Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Monday, January 30, 2012


Just when we think the GOP has sunk to the bottom of the cesspoll, along comes its chief spokesman, Reince Preibus, a man who happily embraces filth and compares the president of the United States of America to a coward responsible for the deaths of dozens of people.  Yes, you read that correctly.  The GOPers are so deranged, so devoid of any semblance of honor and sanity, that they allow their spokesperson to claim, on a Sunday morning talk show, that the president of the United States of America is exactly like someone who commits an act of cowardly manslaughter.

The shocking disrespect and grinding depravity of the people who promote this rhetoric--conservatives--is beyond deplorable and unconscionable. 

I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. 

It is, at its base, nothing more than loathsome and verminous racism, appealing to the stupid and the fearful.

We've seen this week more studies explaining that people who have low intelligence tend to gravitate to conservatism.

This may explain Priebus's moronic statement, but it doesn't excuse it.

"Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Monday blasted her Republican counterpart, Republican National Committee (RNC) chair Reince Priebus, for comparing President Obama to the captain of the Costa Concordia cruise liner, which ran aground off the coast of Tuscany earlier this month and resulted in the deaths of at least 17 people.

"Unbelievable comparison," Wasserman Schultz, who is also a Democratic congresswoman from Florida, said in an interview with Fox News. "The captain of the Costa Concordia has been charged with manslaughter and for the RNC chairman to compare the president of the United States to someone who has been charged with manslaughter shows a dramatic level of insensitivity to the families of those victims.

"I'm not going to give any credence to those incendiary remarks," she said

Priebus, speaking to Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, made the comment while downplaying the rough-and-tumble nature of the Republican presidential campaign, currently waging in Florida, which holds its primary on Tuesday.

"In the end, in a few months, this is all going to be ancient history and we're going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama who is abandoning the ship here in the United States," Priebus said. "He's more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president."

Saturday, January 28, 2012


"We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations."  ---George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003

Numbers for Mitt Romney among Independents:

Romney viewed somewhat or very negatively by 22% of independents
Romney led Obama by 13 points—47% to 34%.


Romney viewed somewhat or very negatively by 42% of independents
Romney trails Obama by 8 points—36% to 44%

h/t dailykos

"Arizona Police Officer Posts Bullet-Riddled Pic of President Obama

New York Times: "The Secret Service said Thursday that it was looking into a photograph posted on the Internet that showed a group of young Arizona men posing in the desert with guns while holding up what appeared to be a bullet-riddled image of President Obama’s face."

An Oklahoma state senator, Ralph Shortey,  has filed a bill to make it illegal to sell food or products that contain aborted fetuses.

“I don’t know if it is happening in Oklahoma, it may be, it may not be. What I am saying is that if it does happen then we are not going to allow it to manufacture here,” says Shortey

Was Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, drunk again when she wagged her finger in President Obama's face?  Her nickname around the state capitol is Otis, referring to the town drunk in Mayberry RFD.

Lawmaker calls for public hangings

A Republican state senator, Larry Pittman, wants to bring back public hangings in North Carolina as a deterrent to crime, and he says doctors who perform abortions should be in the line to the gallows.

“ 'I’m just saying, they all have stinky feet,' former Congressman J. C. Watts, a Baptist preacher, said while he was campaigning for Newt in South Carolina.

Although actually, when you’re talking about 1) Committing adultery, 2) Divorcing your wife while she’s sick to marry your mistress, 3) Committing adultery, 4) Allegedly asking your wife to let you keep the mistress on the side and 5) Divorcing your wife while she’s sick to marry your mistress ... it’s pretty clear everybody doesn’t do it." --Gail Collins, NYTimes


English EtymologyPortmanteau created from merging internet + tubes

From the famous "Series of tubes" analogy used on June 28, 2006 by then United States Senator Ted Stevens to describe the Internet.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

"Anger dwells only in the bosom of fools." --Albert Einstein


“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense. We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last. “


"One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates – a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job – the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other – because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s someone behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong. " 

This is how a real leader connects with his people. 

The GOP's response was whining negativity with an idea or two that actually matched Mr. Obama's.

There is no one running for the GOP nomination who could have done anything as good as what President Obama did last night.

UPDATE (via dailykos):

National Journal:
Today's United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll showed Democrats with an 11-point lead over Republicans in a generic ballot question asked to registered voters. When asked if they would "rather see the Republicans keep control" of the House or see "the Democrats win enough seats to take over control of the House," 48 percent chose the Democrats, and 37 percent chose the GOP.


"91 percent of those who watched the speech approved of the proposals Mr. Obama put forth during his remarks. Only nine percent disapproved. Last year, 83 percent of viewers approved of Mr. Obama's State of the Union remarks.This year, 82 percent of those who watched the speech said they approve of the president's plans for the economy, up from 53 percent who approved before the speech. Eighty percent said they approved of Mr. Obama's plans for the deficit -- in contrast to 45 percent before the speech. Eighty-three percent approved of Mr. Obama's proposals regarding Afghanistan, which received only a 57 percent approval rating beforehand. "

(h/t Andrew Sullivan's blog)

Tuesday, January 24, 2012


In his extraordinarily gaseous bloviating, Former disgraced Speaker of the House and sexytime aficianado, Newton Leroy Gingrich, claims that Mr. Obama is "The Food Stamp President." explains how and why this is a lie:

Newt’s Faulty Food-Stamp Claim

Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.

The former speaker made that claim Jan. 16 in a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., and his campaign organization quickly inserted the snippet in a new 30-second TV ad that began running Jan. 18 in South Carolina.

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.
And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

It’s possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

Obama’s Responsibility

Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps.

But Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible. The rise started long before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation was plunging into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Newspaper Publisher Suggests Assassination of President Obama

Words fail me on this one.

Atlanta Jewish Times owner apologizes for Obama assassination scenario

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times apologized for an opinion column in which he counted President Obama's assassination as among Israel's options in heading off a nuclear Iran.

"I very much regret it, I wish I hadn't made reference to it at all," Andrew Adler told JTA on Friday.

He said he would publish an apology in his next edition, and that reaction from readers had been overwhelmingly negative.

Fox News reported late Friday on its website that the Secret Service was investigating the column. In his interview with JTA, Adler said he had not been approached by the Secret Service.

In a Jan. 13 column, Adler, who is also the paper's publisher, outlined what he said were three possible responses by Israel to Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon: A preemptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups that he said would be emboldened by a nuclear Iran; a direct strike on Iran; and "three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies."

He continued: "Yes, you read 'three' correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?"

Gawker, the gossip and media news website, first reported on the column Friday.

Ophir Aviran, the Israeli consul-general in Atlanta, condemned the column "in the strongest possible terms."

In response to a JTA request for comment, Aviran said in an email that he was "appalled at this deranged and morally repugnant assertion."

The Anti-Defamation League condemned Adler's column as "outrageous."

"An apology cannot possibly repair the damage," said the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, in a statement.

Foxman added: "Mr. Adler’s lack of judgment as a publisher, editor and columnist raises serious questions as to whether he’s fit to run a newspaper."

Jewish publisher is an idiot - but his hatred is shared by many

[Yes, we know.  Just take a look at many rightwing bloggers to confirm this.]

From Haaretz:

Andrew Adler’s suggestion in the Atlanta Jewish Times that Israel assassinate President Obama is a blot both on Israel and on American Jews.

"Like most of you, I have never met Andrew B. Adler, owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, but I think we can all agree that the man is spectacularly stupid. In his contorted apologies he has described himself, after all, as “an idiot.”

three or four infantile paragraphs of vile text that Adler published in his obscure Atlanta newspaper last week, in which he suggested that Israel consider assassinating President Obama, almost slipped under the radar, but was picked up yesterday by, and is now going viral. “A fool may throw a stone into a well which even a hundred wise men cannot pull out”, the saying goes, and it will indeed take a long time and a great effort to undo the damage that Adler has wrought, in one fell swoop, in defaming Israel by implying that it might, in anyone’s wildest dreams, consider such a kooky conspiracy; in staining American Jews by appearing to supposedly represent their twisted way of thinking; and even by undermining the institution of Jewish journalism by exposing that it harbors such birdbrained bozos in its midst.
It is ironic that Adler’s despicable diatribe comes against the backdrop of a fierce blogosphere debate that flared up yesterday about the term “Israel-firsters” and whether it is a legitimate critique or an anti-Semitic slur. Adler, for his part, has provided an example of a sub-specie of “Israel-firsters” that have not only lost track of where their loyalties lie, they have gone off the tracks altogether. He has pleased anti-Zionists and delighted anti-Semites by giving them the kind of “proof” they relish for accusing American supporters of Israel not of “double loyalty” but of one-sided treachery, plain and simple. "


"There is something eerily familiar in all this, of course, for anyone who was present 16 years ago at Tel Aviv’s Kikar Malchei Yisrael, as it was then known, on the night that Yitzhak Rabin was murdered. One can already envisage how Adler will be disowned, described as a “wild weed,” depicted as a lone wolf who does not represent anyone in his or in anyone else’s community and used as a springboard for a righteously indignant, preemptive counteroffensive that will show how his solitary case is being exploited to score points against anyone who legitimately criticizes Obama.
And while we might all stipulate that there is no Jew anywhere in the world who is currently contemplating any act of violence against President Obama, I know, and most of you know, that Adler’s crazy and criminal suggestions are not the ranting of some loony-tune individual and were not taken out of thin air - but are the inevitable result of the inordinate volume of repugnant venom that some of Obama’s political rivals, Jews and non-Jews included, have been spewing for the last three years.
Anyone who has spent any time talking to some of the more vociferous detractors of Obama, Jewish or otherwise, has inevitably encountered those nasty nutters, and they are many, who still believe he is a Muslim, who are utterly convinced that he wants to destroy Israel, and who seriously debate whether he is more like Ahmadinejad than Arafat or – and I heard this one with my own ears – more like Hitler than Haman.

Anyone who reads some of the opinion articles and blogs posted on the Internet by the more extreme Obama-hating writers and pundits – again, many of them Jews - cannot deny the wanton and inflammatory nature of much of their anti-Obama invective."


"One wonders how many of today’s anti-Obama politicians and opinion-makers, the latter-day elders of yore, will be able to read Adler’s crazed counsel to Benjamin Netanyahu, and, may that day never come, take a good look in the mirror, wash their hands of the whole affair and declare with a clear conscience that their otherwise sharp and probing eyes didn’t see a thing."         

Friday, January 20, 2012

Media Bite Gingrich in His Prodigiously Hypocritical Arse

Newt "I Wed Three Wives" Gingrich got on his high hobby horse last night during the So. Carolina debate and lashed out at the media for doing their job; for doing what he did when Bill Clinton was a sexually frisky president.  Only this time it was Newt's sexual excapades that were being examined.  He didn't like that at all.  And when he showed his indignation, his family values audience whopped it up in all its hypocritical and sleazy glory, siding with the guy who wouldn't know a family value if it sat on his face.

Good going, So. Carolina Teapublicans, for supporting this hypocrite.  Good going for trashing a real family values guy, Barack Hussein Obama, for the last 4 years, and cheering on a guy you wouldn't want near your daughters or granddaughters.

Of course we believe in redemption, it is YOU who don't. 

It is the Teapartiers who never forgave a stupid stunt by very young Jane Fonda, or the terrible tragedy that involved Ted Kennedy.  It is the family values crowd who continue to this day hammering President Obama for belonging to Rev. Wright's congregation, even when he left it and cut all ties with Wright.  It is the Teapublicans who carry resentment and contempt in their hearts toward anyone who they believe has erred from the righteous and true path, and it is they who never accept people who change their hearts and learn from their mistakes. 

EXCEPT, EXCEPT, EXCEPT for when it happens to one of theirs, then they go all Jesus-like and embrace the sinner, while rejecting the sin.  How holier than thou of them.  How utterly sanctimoniously one-sided in their forgiveness toward people they see as sinners.

Like the bully that he is, Gingrich, with faux indignation and belicose ranting, closed down a legitimate discussion about his asking his wife for an open marriage so that he could guiltlessly carry on with his mistress. It worked for the audience in So. Carolina, which apparently defends family values only when they are being trashed by Democrats.  Then do the Teapublicans fall all over themselves to show America how Christian and caring for the family they are.  Hypocritical weasels.  All of them.

Here are a few other statements by pundits who watched the whole stomach-turning Gringrich debacle last night:

via Andrew Sullivan's blog The Daily Dish:

Will Wilkinson counters:
Newt's desperate opening attack on the media for daring to listen to what his ex-wife has to say about him was enthusiastically received by the crowd, but I thought made him look like a snarling, cornered dog.

Andrew Sprung:
Newt's little show of high moral dudgeon when asked at the opening gun about his ex-wife's allegations of cruel, self-serving betrayal is getting rave reviews as performance art. And it was an astounding display of the Audacity of Hubris. In the space of a minute or two, Gingrich managed to blame or condemn questioner John King, the news media, his ex-wife and Barack Obama for his being forced to address the consequences of his serial adultery.

PM Carpenter:
Gingrich's opening Joe McCarthy offensive -- he reveled in assaulting Bill Clinton's personal transgressions, but his are unfairly targeted by the vindictive media -- was perhaps the most despicable display of grotesque demagoguery I have ever witnessed.

And then there's this:
A reader writes:

Sorry Andrew, but I can not agree with your thoughts about Newt's private sex life. IF it had been a one time thing, maybe, but he cheated on TWO wives, and I don't think it a "bitter" thing for his second wife to come out on the campaign trail and tell the world the facts. The man is a lying, cheating hypocrite and certainly gets no sympathy from me. He sure showed no sympathy, charity or forgiveness to Clinton. I am a practicing Buddhist and it is what we call karma.

Another writes:

I know you don't consider ABC's piece a scoop because it was covered a while back by Esquire, and you are technically correct. That said, most people don't read Esquire and have no idea Gingrich had been so cheeky as to ask for an open marriage. And nobody has actually seen Newt's ex-wife tell all, an act that will have a very different emotional impact than reading an article in a magazine.


I am so angry with you right now*. Did you really (really?) use the words "bitter" and "hell hath no fury..." to describe the ex-Mrs. Gingrich's motives? You rightly decry when Newt uses dog-whistle signals about race, but then you fall prey to the same tactics in relation to gender? COME ON!

I would ask you: if you had been married to someone whose truest colors (the hypocrisy) hadn't really been dissected, and years and years later your ex-husband was somewhat this close to becoming leader of the free world, would you stand by idly? Would you not feel a responsibility to shed some light on his...awfulness? I suspect you would. But because she's a woman she's bitter and furious? So very unfair, and surprising, from you. Stop it.

*My real life boyfriend (I'm female) calls you my "Internet boyfriend" because I am always pointing out to him how right you are about most issues. So I guess this is our first fight. He's very happy right now.


If Marianne is "bitter", which I doubt from my reading of the Esquire interview, then we need more of her type of patriotic bitterness. Her interview went far beyond the hypocritical adultery. She disclosed symptoms which look like sociopathy or mental health issues. She doesn't believe Newt is fit for the presidency and I'm grateful she has the courage to come forward. Hopefully, ABC’s interview takes the right tone and puts the emphasis in the right place. Hopefully, the inevitable attacks against Marianne, the messenger, won't dissuade the media from aggressively pursuing the very real possibility of Newt's incompetence.

Good stuff. More HERE.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Why Are Most GOPers Wrong on So Many Issues?

Because they get their information solely from FAUX NOOZ, an organization that has been proven to keep its followers uninformed. 

In fact, in the last survey of FAUX NOOZ followers, it turned out that people who watch NO news are better informed than those who watch FAUX NOOZ. 

Also, FAUX NOOZ trails the fake news comedy, The Daily Show, in viewership.  More people watch Jon Stewart than those who watch FAUX NOOZ.  FAUX is losing its viewers as people begin to understand that watching a cable news station that is unfair and imbalanced only contributes to further stupidity, not enlightenment. 

The recent example of  newz-barbie-bobblehead, Megyn Kelly, going after Andrew Sullivan's Newsweek article on President Obama, further proves how ineffective and shallow their reporters and reporting are.  Kelly discounted Sullivan's article wIth lies and disinformation.  Sullivan challenged her to have him on her show to debate the article, to which she and FAUX NOOZ answered in cowardly silence. 

Craven lily-livered weasels. 

Sullivan proves again that FAUX NOOZ withers and folds under a real challenge, just like so many bullies do. 

A new PPP poll confirms what many have long suspected — that many Americans get their news from sources that hew to their pre-existing beliefs.

But this phenomenon was not balanced on both sides of the ideological spectrum. While Democrats trust most news outlets, to varying degrees, Republicans trust only a single one — Fox News. While a massive 73 percent of Republicans trust Fox, the next highest rating among any major TV news outlet is PBS, which just 30 percent of GOPers trust, according to the PPP poll.

The numbers show just how powerful Fox can be in setting the agenda and influencing the world view of conservatives, with virtually no competition or accountability from the outside world. This monopoly on news penetration for an entire half of the electorate would be bad no matter the network, but it’s especially troubling considering Fox’s shoddy, and often agenda-driven “reporting.” And unlike an openly-ideological news outlet like ThinkProgress or the National Review, which freely advertise their perspectives, Fox insists it’s a traditional “fair and balanced” news outlet.


And this from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"In the latest Pew poll, FNC is both the most trusted and the least trusted of media outlets. It's most trusted because Republicans trust it; it's the least trusted because Democrats don't trust it at all. But here's what's interesting. Republicans won't touch any other outlet at all apart from their propaganda channel. 73 percent of Republicans trust Fox, with only 17 percent not, which gives FNC a positive rating +54. The next most trusted outlet for Republicans, PBS, comes in at - 30. And that helps explain the complete disconnect between the GOP and, er, reality.

But the real danger for the GOP's propaganda channel is that Independents, the fastest growing political identity, side with Democrats more than Republicans on Fox. 73 percent of Republicans trust it, while only 36 percent of Independents do - closer to the Democratic number of 25 percent.
No other media outlet has this kind of distrust from non-Republicans. And no other media outlet has this kind of trust from Republicans. The more paranoid they get, the more closed their media cocoon."

Tweet of the day (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

"Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I frequently use Andrew Sullivan's "The Daily Dish" as a resource, and often link to articles by him.

This week he has the lead story in Newsweek about President Obama, and here are some of the highlights to that piece:

"The right’s core case is that Obama has governed as a radical leftist attempting a “fundamental transformation” of the American way of life. Mitt Romney accuses the president of making the recession worse, of wanting to turn America into a European welfare state, of not believing in opportunity or free enterprise, of having no understanding of the real economy, and of apologizing for America and appeasing our enemies. According to Romney, Obama is a mortal threat to “the soul” of America and an empty suit who couldn’t run a business, let alone a country.

Leave aside the internal incoherence—how could such an incompetent be a threat to anyone? None of this is even faintly connected to reality—and the record proves it. On the economy, the facts are these. When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course.

But Obama did several things at once: he continued the bank bailout begun by George W. Bush, he initiated a bailout of the auto industry, and he worked to pass a huge stimulus package of $787 billion.

All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t.

The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression.

You’d think, listening to the Republican debates, that Obama has raised taxes. Again, this is not true. Not only did he agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term, he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, affecting 95 percent of taxpayers; he has cut the payroll tax, and recently had to fight to keep it cut against Republican opposition. His spending record is also far better than his predecessor’s. Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms. Under Bush and the GOP, nondefense discretionary spending grew by twice as much as under Obama. Again: imagine Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican. You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama."

More HERE.

Friday, January 13, 2012

One Percenters Enjoying Themselves in Quiet Rooms

"...when Matt Lauer was chatting with him about the way Willard had made an additional fortune at the corporate chop-shop known as Bain Capital. Willard's initial response to criticism on this score was to paint everyone criticizing him as being jealous of Willard's fabulous life. Lauer asked him:

"Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?"
Willard thereupon dropped a bomb on himself.

"You know I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms.... But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It's a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach."

Infidel753 has a terrific blogpost on this  HERE.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

"Don't Just Take Our Word For It"

Says the new DNC video below. 

Democrats have been critical of what Bain Capital, Rmoney's venture capital company, has done to individuals and communities when it took over companies, fired people, and destroyed a way of life for many working-class Americans.

But the criticism of this heartless practice isn't limited to Democrats alone.  Listen to Willard's fellow Republicans tell us how Bain Capital and its "vulture capitalism" made people's lives miserable, while making Rmoney and his buddies rich as potentates.

Andrew Sullivan has more on how Rmoney's association with Bain Capital can do damage to his campaign for the presidency.   HERE.

"Romney's private equity firm, Bain Capital, bought companies and often increased short-term earnings so those businesses could then borrow enormous amounts of money. That borrowed money was used to pay Bain dividends. Then those businesses needed to maintain that high level of earnings to pay their debts...

* Bain in 1988 put $5 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-'90s took it public, collecting $100 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

* Bain in 1992 bought American Pad & Paper (AMPAD), investing $5 million, and collected $100 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

* Bain in 1993 invested $60 million when buying GS Industries, and received $65 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

* Bain in 1997 invested $46 million when buying Details, and made $93 million from stock offerings.

The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

Romney's Bain invested 22 percent of the money it raised from 1987-95 in these five businesses, making a $578 million profit."

Wednesday, January 11, 2012


Romney Wins New Hampshire Primary: (Romney 36%,Paul 23%, Huntsman 18%, Santorum 10%)

(photo via Democratic Underground)


58% of Republican voters dissatisfied with candidates

CBS News: Republicans have yet to enthusiastically embrace a potential nominee for president - and despite the late date, most would like to see other candidates enter the race, according to a new CBS News poll.

The survey finds that 58 percent of Republican primary voters want more presidential choices, while just 37 percent say they are satisfied with the current field. The percentage of Republican primary voters that wants more choices has increased 12 percentage points since October."
--Democratic Underground

On to South Carolina where Willard will talk about how he pulled himself up, by his golden bootstraps, from a life of inherited wealth and privilege to a life of being able to knock down multi-million dollar homes in order to build more multi-multi million dollar homes.  He'll have the people in S. Carolina weeping over the hardship he suffered as he and
Bain Capital raided companies, fired people, and made oceans of money for them to shower upon themselves and their progeny.  "Please, sir,  I want some more." 

Get out your handkerchiefs South Carolina peeps; the Willard Wanker Show is coming to town. 

Monday, January 9, 2012


Obama Derangement Syndrome has hit critical mass in the Ole South, and two states that are trying to outdo each other in jaw-dropping idiocy appear to be in a dead heat over winning top honors.

Y'all ain't seen wacky 'til you've seen Alabama wacky!  Unless, of course, you've seen some Georgia wacky. 

I do declare, there must be some powerful mustard in the pie for all the wart talking going on down there:

"President Obama is using a forged birth certificate. President Obama is using a fake Social Security number. President Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

President Obama is a cyborg who has been sent from the future to kill the boy who will one day head the resistance movement that will challenge the coming New Robot Order.

Every one of those charges -- OK, except for the last one -- is contained in an Alabama lawsuit that seeks to keep the incumbent Democratic president off the ballot in the state's March 13 primary.

The suit was filed by some guy from Birmingham named Albert E. Hendershot, who has claimed to possess a 'staggering' amount of evidence about the whole affair.

This morning, Hendershot will have his day in court: According to the Birmingham News, attorneys for the chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party are asking Jefferson County Circuit Judge Helen Shores Lee to throw out the suit on grounds that the whole Obama-is-not-who-he-says-he-is meme is oh-so-2008. The judge was scheduled to consider the matter at a hearing Monday.

When the president posted his so-called long-form Hawaii birth certificate on the White House website last spring, some predicted that conspiracies questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency would die off.

But the Alabama lawsuit is not an isolated case. In Georgia, according to Atlanta's WXIA-TV, Republican State Rep. Mark Hatfield, an attorney, is representing voters challenging Obama's right to be on the primary ballot there, on the grounds that Obama can be disqualified because his father was foreign-born.

Another Georgia group is challenging Obama's birth certificate. Its case will be considered Jan. 26 before Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi.

The latter group is represented by well-known birth-certificate conspiracy theorist Orly Taitz. WXIA notes that Taitz faces a $20,000 fine after a Georgia judge found one of her citizenship challenges to be 'frivolous.' "

And let's not leave out our "special" neighbors in southern New Hampshire.

Saturday, January 7, 2012


Matthew 25:  31-46

 ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ --Jesus, Son of God

There they go again and again and again.

It's always the poor and the powerless who get the GOP's attention when they need to pander for votes.  Florida's much disliked governor, Rick Scott, tried this in his state--forcing people who receive state assistance to pee in a cup to prove they aren't on drugs.  Luckily sanity prevailed, and a federal judge ruled that piece of mean-spirited theater was unConstitutional.

But that didn't stop others in the GOP trying to pile onto the least of their brethern. (Do these people actually read the book they say is the inerrant Word of God?)

What is it about "...whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" don't they get?

Curiously, the GOPer are not asking any other entities that receive government subsidies/assistance/perks (oil companies, farmers, corporate CEOs who take all sorts of US government deductions to fatten their bottom line, and the most flagrant--US Congresswomen and Congressmen, whose US government perks would make a sultan blush) to prove they aren't on drugs.

You can go HERE to see which states in the good ole USof A are falling in love with harassing the poor and the powerless. 

Thursday, January 5, 2012


Okay.  We've heard Little Ricky pop off at the mouth about President Obama's recent recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Cue the know-nothing GOPers who clutch their pearls and take to their fainting couches--hello Mitch McConnell--over a procedure that Republican presidents have used many, many, many more times than has President Obama.

Little Ricky, who proves his incompetence every time he opens his mouth, called what Presidents Reagan, G.H.W.Bush, Clinton, and G.W.Bush routinely practiced  something worthy of a Banana Republic. 

Perhaps he and Willard believe their followers, like them, are too incompetent to research this very common procedure and see that President Reagan used it more than any of the U.S. presidents that came after him. 

That's quite a precedent, Mr. Reagan!


According to reports from the Congressional Research Service, during their time in office:

President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments,

President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments,

President Bill Clinton made 140 recess appointments, 

George W. Bush made 171.

Obama's first term has seen a paltry 28.

From The National Review:  "Two high-ranking Justice department officials from the (George W.) Bush administration support the position Obama has taken on the grounds that the executive branch has always maintained a "common-sense view" that the Senate is not in session when nobody's there and it isn't doing anything."

From the New York Times, 1/5/2012:

"Consumer advocacy organizations hailed Mr. Cordray’s appointment. 'The C.F.P.B. will no longer have to fight mounting consumer financial abuses with one arm tied behind its back,' said Travis B. Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America.

But some banking and business organizations objected. The American Banking Association, which represents banks of all sizes but generally is considered the voice of the largest institutions, said the appointment 'puts the bureau’s future actions in constitutional jeopardy, threatening its work, complicating compliance efforts of banks and further undermining the entity’s authority and credibility.'

Many community banks and credit unions have been eager to see the agency up and running because they often compete against nonbank mortgage lenders and other loan companies.

Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said its members 'strongly believe it’s important to protect consumers from predatory lending, financial scams and fraud in the marketplace.' But he cited the agency’s structure and lack of oversight as its main problems."

Talking Points Memo explains how and why President Obama made this particular recess appointment.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012


Willard wins by 8 votes over Little Ricky, and Ron Paul comes in third.

Gingrich angrily gets fourth  place; Perry's and Bachmann's campaigns are over.

UPDATE:  Rick Perry says he's still in the race, so I guess he just wants to prolong the agony.  He couldn't do better than 5th place  in a state where his brand of conservatism should have won over Willard's. 


From the Washington Post:

"[Romney's] Iowa showing — finishing just eight votes ahead of former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) — highlighted the big problems that still dog Romney: suspicions about his avowed conservatism, struggles to connect with voters and an inability to rally more Republicans around his candidacy."

"Suspicions about his avowed conservatism?"  How does a  mature, grown man change his core values in less than 10 years and not create suspicion in hard core rightwingers?  Romney is on video telling the voters in Massachusetts that he will always protect a woman's right to abortion.  Romney was pleased to work with the late Senator Ted Kennedy and deliver universal health care for Massachusetts citizens, a health care program that was the basis of the ACA, and which Romney now runs away from.  And those are just two of his monumental flip-flops on core issues that keep the base of the GOP from falling in love with this moderate, progressive Republican.

And that explains the Santorum surge late in the process.  The extreme right in the GOP does not like Williard.  He's not one of them.  But Rick Santorum will never get the nomination either.  Santorum is a covert Dominionist, seeking to impose religion-based doctrines on our secular country.  He's a war mongerer and the newest shiney object for the extreme religious rightwing of the GOP.    He'll never be president.

And who's surprised by Perry's and Bachmann's weak showing?  Their candidacies were a disgrace to any American with a working intellect.  Perry can go back to Texas and let its citizens deal with the embarrassment known as their governor, and Bachmann can go back to the House and pretend she knows anything about our American heritage.  Good riddance to both of these inept and ill-prepared charlatans.

The Iowa caucuses are a reflection of who a small group of people in the midwest believe should be the challenger to President Obama.  The results don't tell us anything about what will happen in November of 2012.

Willard can't be truthful even on his own predictions:

Mitt Flip-flops again:

Romney: When I Said I Was Going To Win Iowa, I didn't Mean I Was Actually Going To Win Iowa

"Mitt Romney told the 'Today' show Tuesday that he’s not predicting a victory in Iowa, after telling a crowd of supporters last night he was   'going to win this thing.' ”

Lastly, this from Andy Borowitz:

Romney Jubilant After Finishing in Dead Heat with Walking Joke in Sweater Vest

Mitt: ‘The Eight People Have Spoken’


Monday, January 2, 2012

Rep. Ron Paul Will Not Be President

I still don't understand the admiration people feel for Rep. Ron Paul. 

I have heard from people, who are otherwise sensible and rational, that Paul is the only sane choice for Republicans and unhappy Democrats to make in the upcoming Iowa caucases and, ultimately, for America to make for the presidency. 

Do people really listen to what Paul's actual words are?  Or do they willfully ignore his extremism, unable to face the fact that he is out of the mainstream and dwelling in Crazy Town?

Here's an example of Paul's extremism:

Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy

Huffington Post - "Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it 'undermined the concept of liberty' and 'destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.' "

I've heard many people say they admire Paul for his consistency in his libertarian principles.  But where are these people's heads?  Do they actually believe this country would have been better served had the individual states allowed businesses to continue to discriminate against people with different skin color, religious preferences, or sexual orientation?  Do these libertarians truly believe that racial descrimination, or any descrimination, would have ended voluntarily?  That people would willingly give up their anti-American biases given enough time? And how long would this country have been willing to endure the shame of illegal racial descrimination that was practiced in many regions of this country?  Should American citizens have looked to "the free market" to deliver justice and equality under the law that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?   

Do libertarians really believe that the free market place should be the ultimate arbitrator of all illegal actions that are contra the Constitution?  Ron Paul's belief that ending illegal racial descrimination intruded on people's privacy and concept of liberty is outrageous and worthy of ridicule.

Rep. Ron Paul is fiercely against anything that intrudes on a citizen's privacy, but he is against a woman's right to an abortion--one of the most private decisions a woman makes.  He's inconsistent here, IMO, and an extremist in his position, since he stated that abortion is "the most important issue of our age."

His anti-science view on Evolution gives us a great insight into Paul's intellect.  He values a religious belief, based on no evidence, over a scientific fact, based on mountains of evidence.  This is something people should think about when chosing a president.  Will a person who choses dogma over facts make rational decisions in other areas that affect citizens' lives?  My opinion is that he or she should not be trusted to see issues clearly when a dogmatic religion informs his or her thinking.  A president's decisions must be based on facts, not faith. 

More on Rep. Ron Paul's extremism here.

From Politicususa:

"I have praised Ron Paul in the Republican debates for his consistency, but we should not mistake consistency for a rigid ideological inflexibility that promotes a decision making process where details and circumstances don’t matter. In the mind of Ron Paul, the ideology must be adhered to at all times."

To the winner of the Iowa caucases: