Morning Must Reads: Arsenal

  • Share
  • Read Later
180 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
paulejb
paulejb

One would wonder if the late, great Sylvia Woods the Queen of Soul Food would agree with Barack Obama that  someone else made her success happen.

La_Randy
La_Randy

Well there was that Civil War thing idiot! 

outsider2011
outsider2011

WASHINGTON -- Death panels are back.

Three Democratic candidates in Illinois are facing ads from a

conservative group alleging that voting for them will lead to "a panel

of bureaucrats who can decide what treatment you receive, despite what

your doctor thinks."

This claim about the Affordable Care Act was hot in 2009, when former

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) claimed that Americans would have to "stand in front of Obama's 'death panel'

so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their

'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health

care." Politifact gave the "death panels" myth its "Lie of the Year" distinction.

Now, the New Prosperity Foundation -- a political group based in Chicago that is attempting to elect Republicans in the Midwest -- is reviving this claim.

The group is running ads against Democratic congressional candidates

Tammy Duckworth, Bill Foster and Brad Schneider, charging that if they

are elected, they will increase government control over health care.

At issue is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member

commission that would make recommendations to Congress for lowering

Medicare spending. Republicans have charged that this board would "ration" care.

As Igor Volsky at ThinkProgress explains, IPAB kicks in only if health care spending increases beyond a specific threshold.

Additionally, under the Affordable Care Act, IPAB is prohibited from

rationing care and won't be making individual decisions on what patients

receive.

IPAB's recommendations cannot "include any recommendation to ration health care,

raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums … increase Medicare

beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-

payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility

criteria."

Palin has continued to push the death panel claim.

"As we wait for the impending Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, I

reiterate what I wrote in my first post on this topic nearly three years

ago," Palin wrote in a June Facebook post titled "'Death Panel' Three Years Later."

"I stand by everything I wrote in that warning to my fellow Americans

because what was true then is true now, and it will remain true as we

hear what the Supreme Court has to say."

The conservative rationale for death panels has changed over time -- first focusing on a provision allowing Medicare to cover end-of-life counseling by physicians (which was eventually abandoned by the Obama administration) and then shifting attention to IPAB.

New Prosperity is a super PAC and was also active in the 2010 elections. It received funding from several wealthy donors who were so-called Bush Pioneers from 2000 and 2004.

The New Prosperity Foundation did not return a request for comment on the new ads. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 WASHINGTON -- The Internal Revenue Service is considering changes to

the rules on nonprofits that now let certain political groups run attack

ads while not publicly disclosing the identities of their donors,

according to a July 17 letter.

The IRS' announced review of rules governing 501(c)(4) "social

welfare" nonprofits that are funded by undisclosed "dark money" comes in

response to a series of letters sent by the campaign finance reform

groups Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center. The groups had jointly

petitioned the IRS not only to review the regulations governing this

class of nonprofit, but also to individually investigate specific

groups, including Karl Rove-linked Crossroads GPS, pro-Barack Obama

Priorities USA and the American Action Network, which is headed by

former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.).

"It appears to us to be significant," said Democracy 21 President

Fred Wertheimer about the July 17 letter. "As far as we know, this is

the first time the IRS has publicly stated that it will consider rules

changes to the regulations that deal with the eligibility of 501(c)(4)

groups."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative anti-tax group, is taking

shots at Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) for donating to Senate Democrat Joe

Manchin of West Virginia.

Grover Norquist, president of

the group, noted in a Twitter posting Sunday that Manchin had a

15-percent rating by the American Conservative Union in 2011.

That

was followed by a salvo of tweets from John Kartch, director of

communications at Americans for Tax Reform, taking Coburn to task.

One post highlighted Coburn’s and Manchin’s shared support of the

Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan. Another cited House Budget

Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) estimate that Bowles-Simpson

would raise taxes by $2 trillion over 10 years.

“Coburn says he

gave money to Manchin (D) because Manchin supports Simpson-Bowles, a $ 1

- 3 TRILLION tax hike,” Kartch wrote in another tweet.

Coburn

told The Hill he gave $ 250 to Manchin’s campaign on June 27 because his

colleague shares his concerns for the long-term interests of the nation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/se...

outsider2011
outsider2011

Crazy 0 still Crazy - and it's still being written about:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has alleged that the Muslim

Brotherhood has infiltrated the top levels of the U.S. government but

Muslim Brotherhood representatives say that this is news to its

organization.

"I haven’t heard these rumors, but they strike me as ridiculous,"

said Ahmed Al Nahhas, a longtime activist and leader in Alexandria,

Egypt, told the online outlet GlobalPost. "Surely the United States government selects its employees very carefully."

Another member was more self-deprecating. "The Muslim Brotherhood

can’t even penetrate the Egyptian government," said Ibrahim Ali Iraqi, a

leader in the Daqheleya province, to the Post.

Bachmann, joined by four Republican House members, addressed letters to several inspectors general

alleging Muslim Brotherhood influence in the Defense, Homeland

Security, Justice and State departments and the Office of the Director

of National Intelligence.

Huma Abedin, an aide to Secretary Hillary Clinton, was described by

Bachmann as having "three family members -- her late father, her mother

and her brother -- connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or

organizations." In turn, the letter alleged that the State Department

has taken recent actions that have been "enormously favorable" to the

Muslim Brotherhood.

These claims havedrawn a strong rebuke from other lawmakers,

including several prominent Republicans. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took to the Senate floor to defend Abedin on Wednesday, calling the attacks "unwarranted and unfounded."

"Never mind that one of those individuals, Huma’s father, passed away

two decades ago," McCain said. "The letter and the report offer not one

instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has

taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the

charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our

government."

Abedin, who married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), has since been reportedly been placed under police protection after an unspecified threat.

A Bachmann representative did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D-Ohio) reelection campaign is fundraising off a

conservative blogger's email screw-up with the senator's wife.

A blogger recently emailed Connie Schultz, a political columnist previously with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, about why she appeared to be so cozy with Brown in photographs.

"We are doing an exposé on journalists in the elite media who

socialize with elected officials they are assigned to cover," wrote the

blogger, whom Schultz has declined to name. "We have found numerous

photos of you with Sen. Sherrod Brown. In one of them, you appear to be

hugging him."

Schultz, of course, is married to the senator, which accounts for why they show affection toward one another sometimes.

"I am surprised you did not find a photo of me kissing U.S. Sen.

Sherrod Brown so hard he passes out from lack of oxygen. He's really

cute," replied Schultz in a return email. "He's also my husband. You

know that, right?"

On Monday, the Brown campaign sent out a fundraising email from Schultz's daughter, Caitlin Schultz Gard:

Go, Mom. Fierce, funny, and direct is the only way to keep these conservative bloggers in their place.Unfortunately, most of the attacks coming Sherrod’s way in this campaign are much less true, and much less funny.

Sherrod knows he'll always have us by his side when things get

tough. But I know how much he leans on all of you as well. So I want to

say thanks for helping us get his back.

By the way, Mom never heard back from that conservative blogger. But

we'd always love to hear from you -- especially if you can help the

campaign fight back against all these outrageous attacks.

Brown is facing a tight election against Ohio State Treasurer Josh Mandel (R) and has been the target of millions of dollars of spending by conservative groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 Latino Voters Less Enthusiastic About Romney After Hearing His SB 1070 Views

Most Latino voters aren't sure what Mitt Romney thinks about Arizona

immigration law SB 1070, which he has repeatedly declined to officially

support or condemn, according to a poll released Monday by Latino Decisions.

But his statements on SB 1070 could be damaging nonetheless, the poll

found, with 57 percent of Latino voters saying they were less

enthusiastic about Romney based on what he has said about the law.

Romney is far behind Obama with Latino voters, and his stances -- or

lack thereof -- on immigration don't appear to be helping. Though the

issue isn't the top-ranked priority for Latino voters, the poll released

Monday showed that it can influence enthusiasm, important to both

candidates as they try to draw Hispanics to the polls in November.

"These findings paint a pretty clear picture that immigration-related

issues are a defining mobilizing issue for this fast-growing group of

voters," America's Voice Executive Director Frank Sharry said on a call

with reporters. "Mitt Romney has handled this issue in a way that's

really hurt him."

The poll was done for pro-immigration reform groups America's Voice

and the Center for American Progress, with 504 phone interviews in

English and Spanish. Latino Decisions released results of one section of

the poll last week, announcing that 70 percent of respondents said they

favor Obama, over 22 percent who prefer Obama.

Latino Decisions found that more voters who knew about Obama's stance

on SB 1070, the Arizona law his Justice Department successfully blocked

in part through a federal lawsuit, rank themselves as very enthusiastic

compared to those who do not know his views.

Latino voters aren't very convinced by arguments for SB 1070 -- 70

percent said they disagree that the law could make Arizona more safe,

while only 27 percent said they think it would make the state less safe,

according to the poll. Strong majorities also said they believe the law

would make it likely for legal immigrant or U.S. citizen Latinos to be

stopped or questioned by police, and may make immigrants less likely to

call the police. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 Mitt Romney Immigration Record As Massachusetts Governor Proved Mixed Bag

BOSTON -- Mitt Romney adopted a mixed bag of immigration policies during his four years as Massachusetts governor.

He fought against in-state college tuition rates for undocumented

immigrants, pushed hard to give state troopers expanded powers to arrest

those in the country without documentation, and championed English-only

classes for bilingual education students.

Yet Romney also showed a more compassionate side, personally

interceding on behalf of an immigrant teacher facing deportation whose

case drew heavy news coverage across the state. In 2004, Romney signed

into law a requirement that immigration judges warn non-citizen

defendants that pleading guilty to certain crimes could ultimately lead

to their deportation.

Romney has recommended more funding for English as a Second Language

programs because he wanted to help newcomers to this country become

better equipped to compete for jobs by learning English, his campaign

noted.

Romney's varied record on immigration after being elected governor in

2002 could help shed light on how he'd tackle the issue if he becomes

president.

"Mitt Romney's view is that immigration is what built this country

and that we should encourage legal immigration, but that we are also a

nation of laws and that we should say no to illegal immigration," Romney

spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in an e-mailed statement. "This very

simple view is what informed Mitt Romney's policies as governor."

Candidate Romney has presented differing profiles during the 2012 campaign.

He struck a hard line during the GOP primary season as he courted

conservative voters, but softened his rhetoric on immigration after

emerging as the likely Republican nominee, seeking to gain ground with

Latino voters critical to his chances in the fall against President

Barack Obama.

Romney's campaign is working to woo Hispanics who have supported

Democrats in previous presidential elections. Their support is expected

to be critical in battleground states such as Nevada, Florida, Virginia

and Colorado, where significant populations with Mexican and Central

American origins are especially worried about immigration policy.

Heading into the leadoff Iowa caucuses in January and facing the

challenge of winning over the right-wing GOP base, Romney vowed to veto

the so-called DREAM Act, a bill backed by Democrats that would create a

path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as

children.

Romney's tough talk bothered many immigrants. Instead of emphasizing

the plight of undocumented immigrants, he focused on the consequences

unauthorized immigration has for U.S. jobs.

He hasn't said whether he would reverse Obama's decision this year to

stop deporting some undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as

children. Romney has said Obama's executive order to allow some of them

to obtain work permits and stay in the U.S. was problematic because it

can be reversed by subsequent presidents.

Complaining that the nation's immigration laws have become a

"muddle," Romney has called for a national strategy and pledged he would

tackle immigration during his first year in office.

He's stressed his support for giving legal status to undocumented

immigrants who serve in the military. He favors a U.S.-Mexico border

fence. But he's also vowed to "staple a green card" to the diplomas of

immigrants who receive advanced degrees.

Romney supports establishing an immigration-status verification

system for employers and he would punish them if they hire non-citizens

who do not prove their legal status. He backs more visas for holders of

advanced degrees in math, science and engineering who have U.S. job

offers, and he would award permanent residency to foreign students who

graduate from U.S. schools with a degree in those fields.

As governor, Romney generally opposed initiatives favored by

immigration advocates, although they occasionally found common ground.

One of Romney's more contentious decisions came late in his term in

2006 when he signed an agreement with federal authorities allowing

Massachusetts State Police troopers to arrest and seek deportation of

suspected undocumented immigrants they encounter during their normal

duties.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 The 2011 argument about the debt ceiling cost the U.S. government about

$ 1.3 billion in extra borrowing costs, according to a new study. And

that's just the costs that they bothered to count.

But you know - the debt and deficit are important to the GOP.

As long as there isn't a republican in the wh, anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 WASHINGTON -- The poor and middle classes have shouldered by far the

heaviest burdens of the global political obsession with austerity

policies over the past three years. In the United States, budget cuts

have forced states to reduce education, public transportation,

affordable housing and other social services. In Europe, welfare cuts

have driven some severely disabled individuals to fear for their lives.

But the austerity game also has winners. Cutting or eliminating

government programs that benefit the less advantaged has long been an

ideological goal of conservatives. Doing so also generates a tidy

windfall for the corporate class, as government services are privatized

and savings from austerity pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens.

U.S. financial interests that stand to gain from Medicare, Medicaid

and Social Security cutbacks "have been the core of the big con," the

"propaganda," that those programs are in crisis and must be slashed,

said James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas.

Advocates of austerity measures have sold their proposals as a means to improve the economy.

"It is an error to think that fiscal austerity is a threat to growth

and job creation," declared European Central Bank President Jean-Claude

Trichet in July 2010.

"We're going to cut spending to get the debt down, help create jobs

and prosperity, and reform government programs," vowed Rep. Paul Ryan

(R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, in a February 2011 commentary

for Real Clear Politics. Ryan would later declare that his budget plan,

with far more aggressive austerity measures than those ultimately

enacted by Congress -- including $6.2 trillion in spending cuts -- would

have spurred $ 1.5 trillion in economic growth and created 2.5 million jobs.

As for the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan, it is often

described by Beltway insiders as a "centrist" proposal that could "bring the country together" and improve the economy. In fact, Simpson-Bowles is yet another austerity program

that would cut Medicare and Social Security while securing tax breaks

for corporations and the well-off, according to an analysis by the

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of the bipartisan commission that worked

on the plan, is a director at Morgan Stanley, the sixth-largest American

bank and a financial institution for which the United States made huge

commitments to help it weather the economic downturn. Morgan Stanley

took $ 10 billion in bailout funds under the Troubled Asset Relief

Program and received more than $ 100 billion a day in cheap loans from

the Federal Reserve at the height of the past financial crisis. For

weeks, Morgan Stanley borrowed more money from the Fed than the company's stock market value.

That solicitude for the profits of big corporations shows up in

Simpson-Bowles too. The plan offers multiple corporate tax reform

proposals, but one, which calls for shifting to a so-called territorial

tax system, would be especially advantageous to Morgan Stanley and other

Wall Street banks. It would allow U.S. companies to permanently avoid

paying U.S. taxes on overseas income, including money stashed in

offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands. According to a 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office, Morgan Stanley operates 273 sub-companies headquartered in such tax havens.

While Social Security advocates have attacked the plan, the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group for corporate CEOs, has praised Simpson-Bowles.

So has Peter Peterson, who served as Richard Nixon's commerce secretary

before founding Blackstone Group, a major private equity firm. Peterson

has long advocated cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and he started

a think tank devoted to federal debt reduction in 2008.

"I'm a great fan of Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson," Peterson told Bloomberg in 2011. "I think they're American heroes."

As many economists predicted,

however, the austerity policies implemented after the financial crisis

have proved to be a losing proposition for the global economy. The

strong economic growth that austerity advocates predicted has not

materialized, with the United States showing only anemic improvements,

and European countries sliding back into devastating recessions.

At the same time, corporate profits in the financial industry remain

above even the levels reached at the height of the housing bubble,

according to Commerce Department data. And elites on both sides of the

Atlantic have secured generous tax breaks, made possible in part by cuts

to social services.

In the United States, President George W. Bush's tax breaks for the

wealthiest citizens were extended, while unemployment benefits and even food stamps have gone on the chopping block.

This tradeoff is even more apparent at the state level. In 2010, New

Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) opted not to make the $ 3 billion annual

contribution to the state workers' pension fund, instead securing $ 1 billion in tax cuts

for the state's better-off residents. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R)

has similarly proposed budgets that provide tax breaks for corporations

and the rich while demanding pay and benefit cuts for middle-class state

workers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 WASHINGTON -- The poor and middle classes have shouldered by far the

heaviest burdens of the global political obsession with austerity

policies over the past three years. In the United States, budget cuts

have forced states to reduce education, public transportation,

affordable housing and other social services. In Europe, welfare cuts

have driven some severely disabled individuals to fear for their lives.

But the austerity game also has winners. Cutting or eliminating

government programs that benefit the less advantaged has long been an

ideological goal of conservatives. Doing so also generates a tidy

windfall for the corporate class, as government services are privatized

and savings from austerity pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens.

U.S. financial interests that stand to gain from Medicare, Medicaid

and Social Security cutbacks "have been the core of the big con," the

"propaganda," that those programs are in crisis and must be slashed,

said James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas.

Advocates of austerity measures have sold their proposals as a means to improve the economy.

"It is an error to think that fiscal austerity is a threat to growth

and job creation," declared European Central Bank President Jean-Claude

Trichet in July 2010.

"We're going to cut spending to get the debt down, help create jobs

and prosperity, and reform government programs," vowed Rep. Paul Ryan

(R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, in a February 2011 commentary

for Real Clear Politics. Ryan would later declare that his budget plan,

with far more aggressive austerity measures than those ultimately

enacted by Congress -- including $6.2 trillion in spending cuts -- would

have spurred $1.5 trillion in economic growth and created 2.5 million jobs.

As

for the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan, it is often

described by Beltway insiders as a "centrist" proposal that could "bring the country together" and improve the economy. In fact, Simpson-Bowles is yet another austerity program

that would cut Medicare and Social Security while securing tax breaks

for corporations and the well-off, according to an analysis by the

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of the bipartisan commission that worked

on the plan, is a director at Morgan Stanley, the sixth-largest American

bank and a financial institution for which the United States made huge

commitments to help it weather the economic downturn. Morgan Stanley

took $10 billion in bailout funds under the Troubled Asset Relief

Program and received more than $100 billion a day in cheap loans from

the Federal Reserve at the height of the past financial crisis. For

weeks, Morgan Stanley borrowed more money from the Fed than the company's stock market value.

That solicitude for the profits of big corporations shows up in

Simpson-Bowles too. The plan offers multiple corporate tax reform

proposals, but one, which calls for shifting to a so-called territorial

tax system, would be especially advantageous to Morgan Stanley and other

Wall Street banks. It would allow U.S. companies to permanently avoid

paying U.S. taxes on overseas income, including money stashed in

offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands. According to a 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office, Morgan Stanley operates 273 sub-companies headquartered in such tax havens.

While Social Security advocates have attacked the plan, the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group for corporate CEOs, has praised Simpson-Bowles.

So has Peter Peterson, who served as Richard Nixon's commerce secretary

before founding Blackstone Group, a major private equity firm. Peterson

has long advocated cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and he started

a think tank devoted to federal debt reduction in 2008.

"I'm a great fan of Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson," Peterson told Bloomberg in 2011. "I think they're American heroes."

As many economists predicted,

however, the austerity policies implemented after the financial crisis

have proved to be a losing proposition for the global economy. The

strong economic growth that austerity advocates predicted has not

materialized, with the United States showing only anemic improvements,

and European countries sliding back into devastating recessions.

At the same time, corporate profits in the financial industry remain

above even the levels reached at the height of the housing bubble,

according to Commerce Department data. And elites on both sides of the

Atlantic have secured generous tax breaks, made possible in part by cuts

to social services.

In the United States, President George W. Bush's tax breaks for the

wealthiest citizens were extended, while unemployment benefits and even food stamps have gone on the chopping block.

This tradeoff is even more apparent at the state level. In 2010, New

Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) opted not to make the $ 3 billion annual

contribution to the state workers' pension fund, instead securing $ 1 billion in tax cuts

for the state's better-off residents. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R)

has similarly proposed budgets that provide tax breaks for corporations

and the rich while demanding pay and benefit cuts for middle-class state

workers.

"Austerity policies are literally a redistribution from the bottom of

the income spectrum to the top," said Dorian Warren, a professor of

political science at Columbia University and a fellow at the Roosevelt

Institute, an economic policy think tank. "In Wisconsin, both wealthy

people and businesses got tax breaks, while middle-class and

working-class employees of the state essentially got crushed."

Warren emphasized that there are political dimensions to the

austerity push. Efforts to curb collective bargaining rights -- and thus

pay and benefits -- for state employees cut to the heart of the

American labor movement. With only 7 percent of the private-sector

workforce unionized, public-sector unions are a critical component of

labor's political influence and an important bloc in Democratic Party

operations.

Governments in Europe, most notably the United Kingdom, have also pursued tax cuts for the rich

while imposing austerity measures on the working classes. And the

European financier class has benefited even more directly than their

American counterparts from these budgets.

Every time the European Union has reached a crisis point on the debt

carried by Greece or Spain, EU leaders, especially German Chancellor

Angela Merkel, have come to the rescue with bailout funds. That money

goes to the banks that own Greek and Spanish debt, whose holdings would

take a hit if either country were unable to repay. But the bailout comes

with harsh austerity requirements intended to encourage budgetary

discipline, so it's ordinary citizens who end up taking the hit. The

most vulnerable populations are harmed by the bailouts, while the

well-paid financial professionals who made the deals to finance Greek

and Spanish deficits in the first place continue profiting handsomely.

"Imposing pain on Greeks is ... a blood price for the ever-repeated

bailouts whose actual beneficiaries are said to be Greeks, but are in

fact French and German bankers," said Galbraith.

The consequences have been dire. In Greece, HIV/AIDS infections have soared 1,500 percent

since the end of 2010, as public health programs and anti-drug

campaigns have been decimated. Unemployment has risen above 20 percent

in both Greece and Spain.

Yet none of this has slowed the bipartisan American political

movement for greater austerity. The U.S. budget will reach the so-called

fiscal cliff at the end of the year, when a number of tax breaks expire

and harsh budget cuts under the 2011 debt ceiling deal kick in.

Republicans in Congress are calling for additional slashing of federal

spending, and they have been joined by Wall Street Democrats. Former

Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), now a managing director at Morgan

Stanley who supported the American bank bailout, advocated for austerity

during a June appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Obviously, we hope that things go well there in Greece," Ford said.

"And when I say, 'well,' I mean that the austerity camp wins out."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

Nothing will happen. That seems to be the consensus among policy

experts after the senseless tragedy in Aurora, Colo., last week.In

the past, after sensational instances of gun violence, whether it was a

celebrated person getting shot or the massacre of innocent children,

we’d see a surge of support for new gun control measures. No longer. We

didn’t see much of a policy response to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle

Giffords in Arizona last year or to the shooting of Trayvon Martin in

Florida this year.

The National Rifle Association has won. It has

succeeded in changing the national discussion from gun control to gun

rights. How did that happen?

For one thing, Americans have lost confidence in gun control

measures. Gallup has been polling on the issue since 1959. Last October,

Gallup reported “support for a variety of gun control measures at

historic lows.”

Should there be a law banning the possession of handguns except by

the police and other authorized persons? In 1959, 60 percent said yes.

In 2011, 26 percent said yes. Should it be illegal to manufacture, sell

or possess assault weapons? Last year, for the first time, a majority of

Americans said no.

Why the shift? Here’s one reason: By and large, Democrats have

stopped talking about the gun issue. It’s too costly for them. In

September 1994, the Democratic Congress passed an assault weapons ban

and President Bill Clinton signed it. In November 1994, Democrats lost

their majority in the House for the first time in 40 years. Clinton said

the gun lobby had to lot to do with his party’s defeat.

Since 1994, Democrats have been skittish about the gun issue. The

assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. Getting it renewed has

not been high on President Barack Obama’s agenda.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, I met with a group of voters

in West Virginia. West Virginia used to be a solid New Deal Democratic

state. The late Sen. Robert Byrd was the embodiment of that tradition.

But in the last three presidential elections, West Virginia has gone

Republican.

I asked the voters how many of them had health insurance. Only three

out of 10 did. I asked them which candidate would be more likely to help

the uninsured. Most of them said John Kerry, the Democrat. So were they

planning to vote for Kerry? Almost all said no. “Why not?” I asked.

“We hear he wants to take away our guns,” one member of the group said.

“Are your guns more important than your health insurance?” I asked.

“Mister,” one woman replied, “our guns ARE our health insurance.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s...

outsider2011
outsider2011

Earlier this month, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) appeared on the FOX Business show Money Rocks to make the case for depriving the children of immigrants of their 14th Amendment rights. Gohmert claimed

that on a recent airplane trip to the Middle East, one of his traveling

companions had struck up a conversation with a grandmother who

described her family's involvement in a Hamas plot to send pregnant

women to the United States. Gohmert summarized the lesson for viewers

this way: "We're bringing them over here on tourist visas, some

illegally, letting them be born here and saying, 'This is an American

citizen. So come back in 20, 25 years when you're ready to blow us up.'"

It's a bizarre story.

But the fact that he's prepared to cite it as a basis for American

immigration reform supplies some useful context for what happened two

weeks later, when Gohmert joined four other Republican members of

Congress, including Michele Bachmann,

in asking the Department of Defense, the State Department, and other

departments to investigate whether the U.S. government is being

infiltrated by Muslim extremists.

In particular, the five Republicans singled out Huma Abedin, a long-time aide to Hillary Clinton, in their letter to the State Department.

Abedin, the letter noted, "has three family members—her late father,

her mother, and her brother—connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives

and/or organizations. Her position provides her with routine access to

the Secretary and to policy-making."

In this odd age, partisan hysteria and conspiracy theories

have become a common feature of the American political landscape. But

the anti-Abedin attack was too much even for fellow Republicans. To his

credit, Sen. John McCain publicly declared

that the letter constituted "an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an

honorable woman, a dedicated American, and a loyal public servant." (He

also debunked its factual claims.) Ed Rollins, Bachmann's former

campaign chief, wrote an op-ed for FOX calling his old boss' attack on Abedin "extreme," "dishonest," and "vicious."http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 Romney likes to say that the goal of his foreign policy is to create another “American century.” Henry Luce coined the term in Life magazine in 1941 in an essay

urging the United States to use World War II to eclipse Great Britain

and assert its dominance on the world stage. “Among serious Englishmen,”

Luce wrote, “the chief complaint against America ... has really

amounted to this—that America has refused to rise to the opportunities

of leadership in the world.”

For Romney, that’s still the narrative. On the campaign trail, he often cites

an unnamed former British prime minister who implored him to understand

the global importance of American strength. And the first stop on this

week’s trip will be, you guessed it, Britain—a country that plays a

comforting role in American foreign policy lore as the Tonto to our Lone

Ranger.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles... hate disqus.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 The GOP’s presidential hope heads overseas with an

agenda that’s hopelessly out of date. Peter Beinart on Mitt’s Cold War

worldview—and what he’s missing.

Call it the nostalgia tour. On Tuesday, when Mitt Romney leaves for his

much-hyped international trip, he won’t merely be traveling overseas;

he’ll be traveling back in time.

Romney likes to say that the goal of his foreign policy is to create another “American century.” Henry Luce coined the term in Life magazine in 1941 in an essay

urging the United States to use World War II to eclipse Great Britain

and assert its dominance on the world stage. “Among serious Englishmen,”

Luce wrote, “the chief complaint against America ... has really

amounted to this—that America has refused to rise to the opportunities

of leadership in the world.”

For Romney, that’s still the narrative. On the campaign trail, he often cites

an unnamed former British prime minister who implored him to understand

the global importance of American strength. And the first stop on this

week’s trip will be, you guessed it, Britain—a country that plays a

comforting role in American foreign policy lore as the Tonto to our Lone

Ranger.

But

the world no longer works that way. In explaining Romney’s choice of

foreign stops, his policy director, Lanhee Chen, declared that each

country he’s visiting “shares our love of liberty as well as the

fortitude to defend it.” But if Romney really wanted to underscore the

way America and Britain are today exhibiting same “the fortitude to

defend” liberty that they did in 1941, he’d go to Afghanistan, denounce

Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. troops by 2014, and make a

Churchillian speech about continuing the fight for as long as it takes

and as much as it costs. But Romney isn’t going to Afghanistan, because

doing so would expose how misplaced his 1940s-era analogizing is. Today,

unlike then, totalitarian foes do not threaten world domination. Today,

unlike then, Britain is not urging America to join it on the field of

battle. Today, unlike then, “serious Englishmen” see America’s appetite

for expensive and unnecessary wars as leading us down the path to

bankruptcy that Britain traveled in the decades prior to 1941.

If

Romney is going to England so he can pretend it’s 1941, he’s going to

Poland so he can pretend it’s 1981. He’s going at the invitation of Lech

Walesa, the former trade-union activist who won the Nobel Prize in 1983

for his struggle against communist oppression. In Poland, according to

advisers, Romney will visit sites of “historical significance” and

highlight an alliance “rich in history.”

This

history allows Romney to audition for the role every Republican

presidential candidate has been trying to play since the Cold War’s end:

Ronald Reagan. Romney has been trying out for a while now, even calling

Russia America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” But if the Taliban aren’t

the Nazis, neither is Vladimir Putin Leonid Brezhnev. Although Moscow

can still give America headaches, it lacks the economic power to

re-create the empire that Walesa helped overthrow. In fact, the most

relevant lesson from 1980s-era Eastern Europe for today’s United States

is the same one Romney could learn from a “serious Englishman”: the

danger of assuming imperial responsibilities that you don’t have the

economic muscle to sustain.

Romney’s

other stop is Israel, where he’ll meet Benjamin Netanyahu, a leader as

determined as himself to subordinate the present to the past. In 1993,

when then–foreign minister Shimon Peres signed the Oslo accords,

Netanyahu compared him to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime

minister who appeased Hitler. Since retaking the prime ministership in

2009, Netanyahu has made Iran the centerpiece of his Nazi analogizing

(despite criticism

in the Israeli press). And when the Arab Spring broke out, Netanyahu

expressed nostalgia for men like Hosni Mubarak, with whom Israel could

work more easily behind closed doors because dictators don’t have to

justify their actions to their people.So what would a trip to the 21st

century look like? It would require stopping somewhere in the global

east or south, where power is clearly shifting. And it would involve

some recognition that turmoil in the global economy—and the global

climate—poses as grave a threat to American security as do missiles,

terrorists, and warships. Yet such realities aren’t on Romney’s

itinerary, because they don’t seem to be on his agenda.

In

his big foreign-policy speech last fall at the Citadel, Romney

identified the five “powerful forces that may threaten freedom,

prosperity, and America’s national interests.” First was “Islamic

fundamentalism.” Second was “the struggle in the greater Middle East

between those who yearn for freedom and those who seek to crush it.”

Third was “the dangerous and destabilizing ripple effects of failed and

failing states, from which terrorists may find safe haven.” Fourth was

“the anti-American visions of regimes in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela,

and Cuba,” and fifth was “rising nations with hidden and emerging

aspirations, like China, determined to be a world superpower, and a

resurgent Russia.” The remarkable thing about Romney’s list is that it

could have been lifted verbatim from a George W. Bush speech in 2004.

Nowhere does he betray any recognition that the international financial

crisis has reshaped the international scene. In fact, for a candidate

who has made “It’s the economy, stupid” his central domestic message,

Romney’s foreign-policy vision is as dismissive of international

economics as was Bush’s. The Romney campaign has foreign-policy working groups

on “Afghanistan-Pakistan,” “Africa,” “Asia-Pacific,”

“counterproliferation,” “counterterrorism and intelligence,” “defense,”

“Europe,” “human rights,” “international assistance,” “international

organizations,” “Latin America,” “Middle East and North Africa,” and

“Russia.” But international economics isn’t on the list.

For a candidate who has made “It’s the economy, stupid” his central

domestic message, Romney’s foreign-policy vision is as dismissive of

international economics as was Bush’s.

The itinerary of Barack Obama’s 2008 foreign jaunt

didn’t perfectly mirror global realities either. But Obama has gingerly

acknowledged the new realities of a world in which American resources

are dramatically more limited and in which the countries of the North

Atlantic no longer tell everyone else what to do. He has scaled back

Bush’s recklessly expansive war on terror. He helped the G20 supplant

the overwhelmingly European G8, thus creating a forum that includes

developing powers like China and Brazil. And his top advisers have

spoken in Eisenhoweresque terms about keeping America’s military

commitments from undermining its economic strength.

In

1943 Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president, Henry Wallace, challenged

Luce’s vision with a speech entitled “The Century of the Common

Man.” Wallace’s vision had its problems, especially in its naiveté about

Stalin’s U.S.S.R. But in his critique of Luce’s American triumphalism,

Wallace imagined some of the realities that would confront the U.S.

today. In the future, Wallace predicted, “Chinese and the Indians ...

[will] all learn to read and write and operate machines just as well as

your children and my children. Everywhere [in the poor world] the common

people are on the march.” The next time Mitt Romney travels abroad, he should meet some of them.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

Someday political scientists will try to date the decline of reasoned

discourse in America to the moment when the left and the right began to

invent their own facts. Climate change deniers, the purveyors of lies

linking abortion to breast cancer, and creationists will all be blamed

for the end of meaningful debate between liberals and conservatives. But

that’s not quite right. The real end of civic discourse can be traced

to the new conservative argument that facts themselves are dangerous.

It’s a dangerous contention not just for what it hides, but also for what it reveals: a lack of any other arguments.

It’s tough times for facts in America. First Mitt Romney—interviewing

for the position of president—declined to release his tax returns

because, as he explained, the Obama team’s opposition research will

“pick over it” and “distort and lie about them.”

He isn’t actually claiming that his opponents will lie. He’s claiming

he’s entitled to hide the truth because it could be used against him. As

Jon Stewart put

it, “You can’t release your returns, because if you do, the Democrats

will be mean to you.” These are tax returns.  Factual documents. No

different than, say, a birth certificate. But the GOP’s argument that

inconvenient facts can be withheld from public scrutiny simply because

they can be used for mean purposes is a radical idea in a democracy. It

has something of a legal pedigree as well.

Probably not coincidentally, last week Senate Republicans filibustered the DISCLOSE Act—a piece of legislation many of them once supported—again

on the grounds that Democrats might someday use ugly facts against

conservatives. The principal objection to the law is that nasty

Democrats would like to know who big secret donors are in order to

harass, boycott, and intimidate them. The law requires that unions,

corporations, and nonprofit organizations report campaign-related

spending over $ 10,000 within 24 hours, and to name donors who give more

than $ 10,000 for political purposes. Even though eight of the nine justices considering McCain-Feingold in Citizens United believed that disclosure is integral to a functioning democracy, the idea that facts about donors are dangerous things is about the only argument Senate Republicans can muster. Last week even Justice Antonin Scalia told CNN’s Piers Morgan

that “Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better.

That's what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know

where the speech is coming from.”

That’s a ringing defense of the need for disclosure, which Scalia has always supported.

Yet GOP senators aren’t brave enough to have true facts on display

anymore. For Republicans, the truth is almost Nixon-eseque now. Here’s Mitch McConnell comparing the disclosure requirements to an “enemies list”

last Tuesday: “This amounts to nothing more than member and donor

harassment and intimidation, and it's all part of a broader

government-led intimidation effort by this administration. There are

parallel efforts at the FCC, SEC, IRS, DoJ, and the White House itself

to silence its critics. The creation of a modern day Nixonian enemies

list is currently in full swing and, frankly, the American people should

not stand for it. As I've said before, no individual or group in this

country should have to face harassment or intimidation, or incur

crippling expenses defending themselves again their own government,

simply because that government doesn't like the message they're

advocating.”

If those claims sound familiar, it’s because these are precisely the arguments

donors from the National Organization for Marriage recently raised in

an unsuccessful 2009 legal challenge to a California statute that

requires political campaigns to disclose the identity of donors who

contribute more than $ 100 to their cause.

Supporters of Proposition 8—the California same-sex marriage ban enacted with substantial out-of-state financial support,

and recently overturned by the Ninth Circuit—alleged that disclosing

their identities would expose them to harassment by political opponents,

and the contested statute cast a cloud of intimidation over the

exercise of their protected First Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs in that case submitted dozens of sworn statements

(many of them anonymous) to a federal judge in Sacramento, chronicling

what they characterized as past abuse and harassment. While the court

found their evidence to be somewhat exaggerated, it was quick to condemn

the few genuine acts of violence and vandalism involved. Nonetheless,

the court found those incidents too few and too isolated to outweigh the

compelling interest California had in the public disclosure of campaign

contributions: preventing the threat of corruption, while letting the

public know where campaigns got their cash, information which itself

plays a role in helping people decide how to vote.

The California case was brought by James Bopp, a conservative Indiana

lawyer, who has relentlessly challenged campaign disclosure laws in the

courts with only limited success.  Mitch McConnell borrowed a page from

his playbook last week when he warned that forcing deeply established

and well-funded groups to make their donations in the bright light of

day would invariably bring howling mobs to their doors. In an effort to

do away with transparency, McConnell needs to paint an apocalyptic image

of wealthy donors in fear for their very lives. Enemies lists!

Intimidation! Nixon!!!!

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

James Holmes, the alleged perpetrator of Friday’s movie-theater massacre in Aurora, Col., was well-armed.

He had an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine. He had a 12-gauge

shotgun and two semiautomatic pistols. He had gas canisters to confuse

the moviegoers, and an apartment full of explosives to kill police.

But that wasn’t the scariest thing about him. Mass murderers are

generally well-armed. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the kids who gunned down 12 high-school students and a teacher in Columbine, Col., in 1999, had two shotguns, a semiautomatic pistol, a carbine rifle, and a bag full of bombs. Seung-Hui Cho, the guy who murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007, had two semiautomatic handguns, 19 magazines, and nearly 400 rounds. Nidal Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, used a semiautomatic pistol with a high-capacity magazine to kill 13 victims and wound 43 more. Jared Loughner, the loser who snuffed six people and shot 19 others last year in Tucson, Ariz., didn’t stop firing till the 33-round clip in his Glock ran out.

What distinguished Holmes wasn’t his offense. It was his defense. At Columbine, Harris and Klebold did their damage in T-shirts and cargo pants. Cho and Loughner wore sweatshirts. Hasan was gunned down in his Army uniform.

Holmes’ outfit blew these jokers away. He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves.

He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what

the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the

carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a

dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.

Last year, after the tragedy in Tucson, the NRA’s CEO, Wayne LaPierre, accused gun-control advocates of hyping

sensational events that capture national

attention and drive their agenda, like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort

Hood, and Tucson. … What the media won’t admit is that in each of those

tragedies, the mass killers all had the same decisive advantage:

Government Gun Free Zones and anti-self-defense laws that protected the

safety of no one except the killers and condemned the victims to death

without so much as a prayer. That’s right: Our own policies gave more

protection to the killers than to the innocent. Government Gun Free

Zones have become the hunting ground of evil, deranged monsters.

Instead of gun control, LaPierre proposed the opposite:

The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun

is a good guy with a gun. And just knowing there’s a good guy with a gun

around—a cop, a guard, a soldier, and yes, a law abiding citizen with a

gun—makes us feel safer because we are safer. That’s why we

need more freedom and a lot less government. That’s why our Second

Amendment rights should be expanded, not diminished. And that’s why,

right here in this hall today, I call on Congress and every state

legislature to empower the American people to ensure their own security

by enacting legislation to grant all law-abiding Americans the right to

carry a firearm for personal protection.

Some 40 states, including Colorado, have taken that advice. They authorize the issuance of concealed-weapons permits to anyone unencumbered by a felony conviction, a protective court order, or a disqualifying mental illness. They think arming good guys will deter or defeat bad guys.

But really bad guys—guys capable of planning a serious rampage—aren’t

stupid. If you want to take your time murdering a theater full of

people, the prospect of some would-be hero drawing a weapon is no

problem. Just go to the U.S. Justice Department’s body armor standards page, where you’ll find a list of 69 companies that sell government-certified bullet-stopping gear. The list includes phone numbers, addresses, and URLs.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

"You're the one who made the claim that running a deficit is Marxist."

---------------------------------------------------

When they are this obscene:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/...

MrObvious
MrObvious

Irrelevant; unless running a deficit under any president is Marxist you have nothing. Nor do you add anything that support what you claim.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

But their predecessors paid for the roads and bridges.

You make quite the fool of yourself when you try to argue on your own, spambot.

Here: the government collected taxes, and built the dams and interstate highway system.

Which is what  the President said.

~

paulejb
paulejb

ifthethunder...

What part of the government collected taxes confuses you, If? It was the business people and their workers who paid those taxes. It didn't materialize on it's own.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

What part of "you didn't build that" confuses you?

Did private enterprise build these things? No, they wouldn't take the risk.

And now that the infrastructure is aging, is there a political party that insists "taxation is theft" and won't do anything to fix it?

Why yes, it is the one you spam for.

P.S. And all of this is in addition to the original point: Obama wasn't talking about the individual's small business, itself. Which is what the lie that the Romney (and you) have been spreading.

~

outsider2011
outsider2011

 He's not understanding on purpose. Check out the posts about American exceptional ism up thread.

It's just a big game. 

paulejb
paulejb

They are coming for you, people.

"Mr. Obama’s stand on taxes"

"We call this grossly inadequate because — as we’ve been saying since Mr. Obama irresponsibly promised during his first campaign that he would never raise taxes on the middle class — it’s impossible to tackle the federal debt by taxing only the wealthy. As the cost of retirement and health care for an aging population rises, the middle class is going to have to pay more, and federal benefits are going to have to be adjusted."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/... 

Be afraid, people. Be very afraid. There will never be a time when these ideologues have enough.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

Aurora won’t change anything

George W. Bush gutted our nation's gun laws,

and Democrats are too scared to change them.

From coal mines to the space shuttle, disasters prompt predictable,

if belated inquiries about safety and the law. But while that was once

true in the world of gun violence, it’s not anymore. The aftermath of

the latest terrible shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.,

brought an outpouring of sympathy, condolences and resolve. But the 12

killed and 58 wounded at the hands of a possibly deranged man with four

guns will bring no national self-examination of American gun laws. This

is one issue where gun violence has been all but divorced from gun

policy.

Three reasons explain this state of affairs.

1.

Democrats become gun shy. In the aftermath of the 2000 elections, many

Democrats believed that presidential nominee Al Gore’s narrow loss was

owed in part to his support for stronger gun laws. Whether true or not,

Democrats decided that sustained gun control advocacy was more trouble

than it was worth, and proceeded to rebuild their party by broadening

its tent to include Blue Dog Democrats, some of whom supported expanded

gun rights. The strategy was key to Democratic victories in 2006, and it

advanced policy goals in many areas, from the economy to healthcare.

While some in both parties continued to support stronger gun laws, the

Democrats backpedaled on guns, quieting the voices of control advocates

in the national debate.

2. The Bush Gun Boon. The second Bush

presidency was, in policy terms, the most gun friendly in American

history. In the 2000s, the gun lobby pretty much ran the table. Not only

did the National Rifle Association realize its highest priority –

enactment of a law to provide unprecedented legal protection for the gun

industry – but it saw the eclipse of the assault weapons ban, new and

sweeping restrictions on gun tracking data, and the Supreme Court’s

embrace of the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment (see below). Thanks to

the Bush administration, people on terrorist watch lists cannot board

airplanes, but they can still buy guns – as captured al-Qaida

instruction manuals carefully pointed out. When governmental leaders

marched away from even minimal controls, so did some of the country.

3. The Supremes’ Good Housekeeping Seal. Public opinion often

follows, rather than leads, government decisions and actions. Just as

the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the constitutionality of

the Affordable Care Act will help spur greater public support for

Obama’s controversial healthcare legislation, the high court’s 2008 ruling

carving out a new, individual right to gun ownership also added a kind

of legitimacy to “gun rights” that it did not formerly have. Even though

much, if not most of what people claim as gun rights have nothing to do

with what the Supreme Court actually ruled, for the first time the

phrase had real meaning, and even though fewer Americans than ever own

guns, many now figure that gun ownership is entitled to greater

consideration. In 2006, according to Gallup poll results,

57 percent of Americans said gun laws should be more strict than they

are now. By 2010, and for the first time since pollsters began asking

the question, more Americans now say that gun laws should be either less

strict or kept as they are.

These three factors, stirred by the

gun lobby’s prodigious political machinery, the inability of pro-control

organizations to match their counterparts’ efforts, and the country’s

more conservative turn, has resulted in the near-divorce of gun violence

from gun policy, which produces, among other things, increasingly

preposterous assertions.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/2...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

What real courage looks like

The president praised a woman who saved her

friend's life. We need politicians that brave to fight the gun lobby.

President Obama does a great job in his role as consoler in chief.

Who wasn’t moved by the photo of him hugging Aurora shooting hero

Stephanie Davies, the young woman who saved the life of her friend Allie

Young, covering Allie’s gunshot wound and refusing to leave the

theatre, even as the carnage continued? I’m sure the president’s visits

to the families of the victims of the mass murder, and to the survivors,

were comforting.

But I found his Sunday night speech a little

flat. I realized I was comparing it to his tour de force in Tucson last

year, after Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed

six people. How sad is that: We have multiple presidential speeches

about gun massacres to compare in 18 months. I also realized that Obama

had a larger political message, one that the nation needed to hear, in

Tucson: about ratcheting down violent political rhetoric and the

demonization of political opponents, on both sides.

Obama had no

larger moral or political message in Aurora — except an implicit one, I

suppose, as he thanked the police and emergency crews and hospital

workers who saved lives, the sorts of public workers the GOP often

demonizes. (Mitch McConnell called Obama’s proposed federal funding to

protect such jobs a “bailout” earlier this year, and Republicans in

Congress blocked it.) But the president’s reference to any kind of

larger measures society can take to prevent tragedies like Aurora was

shockingly weak tea: “I hope that over the next several days, next

several weeks, and next several months, we all reflect on how we can do

something about some of the senseless violence that ends up marring this

country,” he said – and then he added, “but also reflect on all the

wonderful people who make this the greatest country on Earth.” Really?

Steve Kornacki has already contrasted Obama’s speech

to the one President Clinton gave after Colin Ferguson shot two dozen

people on a Long Island Rail Road train in December 1993, killing six.

“It’s a terrible human tragedy and my sympathies go out to all the

families involved,” Mr. Clinton said. “But I hope that this will give

some more impetus to the need to act urgently to deal with the

unnecessary problems of gun violence in the country.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/2...

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

"Thanks for object lession in nonsense."

----------------------------------------------------

I have always believed that your screen name was nonsense, but I never mentioned it before because it was not good manners.

MrObvious
MrObvious

So you make a claim that you back up with a statement that you made the claim earlier, you throw out something nonsensical that only you think means something and the best you can think of as you run in circles - my screen name is nonsense.

And yet once more you provide us with another object lesson in nonsense.

Keep on spinning paulejb. What's next - a 'your face' comment?

paulejb
paulejb

FLASHBACK: when Dr. Amy Bishop shot her colleagues, the Left speculated that she was a Tea Partier. In fact, she was an Obama donor.FLASHBACK: Discovery Channel hostage-taker was supposedly a climate change denier. In fact, he was an enviroweenie, D.Channel intern.

FLASHBACK: the census-taker was supposedly hanged by extremist anti-tax Tea Partiers. In fact, he hanged himself.

FLASHBACK: the Times Square Bomber was speculated to be upset about [Health Care Reform]. In fact, he was jihadi scum.

FLASHBACK: the guy who flew his plane into the IRS in TX was supposedly a Tea Partier. In fact, he quoted from the Communist Manifesto.

FLASHBACK: the guy who was stabbing NYC cabbies was supposedly an anti-Ground Zero Mosque Tea Partier. In fact, he supported the GZM.

FLASHBACK: the Pentagon shooter was supposedly a Tea Party extremist. In fact, he was a 9/11 Truther.

FLASHBACK: when the Ft. Hood shooting happened, the Left speculated that it was a “RWNJ.” In fact, it was a Muslim nutjob.

FLASHBACK: When the Tucson shooting occurred, it was immediately blamed on Tea Party rhetoric. In fact, Loughner was a-political amp; insane.

https://twitter.com/gabrielmal...

Nothing changes in the liberal media no matter how often they are proven wrong.

paulejb
paulejb

"Poll: Romney preferred over Obama to handle the economy"

"By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years." 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p... 

Sorry Barry, it's time to go.

paulejb
paulejb

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting 46% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) more are undecided."

http://www.rasmussenreports.co... 

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

"So when Reagan, Bush I and II spent all that money they wanted to create a powerful state?"

-----------------------------------------------

Stop it! Even the most mind numbed liberal robot knows that Barack Obama has already run up more debt in less than four years than George W ran up in  his eight years in office and at least three times the debt that Reagan accumulated in the eight years between 1981 - 1989.

You are just being disingenuous, Ob.

MrObvious
MrObvious

I'm sorry, you're the one that made deficit some kind of Marxist scheme.

I wonder who's being disingenuous. Seriously.

So now there is a certain 'amount' spent that makes it Marxist?

Spin on.

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

Comparing Reagan and Bush's debt to Obama's is like comparing Twiggy to Dolly Parton. It's not even close.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Paulejb

You're the one who made the claim that running a deficit is Marxist.

No one is compaing anyones debt - you simply made a idiotic statement without the ability to back it up and now you're changing the premis as per usual running around in circles.

Keep spinning.

georgiamd
georgiamd

Our military veterans are not easily fooled:

Most military veterans don’t like the job President Obama is doing and prefer Mitt Romney in November’s election.

New  polling finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters who

have served in the military favor the Republican challenger, while 35%

support the president.  Five percent (5%) of these voters like some

other candidate in the race, but only two percent (2%) are undecided.

7/5 - 7/8 ABC News/Wash Post

Direction of Country (2012-7-8, ABC News/Wash Post

Right Track 33%   Wrong track 63%

 

 

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

Another Romney bootlicker with no positive message.  Go away, Cheese head. 

georgiamd
georgiamd

 It certainly is NOT positive for Obama, rokinsteve. Do facts upset you?

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

Another bootlicker for Emperor Bane has spoken.  Get lost, Dump Truck.

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

Trillions wasted in the Middle East and Paulie Pajamas is talking millions.  It's only Monday and he's running around naked.