the funeral for Ms. Johnson's Mother...who, it needs to be repeated, was not Gay.
Fortunately, the Funeral Home Director really stepped up, found a retired Priest to perform the last of the rites that needed to be performed,
Late Tuesday, Johnson received a letter of apology from the Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.”
“I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity,” Knestout wrote. “I hope that healing and reconciliation with the Church might be possible for you and any others who were affected by this experience. In the meantime, I will offer Mass for the happy repose of your mother’s soul. May God bring you and your family comfort in your grief and hope in the Resurrection.”
Johnson called the letter “comforting” and said she greatly appreciates the apology. But, she added, “I will not be satisfied” until Guarnizo is removed.
Amen, Sister.
But let's be clear, that was full-on, full-throated apology from Rev. Knestout. No "I'm sorry if you were offended". No, this was a "we did wrong, and we will make amends."
Rev. Barry Knestout and the unnamed Funeral Director who came through for Ms. Johnson? You both made me proud to be a Catholic, but that's been tough sledding in 2012.
And this is how he sees fit to repay the President.
More to the point, this is how he sees fit to "protect" religious freedom, which I'm sure is his argument. He wants to protect his religious freedom, by screwing you out of yours.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, don't even bother calling me. Ben Nelson, Bob Manchin and now Ben Casey are today's reasons I don't give a dime to that organization. I will give money to Democratic Senators directly. I will give money to Senators who represent my interests, and not try to impose their Religious views on Non-Catholics.
Okay, Mother Church. It's only Thursday. What else have you got for me??
Not quite as good as his previous musical efforts, but hey...unlike Mittens, at least he's trying!
But back to the main point, there was a Blues Concert last night at the White House:
And Michelle doing her bit:
Update: Feb. 22, 2012, 2:51pm: My bad. It wasn't B.B. who challenged the President to sing. (He was seated in the glitter jacket, with Lucille on his lap). It was Buddy Guy.
The Maine Republican Party is recounting the vote totals from the Maine caucuses which mostly concluded last Saturday when Mitt Romney was declared the winner, reports Politico. Due to a snow storm, Washington County postponed its caucus and will be convening this Saturday to complete it. The state GOP has come under fire from Ron Paul supporters for declaring Romney the winner before all voting was completed.
And yes, despite Lawrence's admonition, Mark Shields went on and on.
Unanswered was the question, in both segments was this: Why should the Catholic Church be able to enforce Catholic Dogma on it's employees who work for Catholic Organization who are not Catholic.
Instead all we heard was the alleged oppression being put upon the Church, which...if you remember history, is just a damn joke.
Another way to ask the question is: Why should the Catholic Church control the sex lives of Non-Catholic, or anyone else for that matter?
Or how about this one: Mad as I am about the Catholic Sex Scandal, I don't want to pay for Father Donovan's Heart Medication. Can I have a exemption, too? Or is it more important that we have a Civilization here, and pay for each other's stuff...even if we don't use it?
But finally buried in the din...was Rachel Maddow...and Rachel sounding uber-reasonable, and quiet, underhandedly scolding her journalistic colleages (namely Shields and Matthews).
Basically, I want two things from Chris Matthews...but expect only one.
It'd be really nice if stop hawking his book on Jack Kennedy every ten seconds, but hey a fella can dream, can't he?
But what I really expect is for Chris Matthews to stop using MSNBC as a personal platform to provide cover for the Church, of which he and I are members. He has not provided an impartial platform and instead used the network to flog and issue that is 110% bullshit.
Ethics, Chris. I thought they were important to Catholics. Maybe that's just lip service.
(Actually, as a Catholic, and knowing our history...yeah, it's lip service.)
Sarah Kliff, working for Ezra Klein's Wonkbook, published this handy-dandy fact check on the President's new regulations regarding Health Insurance Companies...note: Health Insurance Companies...having to cover contraception under the Affordable Care act.
Religious Institutions who employ people in their religion have an exemption.
Naturally, Religious Institutions who employ people outside their religion are in a snit over the fact that they won't be able to impose their religious values over their employees. (Catholic Hospitals of America...Chris Matthews of Hardall...I'm talkin' to you!)
The health reform law requires that insurance companies cover preventive services for women without any co-pay beginning this summer. It did not, however, specify what services to cover — that was left to the Obama administration. With guidance from the Institute of Medicine on the issue, Health and Human Services published a regulation on Aug. 1, 2011 that included birth control as part of the preventive package. That regulation also had a conscience clause, which allows religious employers who object to birth control — and also primarily employ those of their own religion — to be exempt from the requirement. That would allow churches to opt out of the new requirement.
What’s the fight about now?
Some religious leaders say that the exemption wasn’t wide enough: That the Obama administration should allow all faith-based employers regardless of who they employ, to opt out of the new requirement if they object to contraceptives. This wider definition would exempt, among others, Catholic hospitals. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has lobbied aggressively for this wider conscience clause, as have a number of prominent Catholics who supported the health reform law. But in final regulations last month, the Obama administration did not expand the exemption.
Let’s say the Obama administration had expanded the conscience clause. Would that allow Catholic hospitals not to provide birth control to their patients?
No, it would not. This regulation only applies to the health insurance that a hospital, charity or other employer provides for its employees. It does not regulate the care that a Catholic charity provides to its patients. As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote recently in a USA Today op-ed, “our rule has no effect on the long-standing conscience clause protections for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception.”
What happens next?
Two Catholic universities have already filed lawsuits challenging the mandated coverage of contraceptives as a violation of religious freedoms protected under the First Amendment. The Catholic bishops are also looking to file a similar challenge, and some observers expect these challenges could wind their way up to the Supreme Court.
The new rule is starting to play a political role, too, in the 2012 election. Republican candidates have come out against the contraceptive requirement. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted it as “a direct assault of freedom of religion.” The Obama campaign and its allies have repeatedly defended the new requirement, attacking the Republican field as anti-contraceptives.
How have contraceptive mandates been handled previously?
Twenty-eight states currently require insurance plans to cover contraceptives, although two exclude emergency contraceptives from that mandate.
Nine states do not have conscience clause. Four states have what the Guttmacher Institute describes as “narrow” exemptions, similar to the federal one, which allows churches and other institutions that primarily employ those of their own religion to opt out. Seven states have “broader” exemptions that cover other religious institutions, but not hospitals. Then eight states have “expansive” conscience clauses that allow at least some hospitals not to provide contraceptive coverage.
What about if you get health care through your employer?
Approximately 90 percent of employer-based insurance plans cover contraceptives, according to the Guttmacher Institute, although many may charge co-pays for birth control, which the health reform law will eliminate.
Though Matt's question about meeting with Romney was ridiculous. He is aware the President has a day job, right? And for the record, I'm glad the President didn't answer the question (which I took to mean "what's the friggin' point, Matt"?)
And disappointment? You're on that canard, Matt??! Seriously?
Syria, the GOP Primary battles, and his time in the Spotlight:
[A]s befitting a car commercial, is that it focuses on the revitalization of Detroit as a template for pushing the country forward. This echoes language the president used in his State of the Union last month:
Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.
Not only should you expect to hear more like this as the year continues, but don’t be surprised if the Obama campaign’s positive advertisements look and sound a lot like Chrysler’s.
I love how Lawrence O'Donnell ended the discussion: Name the program that Republicans passed that helped African-Americans out of poverty.
It wasn't quite crickets, but...given what Rick Tyler vomited up, it was damn close.
Also, I'm getting sick of Republicans trying to pretend racial hostility to this President isn't a dynamic worming its way through this election. Tyler spent quite a deal of time saying that it was MSNBC who brought it up.
Tyler's answer was similar to Kennedy's appearance on the Bill Maher show last week saying that the Brewer-Obama confrontation was about sexism, not racism.
(Editor's note: Of course, I can't find any video to back that claim up. The closest I could find is below, where you can see Kennedy getting revved up.)
Despite the lack of video, Kennedy falls into the Willing category, as in willing to provide cover to enable racist behavior.
Anyway, back to the main subject. That all being said, I wasn't with Rachel on this one. I hate giving anyone a pass, but what Gingrich but it didn't make me cringe. I kinda stared at him and went "Really? That's what you're going with?"
Remember, I'm an expert at what offends African-Americans, given that I'm...you know...African-American.
You want to see what did offend me? The "jig" comment dropped by Jennifer, a questioner on the Google Hangout earlier this week. It was replayed on the Daily Show (wait till about 1:59 into the video):
I wish I could be a little more sympathetic, but...do you see know what happens when you vote Republican, or "send the President a message" or sit on your hands on Election Day? You get this:
With a sweeping series of bills introduced Monday night in the state Senate, Republicans in Arizona hoped to make Wisconsin’s battle against public unions last year look like a lightweight sparring match.
The bills include a total ban on collective bargaining for Arizona’s public employees, including at the city and county levels. The move would outpace even the tough bargaining restrictions enacted in Wisconsin in 2011 that led to massive union protests and a Democratic effort to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
“At first glance, it looks like an all out assault on the right of workers to organize,” Senate Minority Leader David Schapira (D) told TPM on Tuesday. “And to me, that’s a serious problem.”
The bills were crafted with the help of the Goldwater Institute, a powerful conservative think tank in Phoenix that flew Walker to the state for an event in November. Nick Dranias, director of the institute’s Center for Constitutional Government, told TPM he sees Walker as a “hero” but that Wisconsin’s laws were “modest” compared to Arizona’s measures.
“In Arizona, we believe that the political will exists to do even more comprehensive reform,” Dranias said. “The environment, the climate that we face in Arizona is much more receptive to these kinds of reforms than Wisconsin is.”
Look at that last paragraph, Arizona. You were pissed off about the Economy, yet the Electeds have chosen only to hear an anti-Labor message from your Vote in November of 2010.
The question is, are you going to let them get away with it?
Virginia is joining the growing number of states attempting to pass a voter ID bill that could jeopardize the voting rights of millions of minorities, low-income voters, students, and seniors. Today, the AARP — a non-partisan non-profit organization for senior citizens — warned state GOP lawmakers that their voter ID bill could disenfranchise a great number of Virginia’s seniors. Noting that “a good percentage — about 18 percent of people 65 and older” don’t have a photo ID, the non-profit said the bill “could mean a lot of seniors will choose to stay home.” Though the bill allows for a provisional ballot if the voter lacks ID, the AARP says the bill “sends a negative message to a powerful block of voters.” “Older people want to stay connected. That is one of their greatest privileges is to be able to vote. We want them to know their vote counts and to encourage them to get to the polls,” stated AARP. Virginia General Assembly’s black caucus is holding a protect the vote rally today in opposition as well.
The idea that Romney can "think on his feet," and that Obama is all "flash," expresses a common right-wing trope that Obama is actually an idiot: a charismatic speaker but helpless when not reading from prepared text. That is the basis for the GOP's otherwise inscrutable obsession with TelePrompTer jokes - the TelePrompTer is an extremely common political tool, but many conservatives have come to believe that Obama would be helpless without it. That belief accounts for a major portion of Gingrich's appeal -- he has painted an appealing picture of himself exposing the stammering dope in a lengthy series of debates. Among other problems, this fantasy ignores the actual history of Obama's debate performances ...
Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday he wouldn’t rule out voting for President Barack Obama in November.
Crist — who was a member of the Republican party until 2010 and is now a registered independent — said in interviews with MSNBC and CNN that he would “consider” casting his ballot for Obama on election day.
“Consider? Sure, I would consider that,” Crist said on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.” “I really think he’s sincere and genuine. I think we have a lot time, a lot of issues to talk about, but I think, in his heart, he’s trying to do what’s right for the country overall.”
And in an interview with CNN, Crist pointed to the improving economy as a reason he might vote for Obama in November.
The Official Site of Dogs Against Romney(TM) founded 2007. Hi, I'm Rusty. Mitt Romney is mean to dogs. Help me get my message out about the Mitt Romney dog on roof story. Putting a dog on the car roof is abuse. Remember Crate-Gate.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 @#$%.
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.
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.
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] is not stupid. 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?
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.
