Rick Santorum...taken advantage of by a rich white man (VIDEO)

For shame, Mr. Santorum...for shame.

Rick Santorum Aborts Presidential Campaign from Ashley Judd

For once, Santorum should've gone with "Anti-Government Blah Person" (VIDEO)

Key point. Rick Santorum does not call our President a N***** int his video.

But he really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, meant to.



I feel very comfortable pronouncing Rick Santorum as a cheap, two bit racist.

How Marcel Guanizo and @SenBobCasey embarrassed me to be a Catholic...this week (VIDEO)

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...

Oh, wait...maybe it's not.

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,

Lawrence O'Donnell had her on last night:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And to repeat what Lawrence read in the video the D.C. archdiocese also stepped up and came correct:

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 now 3) Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania decided to vote for the Blunt Amendment, which thankfully failed.

But I want to remind the Senator that then-Senator Barack Obama took a LOT of grief from Pro-Choice  Activists in the Party for giving him a prime speaking slot at the 2008 Convention in Denver.

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??

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:

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.

What heroism can look like... (VIDEO)

Yes, even here on a political blog, the Penn State Scandal's icy claw can reach in. But this was too good not to share.



To stand against the winds of adversity. To speak against the mob.  Man, that's something.

This may be Veteran's Day, and there may be bolder, more life-threatening, more life-changing kinds of heroism than this, but in terms of what it means to be an American? You'll find few better examples.

And bear in mind, apparently the kid wearing the Dorsett jersey (not a good thing in my mind since I'm a Redskins fan) is a cousin of Dorsett's. All the cheap shots thrown his way? The kid didn't blink. Good for him. I hope he runs for office, because despite his nefarious Dallas Cowboys connection, he may just get my vote..

Make sure you listen to Michael Smerconish's point about new voter Registrations in the Philly Suburbs (VIDEO)

Mainline Republican voters are abandoning the party.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Keith's Latest Busy Night...Part 1 (Selling America out, Edition) (VIDEO)

Keith had a great show last night, and thus had a very busy night.



From Greg Sargent (long and short...it's working, but slowly...maybe too slowly):

As promised, MSNBC's First Read gang releases its NBC/WSJ polling showing that voters do care about the secret cash funding attack ads, despite all the assertions you keep hearing to the contrary:

So how has the White House/Democratic campaign against the GOP-leaning outside groups that have been spending so much on TV ads this midterm cycle fared? Per our poll, 74% say it's a concern that outside groups have their own agenda and care only about electing or defeating candidates based on their own issues; 72% say it's a concern that these groups don't have to disclose who's contributing to them; 71% say it's a concern that the candidates who are helped by these groups could be beholden to their interests; and 68% say they're concerned these groups are funded by unions or large corporations.

First Read's Mark Murray adds this caveat: "Despite these concerns, our pollsters say that the White House/Dem campaign against these outside groups hasn't changed the overall dynamics of this election."

I think Admiral/Represenative Sestak would beg to differ.

The President's now annual Back to School Speech

Hopefully, this one won't be condemned as a Social Plot:

Hatred at the Carnival

Don't be suprised when the Secret Service comes knocking on your door:

ALLENTOWN, Pa. — The head of an eastern Pennsylvania amusement company has yanked a carnival game in which players shot foam darts at an image resembling President Barack Obama.

Irvin Good Jr. pulled the target-shooting game after receiving a complaint from a Massachusetts woman attending a fair in Roseto, about 65 miles north of Philadelphia. Good said Wednesday his company, Hellertown-based Goodtime Amusements, won't offer the game again.

"It was just a big, big mistake in judgment, and I feel sorry about it," he told The Associated Press. "I can't take it back, but I can try to make it better."

The game, dubbed "Alien Attack," featured a large painted image of a black man wearing a belt buckle with the presidential seal and holding a scroll labeled "Health Bill." Players could win prizes such as stuffed animals by hitting targets on the image's head and heart.

Via HuffPo.

"Moving Forward on a New Foundation" (VIDEO)

The video of the President's speech today at Carnegie Mellon University.

The President's Press Conference of May 27, 2010 (VIDEO)

This was a good press conference. I thought the questions were tough and fair. I'd give the President a B- or C+ for his presentation. (I'm sorry, I know the man is saying trust us, we're doing everything in our power, acknowledging that there are and will be screw ups...but as long as the oil is coming onshore, you're always going to wonder...which the President acknowledged too.)

Let me take a moment to crack on Randi Rhodes, who spent a good chunk of his air time today complaining that the President didn't address the issue of mobile health clinics for workers who are getting sick. Apparently, a Congressman wrote him him a letter detailing the request. Still he didn't speak of it.

Let me get this straight Randi, you're complaining that the President didn't answer a question he wasn't asked.

Okay.

The only wastes of time in the whole preceding was Helen Thomas' question about Afghanistan toward the middle, and Major Garrett's (Fox Noise) sub-question about Joe Sestak toward the end. Since I just got finished reading a passage in The Promise about the President's war with Fox Noise, I had to wonder if shutting them out wasn't the best policy.

But Helen Thomas demanding to know, with a note of rage in her voice, why we were in Afghanistan, to me, bordered on pathetic. (Part of it was the nature of her question, most of it was time and place.)



P.S. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote on his blog that he hoped that the Press Corps would ask him about pushing on the Energy Bill currently stalled in the Senate because Lindsay Graham is throwing a hissy-fit.

I wrote Greg and bet him five bucks that the question would be asked...

Turns out...I think I owe Greg Sargent five bucks. Because while the President answered the questions, several times in fact, about the Energy Bill...no one in the Press Corps asked the question to begin with.

Don't go counting your...ahem...chickens...

Josh has a warning for those who think that the Dems are about to get trouched in the upcoming midterms:

It's easy to overstate the power of money in a political race. So long as both candidates have a threshold amount of money adequate to get a message out, it's hard for a money advantage to save a candidate who has the odds really stacked against them. But Christina Bellantoni points out that a number of the most endangered Senate Dems -- Reid, Lincoln, Specter, Boxer, et al. -- all have lots more money in the bank than their GOP rivals, even as they're struggling to do degrees in the polls. In the case of Harry Reid, for instance, something like 30 times as much as his likely rival.

Money can only do so much. And there's no way national Republicans won't at the very least adequately fund these challengers. But the disparities are great enough that it's made me rethink at least a little what I think is going to happen in these races.

TPM: Tussle breaks out at Specter Town Hall...this morning (VIDEO)

From Huffington Post:

Senator Arlen Specter, (D-Penn.) faced an overwhelmingly hostile crowd on Tuesday, with attendees at a town hall forum challenging him with a host of deeply cynical and occasionally erroneous allegations about the president's health care agenda.

One man threatened the senator with God's wrath. "One day, God's gonna stand before you," he said. "And he's gonna judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill, and then you can get your just deserts."

Here comes Employee Free Choice...

I hope to God this compromise is okay, and doesn't screw the Unions.

I'm getting this from Jane Hamsher's blogpost on HuffPo, but the data really comes from the National Journal (subscriber only).

[Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.

...and I did mention the part where Diane Feinstein wants to be Governor of Union heavy California, right?? Being the one to stop EFCA's passage is a good way to make sure you don't become Governor.

The GOP inherits the wind...

Believe it or not, Arlen Specter’s move wasn’t all that surprising.

I mean, think about it. This is how the cycle works. This is the process a party goes through when its knocked out of power.

The process is fairly routine. After a voter rebellion, the party out of power goes through some soul searching, a reformation if you will. During this time, the old guard fades away (either through retirements or being kicked out by the voters). The party becomes a more ideologically pure, while at the same time bringing on new talent (i.e. candidates) that will show the battered survivors new ways to communicate the overall Republican brand with the voters, and eventually find their way back to electoral triumph.

The only difference in this story is Arlen Specter, instead of waiting to be voted out of office, chose to jump ship. Rare, but it's happened before with Jim Jeffords and Joe Lieberman. It'll probably happen again.

After you take a bath like the Republicans have done, your big tent is going to be, by necessity, a wee-bit smaller. Once you get the riff-raff out of there, you can start widening it again.

But just remember, Republicans, when the new arrivals come onboard, not everybody is going to be of the same ideological stripe. But they’ll all agree that losing sucks, and it’s better to be in power than out of power. Everyone will hang together, hold their noses and vote for someone tolerable, someone with broad, national appeal. Once that happens, you can start winning again.

That being said, fellow Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, one of these days, the GOP Reformation will be complete. One of these days, they will be back in power. It’s inevitable. The last guy who thought there could be one party in permanent majority was Karl Rove.

It’s going to happen.

The only question is when.

However, the way the GOP is handling this reformation, I can tell you, it’s going to be long time.

And I mean a loooooooooooooooonnnnnnng time.

I already thought 2012 was a lost cause for them. Now, I’m starting to wonder if 2016 is toast as well.

If there is a reason that the Republican Party did as well as it did in the 1980s is that the Goldwater Wing of the Party, led by its ideological scion, Ronald Reagan, expanded the tent to include the Libertarians, Neocons/National Defense Hawks, Club For Growth Types and Religious Conservatives, all under his flag. That coalition held together for many years, despite losing power to Bill Clinton for a little while. Then, come 2000, the Neocons and the Religious Conservatives took over the party, pushed aside the Goldwater types, and promptly ran the Party into the ground (along with the country, but that’s the subject of another posting).

Right now, the Republicans should be turning to their Goldwater Wing to go “pick them a winner”. But that’s not happening, is it? Instead, the very factions of the Conservative movement that drove them into that ditch are somehow complaining they weren’t allowed to drive.

This particular wing of the party, the ones that lost you the 2008 Election, the people that left the country in such a state that it allowed African-American to be voted into Office, is actually out there yelling louder and louder that their ideas are the only one’s of merit.

Hell, they’re actually out they’re saying the they’re the only people who should be listened to, period (and not just in the party, but nationally).

It’s not like the Goldwater wing has died off or anything: Gov. Charlie Crist (FL), Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA), Senator Olympia Snowe (ME), Senator Susan Collins (ME), the 2000 era John McCain, not the guy who ran in 2008, and Senator Arlen—

--whoops.

But that’s just the point, isn’t it. Not only are these guys not running the show, they’re getting better deals from the Democrats, you know…the party they’re supposed to oppose??

Crist, Collins and Snowe both worked with President Obama to get the Stimulus passed. Schwarzenegger practically has a man-crush on the President. The 2000 era John McCain was asked to switch parties (alledgedly) by John Kerry. (As a side note, who would’ve been our Party’s nominee in 2008 if that had happened??!)

And Arlen Specter was so disgusted he left the Party all together.

What does this tell you!??

Apparently, nothing.

I think the threat to the country presented by [the defection of Arlen Specter] really relates to the issue of whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority to have whatever it wants without restraint, without a check or a balance.

- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest -- Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first.

- RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

To tell you how sad things are. Even Bay Buchanan has a better grip on things than some of her colleagues on the right:

Did he give us a few things? Did he owe President Bush something because he flew into the fray in 2004 and saved him in the primary with Toomey? Were we able to call in a few chits? Absolutely. And now the Democrats will call in their chits. This is not good for Republicans. I’m not going to tell you that we’re cleansing the party and that this is good for Republicans.

In the same article, even Gary Bauer showed flashes of sanity:

I would remind folks that Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush to be his running mate. Ronald Reagan understood that there was another element of the party that needed to be brought along. We gain nothing if we replace RINOS with Democrats.

My personal expectation is that the American people have decided to give the new President a chance to un!@#$ us out of our current dilemma, thus, they will give him time. My personal bet is that very little changes in the House in the 2010 Midterms, and maybe a few seats gain for Democrats in the Senate.

And that’s assuming we stay on the economic path we’ve been on. If things start to look up, start to feel better, or worse (for Republicans) start to turn toward recovery, then look to 1936’s Congressional Composition as a marker (where there were only 17 Republicans in the Senate).

If that is the future you want, then by all means, keep plowing ahead. But there needs to be a debate in this country about our future and our direction. And even I, the consummate Republican hater, know they have good ideas to contribute. But "He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."

That was an actual Bible quote, fellas. (Trust me, I'm impressed myself).

But, I thought the Bible was a Book that the "Party of Family Values" was at least somewhat familiar with.

I'm not sure I, nor my party, nor the President himself can lay claim to being all that wise of heart. We're just doing the best we can. But there's little doubt as to who is the fool in this equation.

Republicans, if you ever wonder why you lose...

...this would be the reason why:

I think the threat to the country presented by [the defection of Arlen Specter] really relates to the issue of whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority to have whatever it wants without restraint, without a check or a balance.

- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Think Progress: U.S. Attorney refuses to quit...

According to Think Progress, Mary Beth Buchanan, U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh is refusing to vacate her post.

“It doesn’t serve justice for all the U.S. attorneys to submit their resignations all at one time,” she said yesterday.

More than that, she said she would consider working in the Obama administration. She would not discuss what her future might hold beyond the U.S. attorney’s office.

“I am open to considering further service to the United States,” Ms. Buchanan said.

I got an idea. On January 20th, 2008, Fire her.

UPDATE (10:58am Pacific) Let me also emphasize that I don't think this woman would have the temerity to do this if Barack Obama were white.